Week 5 Learning Materials

Space & Time in Language

From concrete to abstract categories

So far in this course, we have observed that languages differ in terms of the words that they used to
label categories in the natural and social environment. These differences do not reflect fundamental
differences between humans, but rather they reflect different histories and interactions between
individuals and groups, as well as between people and the environment they live in.
Groups of people, living in different parts of the world, find certain elements of their environment and
social setting to be more or less important or salient. The elements that are most salient tend to be
named separately. So for the Neverver speakers in Vanuatu, maternal and paternal uncles are
distinguished from each other by having different labels (mama for paternal uncles, using the same
word for father, and the special label bibi for maternal uncle, because of the separate function and
responsibility that maternal uncles have in arranging their niece and nephew’s lives). However,
maternal and paternal aunts are not distinguished from each other as there are no special roles
associated with the members of these categories.

These images show the maternal uncle of the groom at a wedding, speaking on behalf of the
groom’s family, and then the same man is part of the line of people who make the payment of the
bride price to the family of the bride.

In English, we have a large collection of basic colour terms, and many many more colour terms which
are derived from the names of other objects in our environment. Interestingly, speakers of English
traditionally lived in a part of the world which has a cold climate. Textiles in the form of woven or
felted woollen cloth have been essential for survival, and have kept people busy during the cold
months of the year when little is happening out doors. The range of colour terminology may reflect
our history of creative textile work, in an environment where textiles were needed to survive in the
colder northern climates.
 Images show two William Morris prints, which may look familiar to you. William Morris
was a textile designer in the 1800s, who was inspired by mediaeval textiles. The image on
the left shows the Leichester print (wood/sage); the image on the right shows the Rose
print.

Deixis
We are moving from the categorisation of objects, which is dealt with in the area of linguistics known
as semantics, to categorisation systems which are found more abstractly in the grammatical systems
of a language. These systems are studied in a number of fields, including general language
description, anthropological linguistics, and the linguistic field of pragmatics, where the focus is on
Deixis.
The word Deixis is of Greek origin, meaning to point or indicate. We use the term Deixis in
linguistics to refer to the system of words in a language that allow speakers to point at or indicate
things in their immediate environment. A definition of Deixis from David Crystal’s dictionary of
linguistics and phonetics says that deixis concerns:
“features of language which refer directly to the personal, temporal or locational
characteristics of the situation in which an utterance takes place, whose meaning is thus
relevant to that situation” (Crystal DEIXIS definition)
When considering context, we can think in terms of categories of information:
Participants (who is involved)
Location (place and time of an interaction)
Topic (what is being discussed)
Of the three categories, the topic is most likely to be expressed overtly by words with referential
content - words that refer directly to the topic being discussed. When it comes to participants and
location, we often need to be present at the moment of conversation to understand what is going on.
 Participants who can see A shared time – now
each other – I, we, you,
s/he, they

A shared physical The deictic centre A topic of conversation

location – here

The deictic centre

Deictic systems are at the heart of interactive language, and reflect the historical reality that
communication between human beings was carried out face to face, in a shared physical space and a
shared time. The deictic centre for the participants is the speaker; the centre for place is the speaker’s
location; the centre for time is the time of speech. Each time the speaker changes, the deictic centre
also changes. Deictic systems often contain social content, especially with regard to Participants,
because we may (be required to) use different address forms in particular to interact with different
people. This can be due to their social status, or our social status, or gender identification, or age
difference etc.
Of course these days, much of our communication is mediated. Telephone technology means that we
no longer need to be in the same physical space to talk. First, postal letters, and then internet
technology means that we don’t both need to be present at the same moment in time to have a
conversation. Conversations can be asynchronous, spread out over hours, or weeks or even longer,
when we communicate in writing. But regardless of whether our communication is direct or mediated
in some way, we need to be able to talk to and about each other, and about the people that we know.
All languages have systems that allow speakers to talk directly to each other and to talk about other
people when they share the same physical contexts. Today’s session is on how we use language to
talk about our spatial and temporal location – this is content we will cover in Quiz 3.
Conversational interactions are located in physical space. Speakers very often share a physical or
spatial location. But, because we can never occupy exactly the same place as another person, Space,
or Place Deixis in language allows us to orient ourselves in relation to other people, and in relation to
the physical environment. In English, we use ‘here’ to refer to locations that are near to us (proximal)
and ‘there’ to refer to locations that are not near us (distal). We use words like ‘this’ to refer to items
that are located near us, and ‘that’ to refer to items that are not near us.
The capacity to express displacement is one of the basic characteristics or design features of all
languages. Displacement refers to the capacity of humans to use language to talk not only about their
immediate surroundings (the ‘here’) but also about places that are not in their immediate surroundings
(the ‘there’).
Spatial relations are expressed differently in different languages. Languages differ in terms of what
part of the lexicon or vocabulary is employed to express spatial meanings. In English, we mostly use
prepositions (in, on, at, by) to locate objects in space. In other languages, other parts of the linguistic
system can be used including nouns, adverbs or even verbs to express spatial relations. Culturally too,
we find differences. These relate to the kind of spatial distinctions that are made.
Traditionally, studies of space (like most aspects of language and meaning) were restricted to
evidence from Indo-European languages. These languages all involve systems that are fairly strongly
centered on the location of items in relation to the speaker. This is an ego-centric model of space,
where the deictic centre of spatial orientation is the speaker. We are, in the English language at least,
at the centre of our universe.

Conceptualising Space: Figure and Ground

When talking about the location of entities in space, it is useful to make a distinction between the
entity that we are locating and the place that it is located in. The terms figure and ground are used to
describe these two things. Figure is the entity whose location we are concerned with. It is the ‘thing’
that is being located. The ground is essentially another object, and we use it as a way of identifying
the location of the figure. These two terms are contrasted in the example.
Where is the ball? ball = figure
It is under the chair. it = figure; chair = ground; spatial relation marked by under
The figure and ground share a spatial relationship. This spatial relationship can be understood and
expressed in different ways. We call the different systems for understanding spatial relations frames
of reference. Frames of reference are coordinate systems - ways of locating objects in space. These
frames work in terms of the relevant direction or position of one object in relation to another.

Frame 1: The intrinsic frame of reference

The first frame of reference is the Intrinsic Frame.

The human body is the most likely source of the
spatial relations in intrinsic frames. Our bodies have
a front-back plane, a left-right plane, and an upper-
lower plane. The intrinsic frame of reference
involves an Object-centred system. This frame
concerns the relationship between a ground object
and a figure object. The ground object is perceived to
have ‘inherent’ features, and these features are used
to express the direction of the spatial relation
between the ground and the figure.

Figure Relator Ground (these objects have inherent fronts, backs)

The cat is in front of the TV
John is in front of the car
The desk is in front of me
An intrinsic spatial relationship can be described as a binary relation, because it involves only two
objects (the figure and the ground). The features of the ground (front, back etc.) are used to identify
the position of the figure. We find the intrinsic frame of reference in languages where objects are
considered to have fronts or backs. English is such a language. So the front of the TV is used to locate
the cat. The front of the TV is said to be an ‘inherent’ feature of the TV. However, the idea of
‘frontness’ depends a lot on how human beings typically interact with entities.
Activity 1: On what basis do we identify the ‘front’ of these objects?

Intrinsic facets Notes on how we know where the ‘front’ is

the front of me front-back plane of the body

the front of the TV canonical viewing position (function of object)

the front of the ship canonical direction (motion of object)

the front of the stairs direction we ascend

the front of the book first few pages based on the direction we read, title page at the front

the front of the house side where the front door (main entry point) is located; in Aotearoa
NZ this is typically facing the street.

After you have made your own notes, see the end of the learning materials for Julie’s answers. Keep
in mind that your answers may differ, especially if your first language is not English.

The intrinsic frame in English is a kind of cube-like model. This cube is oriented firstly by gravity,
allowing us to identify the top and the bottom of objects. The bottom is always closer to the earth than
the top. This simple understanding of gravity is one of the first understandings that infants develop of
space, when they start dropping toys over the edge of their high chairs, for example. They drop the
toy, the toy falls, the infant protests about its absence, and the toy is return by a doting parent (then
repeat, then repeat, then repeat...). Essentially, infants are ‘testing out’ gravity by dropping their toys,
and discovering that yes, gravity always works in the same way. This also explains why children are
so entranced by balloons, especially balloons filled with helium gas, which move up instead of down.
Back to the intrinsic frame, many objects have a top and a bottom, and we can identify items as being
‘under’ (closer to earth in relation to an object’s bottom) and ‘on’ (further from earth in relation to an
object’s top, but resting on the top because of gravity).
Identifying other ‘intrinsic’ facets of objects is rather complex, depending on the function, orientation,
and canonical movement (among other things) of the object.
 Top/On In addition to having a top and a bottom,
in the intrinsic frame, entities have
inherent facets or sides. The Front and
Back facets are identified by a range of
functional and orientational factors.
Animate objects (including humans)
have their own left and right. Inanimate
ones are assigned left and right in
different ways.
Bottom/Under

Activity 2: How do you decide which is the ‘left’ and ‘right’ of the following items? Do the intrinsic
‘sides’ change depending on whether you are in/out (or standing in front) of the object? Write notes
in the table below.

Entity Method of assigning left & right? Do left & right change?

1. a jacket sleeve based on sides worn by wearer no, in English the left
sleeve is the left sleeve
regardless of whether we
are wearing our shirt or
not.

2. a desk based on the side we sit, with left and right unlikely for English
mirroring the left and right of the human speakers, unless we can
sitting at the desk. freely walk around the
desk, and interact with
the desk from different
positions.

3. a pair of legs based on sides of the wearer no, left leg is still the left
trousers leg, regardless of whether
the trousers are on a
human, or on the floor.

4. a bus generally, sides would be assigned on the possibly, if there was no

basis of the position of the driver, facing one in the bus, and the
forwards bus wasn’t moving.

5. a computer based on the side we sit facing the no.

computer, left and right mirror the left and
right hands of the human using the
computer.

6. a mirror based on the sides of the human facing the no, although it can be
 mirror hard to convince our
brains of that when we
are looking in the mirror
and trying to dry our hair.

First language speakers of English will complete Activity 2 in a fairly systematic way, but if you
speak another language as your first language, you may have noticed that there are differences in how
you think about left and right, depending on which language you are using.
And if the left side and right side change depending on whether you are wearing/inside the object or
not, you might be assigning left and right using the relative frame, rather than assigning the object its
own left and right in the intrinsic frame.
In English, sleeves and trouser legs, fronts and backs are inherited from the human body parts that go
into them. Desks get their lefts and rights from the left and right sides of humans that transfer directly
to the nearest side of the object in a kind of mirroring pattern.
For me, a shirt gains its left and right on the basis of which sides my arms go in; a desk gains its left
and right by the left and right sides of me, as the person sitting at it. If I am outside of it, the left and
right sides are determined by the canonical direction of the bus and orientation of its driver. So the left
side is on the driver’s left hand side, and the right side is on the driver’s right hand side. This means
that I can talk about the left and right of a bus in an intrinsic way (when I am not in the picture) or I
can use a relative frame (when I place myself at the centre of the image, and my left and right
determine the left and right of the bus. This is especially relevant if I am sitting on a backwards facing
seat! Not all objects can be described in terms of the intrinsic frame in English. Some objects, such as
balls and trees and round tanks, resist this kind of intrinsic description.
We use the named intrinsic facets of objects to describe the position of entities. But what we mean can
differ from one language to another...
- There is a mosquito on your cheek! Which side? The right side (in English we mean the
right side of the person with the mosquito, not the speaker’s right).
- Where is my phone? On the table (meaning on the upwards surface that we work on).
- Your notebook is behind the computer (meaning on the other side of the computer screen
that we look at).

Mobile frames
I noted that the intrinsic frame in English is oriented by gravity. However, this is not always the case
in every language. We appear to have a kind of canonical (normalised) understanding of the
orientation of objects. When objects are lying on their sides, or upside down, their tops and bottoms
are still the same parts as when they are standing up. When objects are in non-canonical positions, the
named parts move with the object – the spatial frame is mobile.
 Top

Bottom Top
Bottom

Based on the canonical orientation of the object, we continue to identify named facets (top and
bottom) in terms of a kind of internal axis that belongs to the object itself.

Another Mobile Frame

(Levinson, 2003, p. 78, Figure 3.2) Intrinsic frames can be

closely related to the naming of body parts of humans. In this
examples from the Tzeltal language of Mexico, the intrinsic
‘parts’ of a kettle are named for human body parts. Just like
English, when the kettle rotates through space, the named
body parts move with the object. The nose (spout) remains
the nose; the hear (handle) remains the handle. This seems
natural and logical to an English speaker.
A Fixed Frame

(Levinson, 2003, p. 78, Figure 3.2) In this example from

the Zapotec languages of the Mexican highlands, kettles
are again named with human body parts. However, when
a kettle rotates through space, gravity fixes the system,
and the head and foot of the kettle are reassigned to the
new upward facing and downward facing facets. So the
head is the part of the kettle that is upwards, according to
gravity, while the foot is the part of the kettle that is
downwards, according to gravity.

While Tzeltal has a mobile frame (or armature) like English, Zapotec languages employ a frame
which is fixed according to gravity (these languages have fixed armatures). The top and bottom facets
of objects are renamed as they rotate through different axes.
Although it can be applied in different ways, as either mobile or fixed, the intrinsic frame of reference
is near universal in the world’s languages. Minimally, human bodies have intrinsic facets, these being
fronts and back, and hands are identified as the left hand and right hand. However, some languages
make extensive use of this type of spatial frame, and it requires a lot of culture-specific information to
operate.
Despite the complexities, the intrinsic frame appears to be acquired earliest by children and it is
inherently simple in the sense that it relies on a binary relation between figure and ground. Of the
intrinsic frame, the contrast that is first acquired by children is the up/down contrast, reinforced
constantly by gravity.
Activity 3: Imagine you have dropped your keys. Name the intrinsic facets of the objects in the
pictures to describe your keys in at least three different positions around/on/under the object. If your
first language is not English (or you are learning another language), add descriptions in another
language to see if there are any major differences between the way we make use of intrinsic facets in
English, and the way you describe the position of objects in space in another language.
Frame 2: The Relative Frame of Reference

The second Frame of Reference that is employed in language is

the Relative Frame. Rather than being a binary relation (between
figure and ground), the relative frame involves a ternary relation
(between figure, ground and viewpoint).
So the relative frame concerns a relation between two objects,
seen from a particular perspective.

Figure Relator Ground Viewpoint

The ball is to the left of the tree. = speaker
In the first example, the left of the tree is not an intrinsic left (as round objects can’t have sides) but it
is the left from the perspective of the speaker. In this example, the frame of reference relates to the
speaker as the deictic centre (it is speaker-centered).
Viewpoint Figure Relator Ground
The goalie kicked the ball to the left of the tree.
In the second example, again, the left is a relative left rather than an intrinsic left. This time however,
it is the goalie’s left rather than the speaker’s left. We can say the spatial relation is expressed from
the view point of the goalie. The spatial orientation that is expressed is separate from the speaker’s
location and viewpoint. Instead, we interpret the spatial frame from another view point.
Like the intrinsic frame, the relative frame makes use of the up-down, right-left, back-front planes.
However, these planes are not attached to the ground, but to the viewpoint. Because of this, we might
say that the relative frame is in a sense derived from the intrinsic frame.
While the intrinsic frame is learned very early by children, the relative frame is mastered much later
on. Speakers of European languages may use and understand the relative frame until they are 11 or 12
years old (and if you think about giving directional instructions to people, some people always
struggle to apply this type of frame effectively).

Applying the relative frame

The relative system is difficult to learn because it involves more than simply a binary relation between
figure and ground. It requires us to shift our perspective in different ways.

In this diagram, we see the relative frame as we apply it in English. We appear to locate objects in
relation to ourselves by reflecting our intrinsic frame, rather like a mirror, onto the ground. In doing
this, front and back of the ground object is reversed to the intrinsic front and back of the viewer. Left
and right however, remain on the left hand and right hand side of the viewer. Another way of
understanding the English relative frame is to see front and back as undergoing rotation, while left and
right undergo a separate process of reflection. This more complex model might explain why we
master this system quite late in our cognitive development. In English, whenever we are driving or in
a car or bus, and we say ‘turn left’ or ‘there it is, on the right!’ we are using the relative frame. It is
our left and right that we are superimposing onto other objects in our environment.
The Relative Frame involves the position of an object in space in relation to a viewpoint. This ternary
spatial relation (involving the figure, the ground, and the viewpoint) is complex. In English, we
typically use ourselves as the view point, and when we say ‘the ice cream shop is just ahead on the
left’ we mean, in front of ourselves (in the direction of our face) and on our own left side (the side of
the body with the left hand).
Here’s another example. The left/right and front/back are assigned on the basis of the view point,
represented by the eye.
Considering the diagram on the previous page, from the viewpoint of the Green Eye (bottom of the
diagram), it is true to say ‘she’s standing on the left of the tree’ and ‘the treasure chest is in front of
the tree’. From the viewpoint of the Blue Eye (top of the diagram), it is true to say ‘she’s standing on
the right of the tree’ and ‘the treasure chest is behind the tree’.
When the viewpoint changes, left and right, as well as front and back can also change.
Other languages apply the relative frame in different ways. In one dialect of the Tamil language (a
Dravidian language spoken in India), the viewer’s intrinsic coordinates are shifted onto the ground
and then a 180º rotation takes place. This means that the front of the ground object is now facing the
front of the viewer (like in English, front and back are reflected). Person F1 is in front of the tree from
the perspective of Ego.
But, unlike English, left and right are swapped. Person F2 is on the left of the tree (not the right, as he
would be in English). English speaking children (and on occasion English speaking adults too) use
this kind of frame as a kind of stepping stone before shifting to the mixed rotation-reflection frame
application that is used in adult English.

Tamil’s 180° Rotation Relative Frame Map showing major languages of India
(See Tamil, shaded light green)

A third possibility is the direct transfer of the viewer’s intrinsic coordinates onto the ground without
rotation or reflection of any kind. This kind of relative frame is found in the Hausa language. The
viewpoint’s left, right, front and back are simply transferred onto the ground object. So below, the
Person F1 is ‘in front of the tree’ in Hausa (but behind in English), and F2 is ‘on the right of the tree’
in Hausa (which is the same as English).

Above: Hausa Translation Relative Frame

Left: Map showing major languages of Nigeria
(Hausa in Yellow), and position of Hausa in
Africa (Orange striped region)

Although they are the most difficult for humans to learn and use well, Relative Frames are useful
because not all objects allow the identification of intrinsic fronts and backs, and sides. Using the
relative frame, we can project the intrinsic sides of humans onto objects such as trees and rocks. How
we do this, by reflection, rotation, or transfer, depends on individual language/culture systems.
For a very long time, relative frames were considered the most basic conceptual structure for
expressing the relationship between humans and objects. However, it has now been established that
many languages do not employ a relative frame at all, or only apply it in a limited way. Such
languages tend to make a greater use of Absolute Frames.

Frame 3: The Absolute Frame of Reference

The final frame type that is employed in languages is the absolute frame of reference. This involves a
fixed frame, like the intrinsic frame; however, the frame is fixed not to small objects around us, but
rather to the landscape as a whole. It typically operates across the horizontal plane, as we find with the
compass directions in English.

Prediction task: What types of spatial relations do we describe using the Absolute frame in
English? If you speak (or are learning) another language, how is the Absolute frame used?
 Make a few notes:

Using the Absolute Frame in English

Using the Absolute Frame, we can say Auckland is north of Hamilton.
This is a statement about the position of the two cities in relation to each
other on the landscape. We can also say Auckland is to the north of me,
standing here... Notice that it doesn’t matter whether I am facing north
when I say either of these two sentences. Auckland is fixed in geography,
and in terms of the second sentence my position in relation to Auckland is
also fixed.
We don’t use the absolute frame in English to describe the position of
small objects around us. So you wouldn’t hear an English speaker saying
The cup is north/west/east/south of the book. It is possible for us to say
these words, but this isn’t the normal way to describing the position of
objects.
The absolute frame is learned before the relative frame, by children. This
is because it involves a stable coordinate system (the landscape), so once children have an
understanding of the physical space that they live in, they can apply this frame consistently.
In a number of languages, absolute frames of reference (making use of coordinates that are anchored
to the environment) are the main way that spatial relations are expressed. Both large scale spatial
relations and small scale spatial relations can be expressed using this absolute system. To apply an
absolute frame of reference, a speaker needs to be aware of their location in space. This may seem a
difficult task for city dwellers, but it is essential to survival in rural areas.

Comparing the Relative and Absolute Frames

To illustrate the difference between the relative frame and the absolute frame, consider the following
example.
Applying the relative frame of English, when I stand in the position of either girl, there is a cup and
plate on a table near to me. Depending on which side of the table I stand, my description of the cup
and plate’s position changes from left to right, even through their position in relation to each other
does not change.

The cup is on my left, and the plate is also on The fork is on my right, the plate is also on my
my left, and the fork is on the far left of the right, and the cup is on the far right of the plate.
plate.
Applying the absolute frame (using compass points), when I stand on the first side of the table (let’s
imagine I’m on the west side of the table,) the cup is west of the plate, and the plate is east of the cup.
When I move to the other side of the table (let’s imagine I am now on the east side of the table), the
cup is still west of the plate, and the plate is east of the cup. My change in location does not affect the
location of the objects. They remain in the same positions in terms of the absolute frame.

The cup is west of the plate; the plate is east of The cup is west of the plate; the plate is east of
the cup. the cup.

The absolute frame in Neverver (Vanatu)

The Absolute Frame is anchored to the physical environment where speech communities live. Entities
(as figures) are located against the landscape (as the unchanging ground). Key geographic features,
such as rivers, the ocean, and mountains, function as points of geographic orientation, much like the
cardinal directions that we understand as compass points.
One language that makes use of the Absolute Frame is the Neverver language, which is spoken on
Malekula Island in Vanuatu. We have heard a bit about the Neverver kinship system already.
Malekula is a high island, with steep slopes covered in tropical forest, and the Absolute frame is
oriented around the seaward/downhill direction and the inland/uphill direction.
The Absolute Frame is the main frame applied to the description of location in the Neverver language.
On the vertical plane, a contrast is made between the words for up/top and down. This is very much
like English.

arxa ‘up’
 bistn ‘down’

On the horizontal plane, a contrast is made between the words for inland and seaward. This plane is
not exactly horizontal and rather than forming a north-south or west-east axis, it follows the land
inland and seaward:

If a direction is transverse (across a slope rather than up or down) then the form atling is used. This is
not distinguished for left or right, but is always accompanied by a gesture or eye-gaze to indicate
which way is intended. So in Neverver you can say atling and mean ‘to the left’ or ‘to the right’
The Absolute Frame in its basic form tends to be used for larger scale distances, without reference to
the location of the speaker. This involves the position of significant trees or gardening sites or
settlement sites. In relation to our compass points, north is conceptualised as seaward, and south as
inland.

Images from Limap village on Malekula Island, where the Neverver langauge is spoken.

Putting the speaker into the absolute frame

We find a set of related but slightly different forms used when the speaker’s location as the deictic
centre is relevant. So akhus means ‘inland from where I am standing’ and avev means ‘seaward from
where I am standing’.

Seaward Transverse
Inland

Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute

Deictic Deictic Deictic

akhsung akhus aviving avev atling atl ~ Ø

The Absolute Deictic terms generally pair up with a word that signals the location of an object with
respect to the speaker: A three-way contrast is made between proximal (close to the speaker),
intermediate (a bit further away, or by the by hearer), and distal (far away, even out of sight). This
kind of three-way distinction for distance is common in Oceanic (including Polynesian) languages. In
English we have a two way distinction between here and there.
avev tjakh seaward + proximal ‘downhill of me here’
avev tjing seaward + intermediate ‘downhill of me there (by you/visible)’
avev tang seaward + distal ‘downhill of me there further away’
A speaker could say that their house is down by the sea, using aviving ‘seaward’, when their own
position is irrelevant. Standing halfway up the slope (blue eye), it is still true that the house is
positioned aviving ‘seaward’, but the speaker could also say that the house is avev tjing ‘down hill
from where I am standing’. Standing on top of the hill (green eye), the speaker would say the house is
avev tang ‘down hill and far away from where I am standing’. Even standing right beside the house,
but on the inland side rather than the seaward side (purple eye), the speaker would still use the
seaward terms, this time describing the house as avev tjakh ‘down hill from where I am standing, but
right beside me’.

This example shows how the Absolute-Deictic frame can be used for objects that are right next to the
speaker, as well as those that are out of sight. So it is perfectly normal in Neverver to say the cup is
seaward of the plate, or the ball is inland of the soccer boot.
(A similar example was given by Lera Boroditsky in the Ted Talk on language and mind, shared in
the Week 4 moodle block. A group of indigenous Australian people were described as using the
absolute spatial system to describe the position of objects around them on the basis of compass
points.)
Looking at other frames in the Neverver language, the Relative Frame is not used at all. It is not
possible to describe the location of objects in terms of the front or back of a tree, or on the left or right
side of a tree. It simply isn’t how people talk about the position of objects in space. Instead, they use
the Absolute Frame.
The Intrinsic Frame is applied minimally in Neverver. Speakers can talk about their left hand and
right hand, and their left side or right side. But this left-right frame does not apply to other objects.
 Body parts
nevran mer hand + left
nevran bratn hand + right
khamjan mer side + left
khamjan bratn side + right
Interestingly, it is the functional nature of left and right which is culturally salient, rather than the
location. We find the morpheme bratn ‘right’ used as a modifier in a number of constructions that
respond to right-handedness, or effectiveness:
Extension of the notion of ‘right’
nivis bow, gun nivis bratn ‘traditional bow’
nulu spear nulu bratn ‘poison arrow’
netmas devil, ghost netmas bratn ‘spirit of a man who died of natural causes’
Some objects are described as having intrinsic parts; the naming of these parts can be object-specific,
or related to human body parts. However, beyond these limited examples, locations tend not to be
specified using the intrinsic frame.
Parts of house
nijingtan nakhamal ‘back wall of house’
nibbukhtan nakhamal ‘side of house’
nomngon nakhamal ‘entrance (lit. mouth of house)’

nigalen nevanu ‘roof (lit. back of house)’

Looking at the different ways that people describe the position of objects in space reveals that
‘normalised’ ways of talking about physical space, of locating objects in physical space, can differ
significantly from one language and cultural group to the next. When spatial systems differ in such
significant ways, there is no simple method that we can use to translate spatial notions from one
language to another. We can imagine that the Neverver speakers are constantly aware of their physical
position in space, in relation to the ocean and the inland mountains. Part of what it means to speak
Neverver is to have this awareness of the physical world.
Urban dwellers who speak English are far less aware of their physical position in space, and far more
aware of themselves as being at the centre of their physical existence. Urban English speakers often
struggle to adapt to new physical spaces, becoming disoriented very easily because it is not necessary
to ‘know’ where one is in space are at all times, in order to refer to the position of others in space. We
simply position ourselves at the centre of our universe, and locate everyone and everything else
around us.
Keeping in mind the perspectives of Linguistic Relativity (not Determinism), we can see how the
English spatial system makes it easy for us to be self-centred – literally! This doesn’t mean all English
speakers ARE necessarily self-centred though (that would be a Determinist perspective).
Here’s a funny article about a girl at the centre of the universe... don’t take it seriously!
(the URL is: https://chaser.com.au/general-news/astronomers-discover-fifteen-year-old-girl-is-centre-
of-universe/)

Preparation for Quiz 3

Summarise your understanding of the three spatial frames below, while the information is fresh in
your mind. Then look at the reading by Steven Levinson for this topic, and add additional details to
your notes. If you speak a language other than English, or learning a language other than English,
consider which spatial frames are most commonly used by speakers to orient objects in space that are
nearby and to orient objects in space that are very large, or separated by large distances.

The Intrinsic Frame:

The Relative Frame:

The Absolute Frame:

Time & Reality

Turning our attention now to time, human beings inhabit a physical world. It is a world in which the
passage of time is evident in the way in which we observe the progression from birth, through life
stages as we age, to death.
It is also evident in the passing of the seasons, whether they be Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter
for people living in temperate zones, the Dry season and the Rainy season for those living nearer to
the equator, or the time of light and the time of darkness, for those living nearer to the poles.
Evidence of time is seen too on a smaller scale, in terms of the diurnal (or day/night) cycle. Humans
understand physically, that these day/night cycles are not an exact repetition of one another. After all,
we can’t re-eat yesterday’s lunch or dinner. Each new day brings with it new requirements for food,
shelter, activity and sleep.
Linguistic interactions take place in this physical world, and are only possible in our lived reality. We
can talk about the future, but we cannot talk ‘in the future’. Our bodies are located in the here and
now. We can call this the Speech Time – the moment at which we speak. Of course, this moment is a
shifting one. Speaking itself takes time, and thus the moment that we begin to speak is not the same
physical moment as when we stop speaking. The physical world has moved on into a new present.
Although speech must take place at in the present moment, what we are talking about may be may be
relevant to the speech time itself (‘now’), or relevant to some other time.
We can talk about situations that are prior to the moment of speech (‘before’) or following the
moment of speech (‘after’, perhaps ‘soon’, perhaps ‘later’).

Using language to locate situations in time

English is a language with a large number of temporal adverbs and complex time expressions that
allow us to refer to times that are precisely located in relation to the time of our conversation. Words
such as yesterday, today, tomorrow, and expressions such as half an hour ago, and in three weeks
time, allow us to orient past and future moments around our present existence.
Lexical markers of time, words and phrases, occur alongside a grammatical system for signalling
Time in English. The grammatical system is called a tense system, where time is marked in the verb
phrase. So we can contrast I went, I am going, and I will go to distinguish between situations prior to
the lived present, situations happening at the present, or situations which we expect to follow the
present.
In the first part of this course, we reviewed the design feature of language that Charles Hockett
identified. These are features that all human languages exhibit. One of the features was Displacement.
Displacement basically means the ability to communicate about things that are not present at the
moment or place of speech. Temporal displacement refers to our ability to talk about the past or the
future. All human languages can express temporal displacement. This means all humans, regardless of
the language they speak, have the capacity to talk about the past, the present and the future. But we do
so in different ways. Every language has lexical expressions to refer to time. But only around half of
the known languages of the world use a grammatical TENSE system like English.

Concepts of time in language

Do all languages provide evidence of a concept of time?
In order to disprove Charles Hockett’s claim that all languages are capable of expressing temporal
displacement, we would need to find a language where no concept of time was expressed. In a
language without a concept of time, the idea of a linear life span from birth to death would also be
absent. So too would the idea of a day. Without a concept of time, one moment would not be
distinguished from the next.
To date, no language has been found in which such concepts are absent. As I have already mentioned,
all humans experience the physical passage of time in their physical bodies. We are also able to
observe natural processes such as the stages of plant growth, animal life cycles and the growth of
other human beings, the transition from day to night and the passing of the seasons, however
differently these seasons may be experienced in different parts of the world. No culture has been
studied in which these kinds of sequences are not understood, or described “out-of-order”.

Cyclic time
However, while it is the case that no culture lacks a concept of time, there has been some debate about
how different cultures model time – whether time is viewed as linear/chronological or cyclic or
something other than that.
Benjamin Lee Whorf made the claim that Hopi, a language spoken by a group of Indigenous
American people, provided evidence of a different concept of time. In this language, Whorf was
unable to identify clear past, present and future TENSE marking. He claimed that a Hopi speaker “has
no general notion or intuition of time as a smooth flowing continuum in which everything in the
universe proceeds at an equal rate, out of a future, through a present, into a past” (Whorf 1956a: 57).
Whorf thought that Hopi speakers only distinguished between day and night, and that each day and
night was perceived to be the same as the previous day and night. In a sense, this is a cyclic
understanding of time, with the passing of the night span leading to the day span, and back into the
night span.
As it happens, all languages have a means of encoding time as a cycle like the Hopi day-night cycle.
The basis for all temporal systems involves the natural cycles of day and night, the lunar months, the
seasons, and the solar year. Whorf was not the only linguist to suggest that a cyclic notion of time is
the core of some linguistic systems. A similar claim has been made for some Indigenous Australian
languages.
However, when cycles have been investigated in detail, it has been found that they are encoded in the
lexicon or vocabulary of languages rather than the grammar. This means that words to do with cycles
are LEXICAL EXPRESSIONS, with referential meaning. Within these cyclic concepts (such as day-
night, the seasons, the year), time is also often encoded in a linear way, through the grammatical
system of a language. Cycles themselves are viewed as comprising chronological elements. So while
languages have words for cycles and parts of cycles, these cycles do not form a part of the
grammatical system of marking time in any language. This is the case for Indigenous Australian
languages; so too was it found to be the case for Hopi.
It is certainly true that in Hopi, many events are presented with reference to day or night spans of
time; however, these events themselves are located in a linear time sequence. Whorf also claimed that
Hopi didn’t have grammatical time marking. This claim has been revisited by other linguists who
have uncovered a grammatical system form marking time (a tense system) where clear distinctions
between past, present and future ARE part of the grammar of the language.

Time
The traditional western way of viewing time is linear. It is this concept of time that we find encoded
in the grammatical systems of languages.
We think of time as beginning as at some undefined moment in the distant past, perhaps a moment
defined by science (as in the Big Bang) or religion (as in God’s creation of the universe).
 Image from: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian- Image from:
institution/what-astronomers-are-still-discovering-about- http://www.catholic.org/news/blog/st
big-bang-theory-180949794/ ory.php?id=54721

We have some vague notion of time ending at some undefined moment in the future though this is
certainly less definite than the notion of a starting point for time. Most of us prefer to imagine that
time, with us in it, will go on forever, and we don’t dwell on our own mortality overly much.

Linear Time
Calendrical (Absolute) time reference
Within this linear concept of time, temporal units (units of time) may be absolute, as we find in our
calendar system. With calendars, we locate events in relation to an origin point – a beginning. The
origin point is often selected because it is the moment when an important event occurred.
Activity 4: What year is it according to these different calendars?

The Western Calendar used in Aotearoa New 2022, counted from...

Zealand

Muslim Calendar used in the Islamic world

The Japanese Calendar

The Chinese Calendar

Deictic time is organised (by definition) around the prototypical speech context. This involves two
humans in face-to-face conversation.
In English, the word ‘now’ and the phrase ‘at the moment’ express the point of time at which the
speaker is producing the utterance containing the word ‘now’. However, it can also encode the span of
time in which the speaker is speaking. In fact, that is how we normally describe the present moment:
I’m working at the moment.
‘Today’ encodes a span of time. It is the span of time that covers the day (diurnal span) in which the
speech time is include. ‘Yesterday’ encodes the diurnal span preceding the diurnal span that includes
the speech time. Now is a bit more ambiguous – it can mean precisely ‘now’ or it can be a more
general ‘around now’.
Absolute & Relative time
In working out ‘when’ things are happening, the Speech time serves as the default centre for temporal
reference. This means it is automatically assumed to be the temporal centre. We call this Absolute
time, because it is linked to our lived reality.
It is also possible for us to use other moments in time as the temporal centre. For example, when we
are reading a story, the temporal centre is the moment that a story is up to. Events in the story are
located prior to and following that narrative “now”. When we are reading stories, we are quite aware
that the story’s narrative ‘now’ is not the same as our lived ‘now’.
Having said that, there was one quite famous occasion in the past when a story was interpreted as a
real-time event. You might recall the movie “War of the worlds”. The story started out as a novel by
H G Wells, published in 1898. In 1938 it was adapted as a radio play, and when it was first played,
some listeners thought they were hearing live reporting of an alien invasion, because the story was
presented in the style of a news bulletins. So I suppose it is possible to confuse the parallel worlds of
fiction with our lived realities.
Analysis of time in English
When are these events taking place? How much do you know?
1. Quiet! I’m talking!
If I say this to you now, the temporal centre is the moment of speech. We know this because
of the form “am doing” that I use. If you read this in a book, the ‘talking’ is located at the
moment that the story is up to, which is of course not the same thing as our present living
moment.
2. I fell asleep at midnight last night.
If I say this to you, the temporal centre is still the moment of speech, but I am describing an
event that happened prior to the moment of speech. We know this because I use the form
“fell” instead of ‘am falling” or “will fall”, and also because I use the phrase “last night”. “at
midnight” gives us a point in time, but without the past time signalled by “last night”, and by
the verb form “fell”, it could refer to any midnight. I could also say “I will fall asleep at
midnight.” So “midnight” is not anchored to the past in the way that “fell” is anchored to the
past.
3. I had just eaten my lunch when there was a knock on the door
If I tell you this, the whole situation is located prior to the moment at which I am uttering the
sentence. The forms “had just eaten” and “was” signal past time.
The form “had just eaten” actually tells us more than past time; it tells us that the first event
(eating) was complete before the second (knock) occurred. “When” links the two ideas
together, but if we take “when” away, the temporal relationship is unchanged. “Just” gives us
the idea that the two events are occurring one immediately after the other. If we replace “just”
with “long since”, then the events are separated out: “I had long since eaten my lunch
 when...” The word “Lunch” is a bit like “at midnight” in that we know when during the
diurnal cycle these time frames occur, but we don’t know which diurnal cycle is being
referred to.
When investigating how refer to time, we can find all sorts of clues in language, including in English
the grammatical tense system (am falling vs. fell), as well as the lexemes (or words) that refer
specifically to time (last night, just, lunch).

Encoding Linear Time

Languages may divide the time line in different ways. Some languages make a three-way distinction;
others divide time into just two parts.

past present future

past non-past

non-future future

Some languages make far more distinctions. For example, Yagua (a Peruvian language from South
America) has five past tense categories, a present, and two future categories.

past present future

Distant one one one today/yesterday now immediate future

past year month week future
ago ago ago

Time in ChiBemba and Wishram-Wasco

ChiBemba, a Bantu language from Africa, has four grammatical past forms and grammatical four
future forms:

before yesterday today within within later tomorrow after

yesterday the last three today tomorrow
three hours’
hours time

àlí- álíí- àcí- à- áláá- léé- kà- ká-

 ChiBemba is a Bantu language of Africa Wishram-Wasco is a dialect of the Chinook
language, spoken along the Columbian river in
the USA (see next example)

Wishram-Wasco is a dialect of Chinook (originally spoken along the Columbian river in the US),
makes past tense distinctions not in terms of days but in terms of recentness:

remote far recent immediate

(distant events, (within the last few (within the last week)
including mythical months)
past)

ga(l)- ni(g)- na(l)- i(g)-

In systems like this, the attitude of the speaker interacts with what we might call ‘reality’, in that
events that are more desirable are coded as more recent, while events that are less favoured are coded
as less recent.

Activity 5 - Workshop Preparation

Make notes on the expression on time in a language other than English. This could be a language that
you speak, that you are learning, or that you are interested in. Record words for the following:

yesterday now, today tomorrow

In English, we have to use phrases for ‘the day before yesterday’ and ‘the day after tomorrow’. Are
there basic time words for these temporal expressions in the languages you are recording?
 two days before the day before the day after two days after
yesterday yesterday tomorrow tomorrow

If possible, make a note of the translations of these sentences. Use your own name. Keep in mind that
the order of words in the translations will likely be different from the English sentences!

[NAME] went to university yesterday.

[NAME] will go to university tomorrow.

[NAME] read a book yesterday.

[NAME] will read a book tomorrow.

Compare the sentences. Can you identify the words for yesterday and tomorrow? Are there other
grammatical differences between the two pairs of sentences that suggest there is grammatical tense in
the language (as well as lexical time words).