Papers by Thomas Poulton
Honours Thesis
Spatial reference is an area of language and cognition that has received particular attention in ... more Spatial reference is an area of language and cognition that has received particular attention in recent decades. In responding to spatial tasks, speakers can draw of different ways to conceptualise spatial relations, which have been termed frames of reference. Previous research has shown that speakers of different languages may have different preferences in their frames-of-reference selection. It has also been shown that contextual factors may influence speakers in their frame selection when faced with a certain task. This study investigates contextual preferences of English speakers in their frame selection. The results show that, contrary to previous findings reported in the literature, English speakers generally adopted the intrinsic frame, i.e. a system that is based on the internal facets of the objects being referenced, rather than the relative frame, i.e. a system based on the viewer’s body axes. The study also explored speakers’ preferences for different subtypes of the relative frame as well as their responses to cardinal prompts, which were designed to elicit responses in line with the absolute frame of reference. Most participants were unable to identify their orientation in terms of cardinal directions and compensated in this task by using a strategy that construed cardinal terms in a relative rather than absolute way. The results from this study give insight not only into the preferences of English speakers in their frame selection, but also some of the contextual factors that can prime English speakers to adopt a particular strategy.
Conference Presentations by Thomas Poulton
This paper reports on experimental research into the extensional semantics of body axis terms (i.... more This paper reports on experimental research into the extensional semantics of body axis terms (i.e. terms for ‘front’, ‘back’, ‘left’ and ‘right’) in three typologically diverse languages: Marshallese (Austronesian, Marshall Islands), Dhivehi (Indo-Aryan, Maldives) and English. All three languages have body axis terms that are used in multiple frames of spatial reference.
A frame of reference is a strategy for locating an entity (the ‘figure’) with respect to another entity (the ‘ground’) (Levinson 2003). The intrinsic frame locates the figure with regard to perceived internal facets of the ground object, as in 'The man is in front of the house' – i.e. at the house’s front). The relative frame relies on a ‘viewpoint’ of some observer, as in 'The ball is to the left of the tree' (from the speaker’s perspective). The absolute frame invokes features external to the figure-ground array, such as a system of cardinal directions or a topographically motivated axis, e.g. 'The fire is downriver from the village' (Palmer 2015).
However, among languages which employ the relative frame, it is common – if not universal – for relative terms to be identical with intrinsic ones (Levinson 2003: 45–47), as in the case of English left, right, front and back (e.g., in The man is in front of the house, the man could either be at the house’s front or else on whichever side is closest to the speaker).
Three subtypes of the relative frame of reference exist (e.g. Levinson 2003: 84–89). Of these, English uses a ‘reflectional’ subtype in which the ‘front’ of the ground is the side closer to the viewpoint, and the ‘back’ is the side further away, as if the ground were the viewer’s reflection in a mirror. However, some languages like Tongan (Bennardo 2000), Hausa (Hill 1982) and Marquesan (Cablitz 2006: 531–32) employ a ‘translational’ subtype in which the ‘front’ is at the far side and the ‘back’ at the near side, as though the ground were a person facing in the same direction as the viewer. Although this translational subtype is sometimes claimed to be widespread (e.g. Levinson 2003: 86), others have claimed it is ‘extremely rare’ (e.g. Bennardo 2000: 513), and the literature contains few examples of languages with such a system. A third, ‘rotational’ subtype treats the ground as though it were a person facing the viewer, but appears to be rarer still.
In this paper, we present evidence from an object placement task that Marshallese and Dhivehi both use a translational relative frame of reference, in contrast to English. However, like Tongan and Hausa, these languages also feature a reflectional relative frame that is used in some contexts and/or by some speakers. Marshallese and Dhivehi also employ the intrinsic frame of reference that can be used when the ground object is perceived as having inherent facets. Dhivehi also has a more unusual system in which the ‘front’ of an object in a ring-like configuration is the inner side, while the ‘back’ is the outer side. Terms for ‘front’ and ‘back’ in Marshallese, Dhivehi and English therefore have the potential to be ambiguous in several ways. We demonstrate how a range of configurational factors (e.g. occlusion of figure by the ground, orientation of the array with respect to the viewpoint), linguistic factors (e.g. construction type) and demographic factors influence how speakers interpret body axis terms, and suggest that notions of ‘front’ and ‘back’ relate not only to physical position but to factors including access and visibility.
References
Bennardo, Giovanni. 2000. Language and space in Tonga: “The front of the house is where the chief sits!” Anthropological linguistics 42(4). 499–544.
Cablitz, Gabriele H. 2006. Maruqsan: A Grammar of Space. . Vol. 169. (Trends in Linguistics). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hill, Clifford. 1982. Up/Down, Front/Back, Left/Right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. Here and There: Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstratives, 18–49. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive
Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, Bill. 2015. Topography in Language: Absolute Frame of Reference and the
Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis. In Rik De Busser & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), Language Structure and Environment. Social, Cultural and Natural Factors,
179–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Talks by Thomas Poulton
Uploads
Papers by Thomas Poulton
Conference Presentations by Thomas Poulton
A frame of reference is a strategy for locating an entity (the ‘figure’) with respect to another entity (the ‘ground’) (Levinson 2003). The intrinsic frame locates the figure with regard to perceived internal facets of the ground object, as in 'The man is in front of the house' – i.e. at the house’s front). The relative frame relies on a ‘viewpoint’ of some observer, as in 'The ball is to the left of the tree' (from the speaker’s perspective). The absolute frame invokes features external to the figure-ground array, such as a system of cardinal directions or a topographically motivated axis, e.g. 'The fire is downriver from the village' (Palmer 2015).
However, among languages which employ the relative frame, it is common – if not universal – for relative terms to be identical with intrinsic ones (Levinson 2003: 45–47), as in the case of English left, right, front and back (e.g., in The man is in front of the house, the man could either be at the house’s front or else on whichever side is closest to the speaker).
Three subtypes of the relative frame of reference exist (e.g. Levinson 2003: 84–89). Of these, English uses a ‘reflectional’ subtype in which the ‘front’ of the ground is the side closer to the viewpoint, and the ‘back’ is the side further away, as if the ground were the viewer’s reflection in a mirror. However, some languages like Tongan (Bennardo 2000), Hausa (Hill 1982) and Marquesan (Cablitz 2006: 531–32) employ a ‘translational’ subtype in which the ‘front’ is at the far side and the ‘back’ at the near side, as though the ground were a person facing in the same direction as the viewer. Although this translational subtype is sometimes claimed to be widespread (e.g. Levinson 2003: 86), others have claimed it is ‘extremely rare’ (e.g. Bennardo 2000: 513), and the literature contains few examples of languages with such a system. A third, ‘rotational’ subtype treats the ground as though it were a person facing the viewer, but appears to be rarer still.
In this paper, we present evidence from an object placement task that Marshallese and Dhivehi both use a translational relative frame of reference, in contrast to English. However, like Tongan and Hausa, these languages also feature a reflectional relative frame that is used in some contexts and/or by some speakers. Marshallese and Dhivehi also employ the intrinsic frame of reference that can be used when the ground object is perceived as having inherent facets. Dhivehi also has a more unusual system in which the ‘front’ of an object in a ring-like configuration is the inner side, while the ‘back’ is the outer side. Terms for ‘front’ and ‘back’ in Marshallese, Dhivehi and English therefore have the potential to be ambiguous in several ways. We demonstrate how a range of configurational factors (e.g. occlusion of figure by the ground, orientation of the array with respect to the viewpoint), linguistic factors (e.g. construction type) and demographic factors influence how speakers interpret body axis terms, and suggest that notions of ‘front’ and ‘back’ relate not only to physical position but to factors including access and visibility.
References
Bennardo, Giovanni. 2000. Language and space in Tonga: “The front of the house is where the chief sits!” Anthropological linguistics 42(4). 499–544.
Cablitz, Gabriele H. 2006. Maruqsan: A Grammar of Space. . Vol. 169. (Trends in Linguistics). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hill, Clifford. 1982. Up/Down, Front/Back, Left/Right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. Here and There: Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstratives, 18–49. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive
Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, Bill. 2015. Topography in Language: Absolute Frame of Reference and the
Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis. In Rik De Busser & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), Language Structure and Environment. Social, Cultural and Natural Factors,
179–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Talks by Thomas Poulton
A frame of reference is a strategy for locating an entity (the ‘figure’) with respect to another entity (the ‘ground’) (Levinson 2003). The intrinsic frame locates the figure with regard to perceived internal facets of the ground object, as in 'The man is in front of the house' – i.e. at the house’s front). The relative frame relies on a ‘viewpoint’ of some observer, as in 'The ball is to the left of the tree' (from the speaker’s perspective). The absolute frame invokes features external to the figure-ground array, such as a system of cardinal directions or a topographically motivated axis, e.g. 'The fire is downriver from the village' (Palmer 2015).
However, among languages which employ the relative frame, it is common – if not universal – for relative terms to be identical with intrinsic ones (Levinson 2003: 45–47), as in the case of English left, right, front and back (e.g., in The man is in front of the house, the man could either be at the house’s front or else on whichever side is closest to the speaker).
Three subtypes of the relative frame of reference exist (e.g. Levinson 2003: 84–89). Of these, English uses a ‘reflectional’ subtype in which the ‘front’ of the ground is the side closer to the viewpoint, and the ‘back’ is the side further away, as if the ground were the viewer’s reflection in a mirror. However, some languages like Tongan (Bennardo 2000), Hausa (Hill 1982) and Marquesan (Cablitz 2006: 531–32) employ a ‘translational’ subtype in which the ‘front’ is at the far side and the ‘back’ at the near side, as though the ground were a person facing in the same direction as the viewer. Although this translational subtype is sometimes claimed to be widespread (e.g. Levinson 2003: 86), others have claimed it is ‘extremely rare’ (e.g. Bennardo 2000: 513), and the literature contains few examples of languages with such a system. A third, ‘rotational’ subtype treats the ground as though it were a person facing the viewer, but appears to be rarer still.
In this paper, we present evidence from an object placement task that Marshallese and Dhivehi both use a translational relative frame of reference, in contrast to English. However, like Tongan and Hausa, these languages also feature a reflectional relative frame that is used in some contexts and/or by some speakers. Marshallese and Dhivehi also employ the intrinsic frame of reference that can be used when the ground object is perceived as having inherent facets. Dhivehi also has a more unusual system in which the ‘front’ of an object in a ring-like configuration is the inner side, while the ‘back’ is the outer side. Terms for ‘front’ and ‘back’ in Marshallese, Dhivehi and English therefore have the potential to be ambiguous in several ways. We demonstrate how a range of configurational factors (e.g. occlusion of figure by the ground, orientation of the array with respect to the viewpoint), linguistic factors (e.g. construction type) and demographic factors influence how speakers interpret body axis terms, and suggest that notions of ‘front’ and ‘back’ relate not only to physical position but to factors including access and visibility.
References
Bennardo, Giovanni. 2000. Language and space in Tonga: “The front of the house is where the chief sits!” Anthropological linguistics 42(4). 499–544.
Cablitz, Gabriele H. 2006. Maruqsan: A Grammar of Space. . Vol. 169. (Trends in Linguistics). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hill, Clifford. 1982. Up/Down, Front/Back, Left/Right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. Here and There: Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstratives, 18–49. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive
Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, Bill. 2015. Topography in Language: Absolute Frame of Reference and the
Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis. In Rik De Busser & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), Language Structure and Environment. Social, Cultural and Natural Factors,
179–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.