Processes and participants establish what happens and who or what exists, but where phenomena are located is equally foundational. Spatial construal is not a neutral map of coordinates; it is the horizon within which experience occurs. Typological contrasts reveal the diverse ontologies languages actualise for space and perspective.
1. Egocentric vs. geocentric frames of reference
-
English: predominantly egocentric — spatial relations are expressed relative to the speaker or deictic center: left, behind, in front.
-
Guugu Yimithirr (Australian Aboriginal language): strictly geocentric — all spatial expressions use cardinal directions (north, south, east, west).
-
Tzeltal (Mayan): combines geocentric with topological orientation, marking uphill/downhill, facing orientation, and trajectory.
Typological insight: Geocentric languages externalise the horizon, decentring the speaker and embedding the participant in a relationally patterned landscape.
2. Perceptual and accessibility distinctions
-
Japanese and Korean encode visibility and attention in spatial terms:
-
Distinctions between visible vs. non-visible objects.
-
Demonstratives reflect not only distance but perceptual salience.
-
Typological insight: Space is not only physical but epistemically relational; spatial construal patterns what is accessible to perception and attention.
3. Spatial granularity and event integration
-
ASL: uses the signing space to integrate spatial relations, movement, and processes simultaneously.
-
Location encodes agent, object, and action vectors.
-
Events unfold in space as part of the narrative’s gestalt.
-
Typological insight: In embodied languages, space itself is a relational medium, merging participant, process, and horizon.
4. Cross-linguistic comparison: key contrasts
| Feature | English | Guugu Yimithirr | Tzeltal | ASL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Default frame of reference | Egocentric | Geocentric | Mixed | Embodied/spatial |
| Relation to speaker | Centred | Decentred | Decentred | Co-actualised |
| Perceptual salience marking | Minimal | None | Topology-based | Integrated in space |
| Event integration in space | Low | Moderate | Moderate | High |
| Horizon construal | Self-based | Environmental | Environmental | Spatial-gestural |
5. Cognitive and narrative consequences
-
English speakers: narratives are anchored to the narrator’s point of view; spatial shifts are relative to self.
-
Guugu Yimithirr speakers: narratives embed participants in an absolute, geocentric landscape, often producing spatially continuous storytelling.
-
Tzeltal speakers: narratives combine geocentric positioning with event topology, foregrounding environmental relationality.
-
ASL users: narratives spatially co-actualise participants and processes, creating multi-dimensional, embodied story worlds.
Cognition: Habitual spatial construal affects navigation, attention, memory, and relational reasoning; the language defines how horizons of experience are structured.
6. Concluding reflection
Typology shows that spatial construal is a relational and perspectival cut, not a representation of fixed coordinates. Languages pattern:
-
Where phenomena can appear,
-
How they relate to each other,
-
How they are perceptually and socially accessible,
-
How events and participants can be co-located.
These patterns shape experience, narrative, and cognition. Together with process and participant construal, spatial construal demonstrates that language structures not just what can happen or who can act, but where it can unfold.
No comments:
Post a Comment