Variation in the conceptualisation of space
In this section we consider two languages that conceptualise space in very different ways from English: Korean and the Australian language Guugu Yimithirr.
Categorising spatial scenes in English and Korean
One of the ways in which languages diverge is in the kind of spatial relation that holds between the figure and ground, even for objectively similar spatial scenes. A striking illustration of this is the contrast in the ways English and Korean choose to conventionally segregate spatial scenes. This discussion is based on research carried out by Melissa Bowerman and Soonja Choi. Consider the spatial scenes described in (50) and (51), represented in Figure 3.19.
The scenes described in (50) and (51) are lexicalised in English by a verb in con junction with a spatial particle like on or in. The expression put on suggests placement of the figure in contact with a surface of some kind. The expression put in suggests placement of the figure within some bounded landmark or container. The reader familiar only with English might be forgiven for thinking that this is the only way these spatial scenes can be conceptualised. However, the situation in Korean is very different. The English examples in (50), involving the expression put in, are categorised into spatial scenes of four different kinds in Korean. This is achieved using the four different Korean verbs in (52):
Similarly, the English examples in (51), involving the expression put in, are cat egorised into spatial scenes of two different kinds. This is achieved using the two Korean verbs in (57). Observe that the verb kkita appears for the second time.
The examples in (58) and (59) show which Korean verb corresponds to which of the spatial scenes described using the English expression put in.
The way Korean categorises the scenes we described in (50) and (51) is represented in Figure 3.20, which contrasts with the English model in Figure 3.19.
The psychologist and cognitive linguist Dan Slobin has described phenomena of the kind we have just depicted in terms of thinking for speaking : a particular language forces its speakers to pay attention to certain aspects of a scene in order to be able to encode it in language. While English forces speakers to categorise the spatial scenes we have just discussed on the basis of whether the figure is being placed on a surface or in a container, Korean partitions the spatial scenes into different categories. Korean speakers must pay attention to different aspects of the scenes in question, such as what kind of surface is involved (is it horizontal or not?), and what kind of contact is involved (is it simple juxtaposition of surfaces, or does it involve a tight fit or a loose fit?). Clearly, these differences do not arise because people in English-speaking countries experience activities like putting the lid on a pen differently from people in Korea. Instead, these differences reflect the capacity that speakers of different languages have to categorise objectively similar experiences in different ways.
Frames of reference in Guugu Yimithirr
We now turn briefly to Guugu Yimithirr, an indigenous language of North Queensland, Australia, studied extensively by Stephen Levinson and his col leagues. We noted above that the languages of the world provide evidence for a limited number of frames of reference. What is interesting about Guugu Yimithirr is that this language appears to make exclusive use of the field-based reference frame. The field-based terms used in Guugu Yimithirr are shown in Figure 3.21.
Rather than relating strictly to the cardinal points of the compass North, South, East and West (which are marked as N, S, E and W in Figure 3.21), the terms in Guugu Yimithirr actually encompass quadrants, which only roughly correspond to the points of the compass. However, like the points of the compass, the four quadrants are based on the Earth as an absolute frame of reference. In order to be able to employ a spatial frame of reference for talking about relative locations in space, speakers of Guguu Yimithirr must calculate the location of a particular object with respect to this field-based reference frame. Furthermore, unlike English, which uses field-based terms just for large-scale geographical reference (e.g. Europe is north of Africa), Guugu Yimithirr only has access to field based reference. As the linguistic anthropologist William Foley describes, ‘the sun doesn’t go down, it goes west; the fork isn’t at my left, it lies south; the tide doesn’t go out, it goes east’ (Foley 1997: 217).
