Spatial Frames of Reference in Persian

Authors
S. Elhami Khorasani 1
K. Safavi 2
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Linguistics- Allameh Tabatabaei University – Tehran –Iran.
2 Professor of Linguistics - Allameh Tabatabaei University – Tehran –Iran.
Abstract
Space has always been an important issue for philosophers and thinkers. The representation of spatial concepts in language has also been a concern for linguists. With the introduction of Gestalt psychology and Cognitive linguistics, a new interest in spatial language arose. One of the key elements in spatial linguistic studies is the concept of the Frame of Reference. A spatial Frame of Reference is a coordinate system by which a speaker of any given language determines the location of a figure in respect to a ground in space.

The current article’s aim is to study the Spatial Frames of Reference in Persian. The main questions are if the speakers first describe the object on the right or the object on the left of the photo, if they first describe the man or the tree first, and what the main Spatial Frames of Reference in Persian are. It was supposed that the speakers first describe what is on the right, first describe the tree, and use the relative and intrinsic FoRs.

In order to obtain real data from the native speakers, the main 8 photos of the second set of photos from the “Man & Tree” game devised by Max Planc Institute were used. In each photo, there is a man and a tree, and their positions in the photo and in respect to each other differs. The game was done with three pair of players as instructed by the standard manual and the data were analyzed accordingly.

The utterances which where ambiguous between two FoRs were put aside. The analysis of the data showed that in a spatial scene consisting of a man and a tree, the Persian speakers tend to first describe the object on the right, which can be due to the fact that the Persian writing has a right to left system. In addition, between man and tree, the speakers tend to describe the tree first. In this scene, the tree is the ground, since it is bigger and more stable than the man. An interesting point was that in all the cases where the tree was on the right, it was described first. Furthermore, in order to describe the spatial relation between the man and the tree, the speakers use the Relative frame of reference, in which the man is the figure and the tree is the ground; yet, in describing the facing position of the man, they use the Intrinsic frame of reference, in which the man is the ground and in most cases the tree is the figure.

Keywords

Subjects

• Bergen, B. & T. T. Chan, (2005), “Writing Direction Influences Spatial Cognition”. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, (27). Pp. 412-417.
• Bohnemeyer, J. (2008). Spatial Language and Cognition in Mesoamerica; Field Manual. Buffalo: University at Buffalo.
• Bohnemeyr, J. (2011). “Spatial frames of reference in Yucatec: Referential promiscuity and task-specificity”. Language Sciences 33. Pp. 892-914.
• Danziger, E. (2010). “Deixis, gesture, and cognition in spatial frame of reference typology”. Studies in Language 34 (1). Pp. 167-185.
• Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale: Routledge.
• Gibbs, R. G. (2007). “Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods”. In Evans, V., Bergen, B. K, & Zinken, J. (eds.). The Cognitive Linguistic Reader. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Pp. 40-56.
• Gashmardi M. R. (2017). “Cognitive teaching: importance of cognitive neuroscience in the teaching of foreign languages”. Language Related Research. 8 (4). Pp. 47-70. [In Persian].
• Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Levinson, S. & D. Wilkins, (2006), “Patterns in the data: towards a semantic typology of spatial description”. In Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D. P. (ed). Grammars of Space - Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pp. 512-552.
• Maass, A. & A. Russo (2003). “Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events: nature or culture?”. Psychological Science, 14 (4). Pp. 296-301.
• McGregor, W. B. (2006). “Prolegomenon to a Warrwa grammar of space”. In Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D. P. (ed). Grammars of Space - Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pp. 115-156.
• Naghizadeh, M. (2013). The Study of the Structuring of Space in Persian Language. PhD Thesis. Isfahan: University of Isfahan. [In Persian].
• O’Meara, C. & G. P. Báez, (2011), “Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages”. Language Sciences 33.Pp. 837– 852.
• Pederson, E. et al. (1998). “Semantic Typology and Spatial Conceptualization”. In Language, Vol. 74, No. 3. Pp. 557-589.
• Shusterman, A. & P. Li, (2016), “Frames of reference in spatial language acquisition”. Cognitive Psychology 88. Pp. 115-161.
• Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Tyler, A. & V. Evans, (2003), The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Experience and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Zlatev, J. (2007). “Spatial Semantics”. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Language Related Research
Volume 10, Issue 3 - Serial Number 51
July and August 2019
Pages 241-263