Deictic and Intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions: A Comparison Between English and German

Cognition and Culture: A Cross-Cultural Approach to PSyChOIOgy - J. Allarriba (Editor) 0 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

23

Deictic and Intrinsic Orientation in spatial Descripti?ns: A Comparison Between Engllsh and German

Mary Carroll University of Heidelberg Abstract The present study focuses on the use of the system of coordinate axes when structuring space in complex communicative tasks. Speakers of English and German show different preferences in the way information is conce tualized and organized for expression. Differences in the use of s ati8concepts can be attributed to the role played by abstract conceptual &mains (time, space, things) in interrelating categories of information and estabhshing cohesion in texts. Introduction The system of coordinate axes is one of the central conFpts used when structuring space throu h language. This system of reference consists of three axes extending along three Amens!ons, one in the vertical and two in fhe horizontal plane (up/down, fronthack, lefdnght). Since. the axes can denv+ from features supplied by the partmpants in a commumcahve situahon, it is readd available as a frame of reference when describing the location of entities in v e q di erent contexts. The use of these axes as a s stem of reference has been the subject of an extensive number of analyses by both l!nguists and psychologists alike. "The studies range from anal ses of the meamcg of associated terms such as "top", above", and "over" in Eng 'sh, or "oben", ueber", and "oberhalb" in German, which all relate to the u per half axis, (see, for exam le, Fillmore, 1982; Herskovits, 1986; Boers, 1987; $underlich, 1982; Wunderlici & Herweg, 1991; Ehrich, 1985; Lan 1991; Becker, 1991) to the analysis.of factors which have to be treated when d d n g with int and the use of this s stem of reference in context (see Levelt, 1984; g x v i t s , 1986; Garnham, 1959; Graumann, 1989; Graf & Henmann, 1989; Herrmann, 1990).

B

E

The ferm deictic is applied when the zero point (origo) of. the system of coordinates is located at the speaker in the discourse situabon. Intrinsic use of the coordinates is given when the zero point is !ocated at an enti which also possesses suitable asymmetric sides (e.g., house, vehcle, chair), The .NUS of interest in the present study concerns the use of deictic and intnnsic viewpoints in complex communicative tasks such as descriptions of the layout of a town or villa e. Given the necessity of resenhn a complex body of information in a cpherent orm, how do s akers de8 with Afferent viewing points when structunng space,. and do s p e z r s of different languages show preferences in the use of pne viewing point over another when setting up spaces. In other words, when the ophon of choosing an intrinsic or deictic viewin point is given in a specific context, what factors determine the choices made.

7

B

d

In descriptions of entities such as living rooms or a toy Lshaped figure, for example, speakers of English and German show different preferences in the use of deictic and intrinsic ints of reference when structuring the space under description. As will be discusse84ln $e.following, these preferences can ljnked to the ro!e spatial knowledge la s in interrelahng informahon and establishmg coherence in texts in En lish an8 derman. Coherence in a text hinges, on the one hand, on the way the inkrmation to be expressed is ordered for expression. In order to meet the

24

M. Carroll

organizational requirements imposed by the linear nature of speech, the i?formation to be expressed in a text has to be organized 50 that it can.be "lineanzed: in a suitable way (see Levelt, 1981). When roducing a text, different. qtegones of information are mapped into a conceptu format which allows their interrelation along different dimensions. The body of information expressed in a text, given a defined communicativetask, can be viewed as an organized structure which answers a specific uestion or "quaestio" (see Klein & von Stutterheim, 1987). Different units of i2ormation can be linked by locating them with respect to a spatial and temporal frame of reference specified for the text. The conceptual domains into which units of information are mapped cover the spatial, tempral, opjectl rson, predicate and modal domain (see, in detail, von Stutterheim Klein 1 9 8 g The quaestio, in which the communicative task is formulated, imposes constraints on the way information is mapped into the different domains, and the roles they are assigned in establishing coherence in the text. If the communicative task is formulated as requiring an answer to the quaestio "what happened to x at time t?" for exam le, the state of affairs to be expressed will be conceptualized as.a series of events wRich can be linked together in the temporal.domrun. The m a n bod of informahon is arranged for expression or "heanzed" in the tex! on the basis o r the chronological order of the events in question, and the text is constructed as a narrative.

s

With descriptions, on the other hand, the communicative task is formulated in terms of the quaestio "what is x like?". This means that the information associated with the entity must be organized in a way which facilitates a delineation of its pro rties. The individual properties specified have then to be linked so as to form a u n i b whole. T w o rincipal procedures are relevant here which correlate with what Tgmy (1987) re!& to as $e "distribution of attention". They apply-with a stahc vie int on the state of affrurs in question: (I) the enhty under descriphon can be dividrglobally from a single viewing point into larger sections, and the properties expressed are organized in spatial terms on the basis of the sechons/re@onsdelimited; (ii) the entity can be described on the basis of a local, point by point perspective. In (i) the pro rties to be expressed are organized in terms of regions and the individual entities wffich share location in a given region (spatial distribution). In (ii) the are organized in relation to individual entities which may be grouped according to Latures such as saliency, shape, function, and size. If the ascription of pro rties is organized with respect to the latter set of features, the object domain pEys a central role in linking the pro rties specified. Object features (shape and function) form the basis of the groups Emed and the order in which entities are selected for mention (larger objects first, for example). Where the entity is divided globally into re 'ons, the "spatd" domain is assigned the role of establishing coherence, and di#erent parts are organized for expression and linked at tlus level (the state of affairs at this" versus the "far" end of the village, for example). The study of the organization of information in texts involves the analysis of the way in which informahon is mapped into the conceptual domains listed, and the way in which it is linked, both within and across domains, as the text unfolds. The present analysis focuses on the roles assigned to the object and s atial domain in the interrelation of information expressed in descriptions in Englisf and German, and their possible role in determining the selection of spatial concepts, in articular intrinsic and deictic viewpoints, when describing the location of ogjects in descnptive tasks.

Deictic and Intrinsic Orienration in Spatial Descriptionr

25

Organizing Information for Expression in Descriptions Talring these basic procedures, the different frames of reference u@ in the s atial domain when locating ob'ects in a descriphon can be divided into the illowing categories (see also KO lmann, Schamhorst, Speck, & von Stutterheim, 1989).

rE

Global Frames of Reference. (i) The flame of reference can be based on a single spatial structure which is a phed so as to encompass the enhty under description as a whole. This can re ate to (a) intrinsic features of the entity (its shape), or intrinsic use of the system of coordinates whch is related to shape; or ) deictic use of the coordinates (these are then projected from the stand pint of e speaker in the situation oFto the enhtyj. The spuctu;es used in (a) are o&ject-related while use of the coordinate axes with (b) is subject-related. Examples are as follows:

P

t

t

(a) Global Intrinsic Structure: "okay here is eight pieces of wood/ ainted wood somewhat in the shape of an L. there are three main s uare-shaped gures which form the L; the bottom part of the L is made up of two 8ie shapes (..); jtt the top d t h d is another one of the same shapes..."

x

(b) Global Deictic Structure: "okay the block ~ f a is e ellow; and on either side of it is two red screws; and underneath the yellow block ere is a purple round ring". The term "on top" relates to the upper section of the object, given a specific viewng point, but not to an intrinsic notion of "the top" of an object.

a

Deictic ex ressions in English which can be used to demp global d!visions of the ce un er description are "on top", "underneath", in front","in back" and &nd" (versus the intrinsic "at the top", "at the bottom", "at the front", "at the back"). In German global divisions are encoded by means of the adverbs "oben","unten", links" and "rechts", for example. (ii) With a local, int by oint system of organization, the !patial structures used are anchored at gindiv&al parts whch make up the enh under descri tion. Parp and properties are described and located in. @ms of spati2 structures ancIored at this level and not on the basis of a global division into regions. Here parts of the enh are related successively to form a representation of the whole. llus is termed an ditive, point by point frame of reference.

3

-2

(m If the information to be expressed is or a+mI in dynamic terms, the frame of re erence can be based on what a rson or ctwe observer encounters on a tour of the entity or scene in queshon. gmponents and their roperties are described as encountered by a fictive observer moving along a de! i ned path (Kuipers, 1978; Ehrich & Koster, 1983). The area under description is structured spahally on the basis of the path drawn.

B

TotkdFocus Assignment. The role of the spatial domain in the text, in particulai the role assignd to it in linearizing information, is linked to the way the properties to be ex ressed in the description are organized. As mentioned above the enbty can be divi&d into its set of com nent entities (organizing principle: object features) or a set 0f.p.yt.s or. regions w ere entities p-e distributed or located in a specific way (or atllvng prmciple: spahal distnbuhon). In the former case the location of an in ividual entity is treated as one feature among many and belongs to what is termed "focus" .dormation in the text. The descnption is organized as statements about the enhty and its component parts. The "x" in the quaestio above

cf

R"

26

M. Carroll

"what is x lie?" consists of the entities and its com nents. With a global pattern of organization, on the other hand "x" is constituzby the entity under des+ption and the regons of s ace asqibed to it. The properties specified in. the descnphon are not just attnbutes oht!e enbty and its components, they are orgaruzed as attnbuFs of s aces or regions (e.g., the state of.aff+rs at vefsus the bottom of fhe enhty). !$atid information is a rerequisite in the orgamhon of the informahon to be conveyed, and the s atia?wnce ts used to divide the entity under description into regions have p be f a e a r to i e addressee. The s stem of coordinate axes as a lobal structutrng pnnciple is an ideal candidate &r this role since the related fimensions are familiar, and can be ap lied to encompass the space under descri tion as a whole. Schemas based on stape an Gshaped objecdthe botfom of the also meet this requirement. When e entity under descriphon is conce tualized in this way, spatial information forms "topic" information for the text. we talk about "the top" of an entity, for example, we can introduce it as familiar, knowing that this forms one section of a structure based on six half-axes. The interlocutor can expect information on the other sections or Palf axes during the course of the description (e.g., the state of affairs at "the front", the left", etc.).

6

5,

pf

. .. .

ishc Difference . In the cross-linguistic comparisons carried out to Crossdate within theresent frameworsk, the followin differences between English and German have emer ed: As a global frame of re&rence,. speakers of Enghsh select concepts which refate to intnnsic features of the obect under descnption and associated spatial concepts are selected accordingly. hpeakers of German show preferences for concepts which relate to a permanent feature of any discourse situation--the origo and adopt a deictic or subject-related perspective (see Carroll & von Stutterheim, 1692). In descriptions of-an abstract Gshaped fi ure, for example, 8 ou! of 13 s aken of English ascnbe a global shape w h c i more or less matches intnnsic Etures of theentity (Lshaped, V-shaped, S-sha , shape of a 4, etc.). Individual arts of the enbty are introduced and located in re ahon to their place on the L or the and so on. BY establishing structures of this as a hrne of feference for the descn hon, speakers generate the basis for the efimhon of intnnsic parts, and the use oFlocative expressions which incorporate references to such parts b means of n n of the "at noun phrases - "at fie tm", at fie front", "on bottom of the L", etc. A fimilar tendency is room and village descriptions: with lobal divisions, speakers of En lish also use structures which enerate the basis fir the use of forms based on de ned parts, exFpt that this time underlying concept used is not related to sha but to accessibdq. Since rooms and villages are areas we. move around in," the g obal $vision of the area is carried out by dividing the space into "the north", the south", the east", and "the west".

t,

b

p"1

%&z"wifi 6"

ee

B

Speakers of German, on the other hand, do not show a similar preference for procedures which show close links with object features with these tasks, although comparable expressions are available in the system of locative expressions in German. Global divisions of the entity under description are not based on object features (e.g., shape and accessibility) but on the system of coordinate axes, as defined by the onentation of the speaker in the situation of use. Furthermore, German speakers tend to use the same subject-related structure across different tasks. The different preferences can be linked, on the one hand, to the way in which information linand linked in texts in these languages. The preferred princi les of informahon organization are reflected in the types of ma horic devices availabe in both languages in markin information flow or referentiafmovernent in texts both within and across domains (feference maintenance or reference shift).

Deictic and Intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions

27

Locative expressions in English which can be easily used in texts to explicitly denote sections or regions are closely bound to intrrnsic features of entities. Expressions which denote global divisions based on deictic projections, by contrast, are sub'ect to major restrictions. Ease of use of deictic expressions in texts fails on the fo owin8 condition: The deictically determined parts such as "on top" or "underneath are denoted by locative ex ressions in whch reference to the entity to which the regions are ascribed is o m i J . If the entity is mentioned ex licitl in the locative hrase, a artitive interpretation is not possible. Com are &e fo5owing hrases, for examfg: (i) "the car raced by with a monkey in 8ont and a big dog khind" with (i) the car raced by with a monkey in front Qf the w and a big dog behind lhe c u . In (i) the ex ressions "in front" and "behind" denote a re@on of the inner secbon of the space deEmited by the car. Here reference to fhe car is.omitted. In (i), on the other hand, where the referent "the car" is exphc$ly reahzed, the locative phrase "in front of the car" does not denote a re on within the interior s ace, but locates an entity at a s ace adjacent to the front sire of the car. The space ¬ed does not form part o the entity in .question. The coylition qqurred, therefore, in conveyin a global, partitwe division of space whch is deichcally defined--referent must %e omitted--cannot be upheld throughout a text where many different entities (referents) are introduced and described in succession. If the same referent has thus to be maintained throughout the text, as is the case with lobal divisions, ap ropriate lexical forms have to be available which fulfilf this re uirement. %us is possible in English with expressions relating to intrinsic parts oJg. The use of locative expressions which encode deictic divisions of space at a glo al level are thus narrowly constrained in English by virtue of their grammatical structure.

li

P

Deictic locative expressions in German are not restricted in this way. The grammatical organization of the word forms differ since the referent to whch the parts are ascribed is never realized in the same phrase. Unlike deictic locative expressions in En lish which are adverbial-like only, the forms provided in German are true adverbs. h e y are intransitive and never take an object. If the referent to which the spaces appl is realized, it must occur in a separate phrase. Deictic expressions which reate to the system of coordinates guarantee a partitive interpretation whe: app1ied"in conte:t. The forms in question are the adverbs "oben", "unten", vorne", hinten", links", and "rechts". Taking the examples above, a locative phrase denoting the inner front section of the car in German reads "vorne irn AutQ" (in front in the car). These forms can be com ared to the adverbs "here" and "there" in English. If we want to anchor the part o space which "here" denotes in explicit terms, the referent is re$ized in a separate phrase yhich denotes the region of space in question (as in "here rn the clat the c o r n ). A referent is never realized in the same phrase in cp'unction with these forms. For example, hrases such as "here fie cornex" or dere l j h~o w " are not appropnate in i n lish. Unlike forms such as "above", "underneath",and "on top", therefore, the regrent can be realized without affecting the partitive interpretahon required if the expression is an adverb.

r

P

The link between the-conceptual. and the grammatiqal organization of locative expressions is subtle. Locatwe expressions are orgamzed into two classes. The are organized into adverbs which do not take an object and into prepositions whic do. The spaces denoted by repositional forms are. more c!osely bound to features of objects, (inner section, {oundary, surface) whlle this. is not the case with (true) adverbs. Adverbs are the wa out of restrictions provided by objects and form the passport to a Cartesian or dewtonian view of space. with adverbs the obect to which the spaces apply is kept at a distance, so to speak, and thispmmaticallfanorfactor is crucial to the way we use these forms to structure space. Adve s do not require

K

M . Carroll

28

discrete correlates in the ob'ect domain when structuring space. What holds as "here" or "there", for exampfe, is not tightly circumscribed by the features of any object, but depends on what the speaker intends in the situation in question. As opposed to the adverbs "here': and 'there", deictic locative expressions which relate to the system of coordinates in English. are semantically organized so as to reflect object-related features. Expressions which relate to the upper section of the vertical axls, for example, reflect the boundaries which objects provide: The spaces denoted by "on top" versus "above" reflect a dividing line given by s aces on the inner and exterior side of an object's and boundary, for example. he adverb "oben" in German, b contrast, does .not reflect this distinction and denotes an area which covers bot spaces. (Specifications as to whether "oben" relates to an inner or exterior space at the object can be supplemented by prepositional forms. The bring in the object-related features required and combine with the adverbs as 6llows: "obendrii" (upper space-inside), o b e n d r k " (upper space-over) etc.

.F

K

In English, the system of spatial expressions required with global divisions accommodate intrinsic divisions of space, while deictic divisions have limited applicabilit . Factors of this kind have clear consequences at a conc tual level: speakers orEnglish must look for intrinsic features in order to establish t e basis for a viable lobal division of space. An object must be seen to possess a suitable feature which alfows the speaker to use a global structure such as the s stem of coordinate axes, or the earth's axes. This is not the case in German. Spe ers can project the coordinate axes from their standpoint onto the space under description, takin the speaker's own orientation as a oint of reference for what should hold as the kont, back, upper or lower sections ofthe space in question.

T

J

The role of the object domain in English in linearizing information and establishing coherence in the text is also in greater evidence in reference maintenance than the s atial domain, compared to German. In German, referents are marked as maintainelin ways which are not used in English. If a referent is introduced in the text in the object domain ("the vase" in the example "there is a vase on the floor"), the ob'ect "the vase" is marked as maintained in English by means of anaphoric forms wkch are pronouns ("it", "this", or "that"): "and on the floor there is a vase and behind that is a ball" Maintenance thus occurs within the same domain and the anaphoric forms used ("it"; "this"; "that") show that the entity "the vase" is still conce tualized as an ob'ect or thing. In similar contexts in German, referents such as '*tie vase" are mar-i(ed as maintained in terms of the region of space which they delimit (e.g., "there"), and not as entities defined as things. The anaphoric forms used are not pronouns, but are locative adverbs which combine with prepositions (e.g., "dahinter" (there-behind): Example.

"auf dem Boden ist eine Vase, dahinter ist ein Ball" on the floor is a vase, there-behind is a ball

There are thus fundamental differences in the wa in which information can be shifted from the object domain to the s atial Jomain in the organization of information flow in texts, and in the types o anaphoric expressions available which signal this type of information flow or referential movement. German has a rich store of locative ana horic expressions which si nal such shifts from the object to the spatial domain in re erence maintenance. Anap oric expressions in German not only mark reference maintenance from one utterance to the next; different sets of forms are used de nding on the frame of reference adopted in organizing spatial information Er the text. Different anaphoric forms are selected, for example,

f!

P

F

Deicric and Intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions

29

dependin on whether the spatial domain is structured in lobal terms, or by means of a locaf .point b point distribution of attention (the different anaphoric forms for as "neben" ("beside") are global frame: "nebendran"; point by an expression oint frame: "daneben"; for "vorne" ("in front global frame: "vornedran"; point &y point: "davor"). Corresponding ana horic variants are not available in English and reference shifts from the object to tge spatial domain are restricted, compared t i German (see, in detail Carroll & von Stutterheim, 1992).

SUCK

I),

In conclusion, these observations indicate how the dominant domain which is typically used in linearizing information and establishin coherence influences the way states of affairs are conce tualized for expression. TKe way in which "we think for speaking" (see Slobin, 19$1) is molded by factors of the kind described. The locative expressions available in English which are viable in texts in denoting regions of space are closely related to ob'ect features. They lend support to a specific view of things in the organization of inflormation for expression. Objectives of the Study The present study sets out to confirm the findings presented above and to investigate to what extent the constraints observed in the system of locative ex ressions in English are idiosyncratic, or form art of an overall pattern of inLrmation organization in descriptive texts in En lisi. The question addressed is as follows: Apart from the constraints in the applicafility of certain word classes such as adverbs, can the use of deictic versus intrinsic points of reference be attributed to the role pla ed by specific domains in the text at a general level of organization, or are the rezrences simply based on a quirk of the system of locative expressions in English.

f

The Communicative Task. The task resented to both groups of speakers consisted of a model of a village with a d e n t rectangular layout. The buildings were arranged parallel to the sides, and aths through the village also followed a rectangular attern. The entire model coupd be viewed from a single viewing oint. On one of tie sides (which will be termed the south side) there was a smalfroad leading into the village. (The data were collected by members of an associated research project "Partnerbezogene Raumreferenz" at the University of Mannheim.) Group 6). Speakers viewed the village from the south side which allowed a "facing" or canonical perspective, that is, the front sides of all buildings were visible from that point. Group (El. Another group of speakers viewed the village from the east side. Ten subjects were recorded in each case. The same task was repeated with 14 speakers of English from a single viewing oint (south side). The description was given from memory b both groups. The egects of viewing point and other factors such as the status o f t e addressee (e.g., child versus adult) on the way information is or anized in descriptions is reported in Graf, Dittrich, Kilian, and Herrmann (1996, and are not at issue in the present paper.

K

Analysis of the Data German. More than half of the speakers opted for a global division of the space under descri tion when establishing a frame of reference. The space delimited by the village is gvided deictically from a global viewing point by 11 out of 20 speakers. The figures in Table 1 relate to the predominant frame of reference used to

M . Carroll

30

linearize information in the text.

r

Global Division. Nine of the eleven s akers used the coordinate axes to divide the stace into front. back, left and rig t "sides", or upper. lower, left and right "sides. The locative expressions used in these cases are complex phrases with nouns which refer to sides "die vordere Seite" (the front side) "die obere Seite" (the upper side) and combine with prepositions such as "an" (at). The two remaining speakers used the deictic locative adverbs "oben", "unten", "links" and "rechts which also divide the space globally into up r, lower, left and right regions. These expressions do not incorporate the concept opside", however. Table 1 Frames of reference used GLOBAL

TOUR

POINT BY POINT

2

11

7

Local Point bv Point Frame/Tour. With these frames of reference, speakers use the coordinates to distinguish front and back corners, or to delimit spaces at individual buildings, but not to delimit larger areas such as a front or left side. English. Global divisions are given by five out of fourteen speakers (see Table 2). The s ace under description is structured in terms of the earth's axes by 4 s akers (tle north, south, east, and west) or the clock face (1 speaker). Two out of four speakers combine the global division into north, south, east and west sections with the concept of a tour. The only deictic axis which is projected lobally to structure the space at the village is the lateral axis (3). It is used to fefine a left/right side ("on the left/right side"). Speakers of English do not use the fronthack or vertical axis in this function. (This corresponds to the pattern observed in room descriptions (19 speakers).

tE

Table 2 Frames of reference used NSEW +TOUR

4

(2)

CLOCWTOUR

1

(GLOBAL)LAT.AXIS TOUR

3

5

POINT BY POINT 1

Deictic and Intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions

31

Global/Lat.Axis Example:

. in the middle on the left hand side was the town hall and in front of that there was a fountain and a kiosk and a paperstand ..." 'I..

The front and back txes are used to distinguish corners, but not larger sections which make up "sides : "and in the back right corner of the town in the corner where the fence is is a church". In summary, the fronthack half axes are used in English in relation to discrete features such as corners, "the back corner", but not to delimit areas or regions such as front and back sections or sides of the village which have no discrete correlates at the level of the object. In contrast to English, there are no constraints on the use of the fronthack axls with an entity such as a villa e in German, even though there are no identifiable correlates in the object domain. %he question now is what factors allow application of the lateral axis in English to set u left and right s aces at a global level, but prevent use of the fronthack an vertical axls? &gnificantly, the axes which are projected in En lish, left and right, are those which eminently relate to persons and not to objects. %he features "front" and "back" or "top" and "bottom", on the other hand, also relate to inherent features of objects. The front of a building coincides with an inherent feature such as an entrance, for example. The vertical axis also coincides with the ob'ect's inherent or prototypical orientation with respect to the line of gravitational iorce. Left or right sides, by comparison, do not usually have a corresponding feature at the object level (position of the steerin wheel of a car, perhaps?). With entities such as villa es and rooms, on the other fand, there is no feature which distinguishes a side as t e or left side. Of the arts which define the six half axes, the lateral half-axes are the most derived (see iller 8i Johnson-Laird, 1976).

B

a

I6

The lack of constraints for use of the lateral axis led to the following hypothesis on the role of the object domain: This domain will possess inherent cnteria to sanction the application of front, back, top and bottom axes, but there is no defined element or feature in the object domain as such which would sanction the use of the lateral axis. With "left" or "right" there is no built-in constraint which would be dissatisfied, so to speak, given entities such as villages and rooms. The constraints observed indicate that spatial conce ts which are closely related to features at the object level are vetted for appIpication in English. If they were projected without correlates at the level of object features, and corresponding s aces were defined, they would then be beyond the control of the object domain. b h a t holds as "front" or "back" would then be under the control of the speaker, for example. This will pose a roblem where the object domain is assi ned a central role in ensurin coherence in t e text, and consistency in the frame o reference used to locate difkrent entities.

E

B

In keeping with this hypothesis, the data was analyzed for further evidence of built-in parameters or constrants in establishing consistency in a frame of reference, and ensuring coherence in the text. The results are presented in the following section. Use of Deictic and Intrinsic Axes with Individual Objects The coordinate axes can be used to locate an ob'ect not just in relation to a side or section of the entire space under description (vidage), but also in relation to

32

M. Carroll

re ions of s ace at individual objects. The question now addressed relates to the rofe of the game of reference used globally in the text in determining the choice of an intrinsic or deictic perspective at individual ob'ects, and the way possible conflicts between different viewpoints are resolved when d e system of coordinate axes is used at two different levels. If the frame of reference used globally is deictic, how does this constrain the use of the coordinate axes at individual objects in the village, for example? The data presented focus on German, since the number of speakers who use a deictic division (lateral axis) at a global level is restricted in English, as described above.

Two sets of objects are compared here: buildings where the front sides face the speaker at the global viewin point, and buildings which do not. The row of buildings along the north side otthe vdlage were the only ones facing the speaker taking the viewing point of the speaker as located at the south side.) Of the nonacing buildings in the model there are two which are prominent: A town hall located on the west side of the model, and abus shelter which is opposite to the town hall on the east side. These buildings face into the center.of the vdlage. There are smaller objects located in front and on the left and right sides of both the town hall and the bus shelter so as to cover all axes (front, left and right sides).

i

Non-facing Obiects/ West side; a town hall, facin8 east toward the center of the village; a fountain, which is in front of the town hall; a billboard located in front of that again; a newspaper stand to the right of the town hall, as seen from an intrinsic perspective. Non-facine Ob_t 'ects/East side; a house; a bus shelter located in front of the house and facing the town hall; a telephone kiosk to the left of the bus shelter (intrinsic); a stop sign to the right (intrinsic perspective). There are? therefore, 3 cases in which the front axis can be used (to locate the fountainhdlboardhus shelter) and 3 cases in which the lateral axis is required (news ape: stand/telephone booth/stop sign In order to ensure comparabiity in cross- in ustic terms, the data analyzed at tks level were confined to s akers who viewed f e village from the south side. The data base here was e x t e n d s o r German speakers to 15 (with 14 English speakers, as above).

P

man - Global Frame of Reference: Non-Facing Obiec . When the system at the village into of coo%aks has been used.globally to divide the entire spa: front, back, left and right secbons, use of the coordinate axes at non-facing objects is restrrcted to the front axis. Objects located at the sides of the buildings in question (e.g., newspa r stand, telephone booth, stop sign) are located in terms of the unspecific "neEn" ("beside").

&am&.

"und wenn ich dann durch den Eingang durchgehen wuerde and if I then through the entrance through-go would

ist links auf der k u m n Seite des Rechtecks das Rathaus (..) is left on theshort side ofthesquare the town hall davor ist derl ist ein Brunnen there-in front is a fountain

Deictic and intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions

33

und da davor eine LitfaRsaule and there there-in front a billboard

neben dem Brunnen steht ein Kiosk

beside the fountain stands a newspaper stand der ist wieder mehr zum Eingang hin" that is more towards the entrance (. .) Although the front axis is used to locate the fountain and the billboard, the "newspaper stand", which is on the right hand side of the town hall (taking an intrinsic pers ctive), is not located with a comparable degree of specificit . The form typicalr used here is "neben" which relates to a lateral side (Znglish "alongside"/"$kside"), but does not specify which one. The instances in which objects on the front axis are located but not those directly to the left or right of these is shown in the following table: Table 3 Use of front and lateral axis FRONT AXIS

LATERAL AXIS

0

12

"neben" (beside)

3

Although objects in this group which were on the front axis were located as such in 12 cases, those to the left or right of the same buildings were not located with a similar level of specificity. Furthermore, the viewpoint adopted with the use of the front axis is not specified. The s ace denoted by forms such as "davor"/"vornedran" (in front of) is ambiguous, for t e addressee, since "in front" can be interpreted in two ways:

R

(i) in terms of the global viewin point (adopted to define left and right sides of the "villa e") which would thus deEmit a "front" space between the speaker and the town Bail, (ii) as the space adjacent to the front side of the town hall, which is then at right angles to the one defined in terms of the global viewing point. Use of the coordinates in this context show that constraints which hold for the lateral axis do not apply to the front axis. Global Frame/Facing Obiects. The lateral axis is used freely for the row of buildings facing the speak& (the row of buildings on the north side of the village). The lateral axis is thus accessible in global frames of reference when what holds as the left/ri ht side at a building does not conflict with the "facing" perspective of the s aker, &at is, with the speaker's left and nght, and what was correspondingly &ned as the left and right side of the village.

M .Carroll

34

Point bv Point Frame/Non-Facine Objects. As op osed to global frames, there is no evidence of constraints on the use of the later axis with this frame of reference when locating the objects in question (see Table 4). (As with the global frame, the comparison IS confined to speakers who viewed the village from the south side.) If the lateral axis is used in these descriptions, the viewing position is explicitly defined. The perspective ado ted is a facing perspective in the majority of cases (intrinsic perspective occurs oncej'.

8

Table 4

Use of front and lateral axis FRONT AXIS 10

LATERAL AXIS 5

"neben" I

To summarize the observations so far: With lobal frames of reference, use of the coordinate axes is confined to the front axis at kdividual objects on the east and west side of the villa e. It would seem, therefore, that the global viewing point constrains the use o f t e coordinate axes throughout the description, thus leading to consistency when specifying locations in what counts as left and right, but not for what holds as "in front of'. This is ambiguous in the cases used, and their number is not negligible.

fl

Endish - GlobaULat. Frame. With (partially) similar frames of reference (left and nght axes projected to define the left and right side), there is no evidence of a corres onding restriction in the use of the lateral axis with non-facing objects. Althou the number of specifications is too low to be treated as conclusive (see Table all coordinate axes were used when locating ob'ects on either the east or west side. The preferred viewin point is intrinsidcoincidental. Furthermore, shifts to the intrinsic viewin point &om the globally anchored "left/"right" projected from a position facing tie village) are not necessarily stated explicitly.

4,f

Example: "its a spread out town (...) in the middle on the left side was the rathaus and in front of that there was a fountain and the fountain was kinda in the middle and there was also a newspaper stand that was to the right of the fountain" In all cases in which the front axis was used, the lateral axis was apqtied also. English has forms which correspond to the German "neben" ("beside", next to") but these are not selected in this context.

In summary, the lateral axis is used in German in terms of a defined viewing oint throu hout the description. This consistency does not a ply for the front axis, [owever. t h e constraints on the use of the lateral axis in &man provide further evidence of built-in parameters in establishing consistency in the frame of reference used by the speaker in the description. This consistency in terms of subject-related

Deictic and Intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions

35

features can be linked to the role of the deictic origo in the frame of reference used. In English, on the other hand, where the object domain dominates, there is no evidence of constraints on the use of the subject-based lateral axis at a local level, even though the half axes were used already in the frame of reference. Shifts in Viewing Point and Topic Focus Organization The organization of spatial information into topic focus categories reflects the role assigned to the object domain (object features) or the deictic origo when setting up spaces and establishing a frame of reference for the description. (i) If the object domain is dominant in the frame of reference, this is n i e v i d e n s h e way objects are organized for expression in the text: Objects may be divided into groups on the basis of features such as size or function (lar e buildings vs. smaller objects). They may then differ in their eligibility &r (ii) When the introduction as properties of spaces or roperties of another entit deictic ori o predominates, on the other and, groupings of objectsiased on features such as refative size are not observed. All objects are treated in the same way in the text and are introduced as properties of spaces. Points (i) and (ii) are discussed in more detail below.

1

(i) Where the object domain is dominant, all lar er buildings are introduced in terms of a region of s ace. The space can be the glofal left or nght hand side or a neighbourin space delmited by one of the objects thus located, or the northlsouth side, etc. Oijects which are not introduced as pro rties of regions are smaller objects, with the exception of the fountain. Smalrr objects are introduced as statements about the entit under description, that is, as properties of the entity (the village) as a whole. ('de numbers in the examples mark consecutive utterances within each text.): Introduction and location of larger obie& (1 and 6) left hand side was the town hall I).. ri ht in the middle 2) ancfin front of that tge%as a fountain 3) and eh the fountain was kinda in the middle Introduction of smaller obiects (4 and 7) 4) and there was also a newspaper stand 5) that was to the right of the fountain 6) and then directly-in front of the rathaus ast that was the bus station 7) and that had a telephone booth to the rig& of it "The newspaper stand" in 4) is not introduced by means of its location, as opposed to "the town hall" and "the fountain". It is introduced in 4) as a property of the overall entity and is then located in utterance 5). Similarly, the telephone booth in 7) is introduced as a pro rty of the bus station - it "has" a telephone booth.., and not as a statement about t c spa c e "to the right" of the bus station. (The word order "and to the right of the bus station there is a telephone bFth" would be equally acceptable in English in syntactic terms, so there is no constrant there.) The entities which ?re not introduced as properties of spaces all share a specific property (size), and entities with this status are treated in a similar way. in the text. With example 4), the category of information realized in constituents in pre-verbal position in the utterance changes from the spatial to the object domain. In 4) reference is made to the overall entity under description (which has topic status for the task) by means of the dumm subject "there", and "the newspaper stand" is introduced in the form of an existentid

36

M . Carroll

statement as a property of the village. (The corresponding formulation in German would be "Es gibt auch ein kiosk"). If the coordinate axes are used to locate ob'ects which are under direct control of the object domain (introduced as properties o other entities, as in 5 and 7), the viewing point ado ted for the system of coordinates is not specified. The actual orientation ado te8 is intrinsic or coincidental with the front side of the object in question, but t is is not evident to the interlocutor. Required specifications of viewing point are omitted when the object domain is dominant.

#

K

(ii) If the deictic origo dominates in establishing coherence (which is rarely observed in static descriptions in English), objects F e not grouped according to features such as size. In this case, the propemes to be expressed are not conceptualized as features of the entity under description, and there is no use of statements with existential "there" (e.g., there is an x"). With an origo-based organization, however, the viewing points adopted are specified, and the information is packaged in subordinate clauses (see example 23). However, there are few instances of this type of or anization in the English data base (33 texts in all: 19 room/l4 village descriptions$. 20)"enclosed inside a fence in the center pn the left hand side from mv viewDoint was the town hall 21) I guess that's what it was 22) and directly in front of the town hall was a fountain and an advertising pole

23) and from the town hallhf you were standine in front of the town hall facing out the fountain was directly in front of you 24) to the right would be one of those newspaper stands 25) and across from the town hall on the other side of the town was a house, a normal German house.." When the deictic origo dominates in the frame of reference, changes in viewing point are specified as required. This corresponds to the pattern which is typically used in German. The next example provides further evidence of the relevance of dominance and control in frames of reference and the patterns of information organization and perspective taking which they entail. In this case we see that deictic and intrinsically defined coordinates may be treated as disjunt categories at the level of topic/focus information in English, depending once a ain on the set of concepts which is dominant (the global frame of reference usekis the clock face; a deictic pers carried around by a fictive tourer in this case, is also used to link entities not fit the oints of reference provided by the clock). The deictic perspective is thus establishdin the text (see 10) and is the perspective first adopted in 12) to describe the upper section of one of these buildings:

WE;:%

10) "and then you're back to like the entrance where I was sitting (end of tour) 11) and then at exactly nine o'clock there's a round gas station 12) above is a cafe 13) and it had a Volkswagen symbol on the top"

Deictic and Intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions

31

The adverbs "above" and "underneath", for example, reflect a deictic division of space in this context, as opposed to the locative expressions which include reference to parts in terms of the concepts "the top"/"the bottom". Since the deictic perspective is already established in the text, (tour), the feature the "Volkswagen symbol' is not introduced in terms of the region of space at which it is located but as a property of the object. (In syntactic terms the utterance could as easily have been constructed as "and on the top it had a Volkswagen symbol", so there are no constraints at this level .) German. As opposed to patterns of or anization t pically observed in En lish, the laterdaxis) are encoded expicitly shifts in viewin point (which involve use in subordinate dauses. The following example is taken from the grou of speakers who observed the village from the east side. (The speaker nevertheess adopts a canonical viewpoint from the south side for the descri tion, and changes to an intrinsic or coincidental viewing point at the town h I, thereby spec1 the viewpoint adopted for the lateral axis. As with the other group of s akers escribed above who viewed the model of the village from the south side, t E consistency in specifying the viewing point does not apply to the front axis.)

OF

9

Examde:

P

2'""

"auf der linken seite befindet sich ein Rathaus at the left side finds itself a town hall

genau vor dem Rathaus befindet sich ein Brunnen exactly in front of the town hall finds itself a fountain und eh vom Rathaus aus eesehen rechts von dem Brunnen befindet sich ein Zeitungskiosk and from the town hall seen to the right from the fountain finds itself a newspaper stand vom Rathaus eesehen hinter dem Brunnen befindet sich eine Litfasssaeule" from the town hall seen behind the fountain finds itself a billboard

The location of the newspaper stand is not categorized as focus information on the basis of any status accorded to the rou s of objects thus located (e.g., "es ibt auch Zeitun skiosk; der ist rechts von em runnen'hhere is a news aper s t a n t it is to the rigit of the fountain). It is introduced in the text on the gasis of its location (e.g., "to the right of the fountain is . . .").

B E

Other examples of dominance in frames of reference in German are as follows: D namic conce ts are categorized as focus information, for example, if the frame of rerrrence is precfominantly static, and vice versa. Dvnamic Frame with occasional use of a elobal static perspective: "(ich) komme also dann nach rechts rein I come then to the right to-in und dann sehe erst eine Backerei and then see first a bakery und das ist also das erste was auf der rechten Seite ist and that is the first which on the rieht side is nach der Backerei kommt dann ein Haus.." after the bakery comes then a house

38

M . Carroll

Spatial information which relates to a point on the path traced by the fictive lrourer can recede other information in the utterance ("nach der Baeckerei kommt.. /after the take, comes) but this does not apply for information which relates to global re ions of space ("auf der rechten Seite"/ on the right hand side). The location wkich is described in terms of a global region of s ace is treated as a property of an individual entity ("that (i.e., the object) is the irst which is on the right side"), which in this frame of reference is already spatially categorized as a point on the path drawn.

P

A similar pattern of organization into topic and focus components is observed with a static, point by point pattern of organization where there is only occasional use of global anchorings to anchor the frame in terms of global sections.

Point bv ooint frame. with occasional use of Flobal sections: "links neben dem Pfarrhaus befindet sich eine Garage left beside the priest's house finds itself a garage und gleich neben der Garage befindet sich ein Turmcafe and immediately beside the garage finds itself a cafe wir sind also an der oberen Seite des quadrats" we are then at the upper side of the rectangle With point by point frames, s atial information with topic status is restricted to regions of space delimited at intvidual objects. This does not include global sections such as that denoted by "die obere Seite"/the upper side. With point by point frames, individual entities are not introduced in terms of their location on one of the sides assigned to the entire space under description (e.g., "auf der rechten Seite ist eine Baeckerei"). The entity under description is not conceptualized as a set of lobally defined places or regions in terms of which components' parts are described {nd located (e.g., "auf der linken Seite ist ein x"/on the left side is an x). Regions. of s ace do not have topic status in this frame of reference, and related information 8 , s not then precede other constituents in the clause. Static frame combined with occasional use of the concept direction/distance: '3etzt neben dern Brunnen steht ein Kiosk now beside the fountain stands a newspaper stand der ist wieder mehr zum EinPane hin" that is again more lowards th2 entrance Spatial concepts which encode distance are also categorized as focus information and this categorization holds for the entire text. These different patterns show that the way in which cate ories of information are treated with res ct to topic focus organization depends on tge frame of reference used in the text an on the set of concepts which dominate in linearizing information and establishing coherence in the frame of reference. The dominant domain in creatin coherence determines the distinctions drawn: If the cate orization of objects at w h i s spaces are anchored is under the control of the object &main, the different viewing points adopted are not tracked and specified. If control in the selection of spatial conce ts is allocated to the deictic ongo, on the other hand, viewing points which are c osely related to the subject features (use of the lateral axls) are

8"

P

39

Deictic and Intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions

consistently specified in the frame of reference. General Conclusions Constraints on the use of specific spatial concepts such as the fronthack and vertical axis in English when setting up spaces in a frame of reference can be linked to the domain whxh is dominant in ensurin coherence in the text. In English the s aker can use the frontiback and verticafaxis only when this is warranted by f % , ~ r eofs the enti under description. The fronthack axis y n be a plied to entities such as "comers",?e.g., to define "the hav;k comer of the vdlage") gut not .to divide the space at the vdlage into front and back re 'ons. The underlying constramt in the use of the front back axis in this context in nglish seems to he in the necessity of having a discrete or bounded entity which can anchor the space delimited by the coordinate axes. For spaces based on sections and sides, this requirement is met only when the entity has intrinsic front, back, top and bottom sides. Since the comers of the village in question do not possess intnnsic features such as "back" 0: "front", however, and speakers nevertheless designate one of the comers as the comer", the factors governing the applicabon of the fronthack axis cannot be based on intrinsity. A bounded or discrete entity such as a "front side" or a 'corner", which forms a bounded part of the object. in question, seems to constitute the necessary requirement when using the coordinate axes to gve a global division of the space dehmited by an object in English.

8'

The absence of constraints of this kind on the use of the lateral axis, however, provide interesting insights into the factors at work in text raduction and the nature of the decision-making process involved: In English the o y deictic axis which can be ap lied to divide an entity such as a village into secbons is the lateral axis. Sigm cantly, this is the one axis which does not correlate with any features or discrete enbties in the object domain. Compared to the front and back axes, left and right sides are more specifically related. to sub ects or persons. The absence of constraints for subject-related fealures indicates e nature of the sanchons involved when ap lying coordinate axes in context. When projecting axes onto the space delimidby an entity, $ere seems to be an assesgment or vetoing base for features which belong to the object domiun only. In assessing the apphcability of any one of the half axes, repence is made to discrete tntibes p e n in the object domain ("front", "back", top" and "bottom" sections, comers , etc.). If a suitable feature is listed, the corresponding spatial concept can be ap lied. However, there are ztpparentl no criteria for the assessment of subject-re@e f features such as "left" and n ht" . If this interpretation holds, the decision-malung process in text roduction an# the conshunts observed are domam specific. In other words, tfere is no evidence of cross-referencing in the selection process at this level. The loopholes observed are built-in, so to speak. Constraints on the use of spatial conce ts which are defined in terms of the ob'ect domain make sense when the object omain is assigned the function of estabhshin and maintaining coherence in the frame of reference used throughout the text. f f s aces were set up without correlates at the level of object features, they would then beyond the control of the object domain.

s

R

ti

B

k

Use of the sagittal and vertical axes in German are not bound by constraints of this type. Unlike English, their application is not bound by the requirement of a discrete Correlate provided at the entity under description. With entities such as villages and rooms, all axes can be rojected without the necessity of havin discrete entibes to mark the boundqes of &e spaces delimited by the individual falf axes. The zero point of the projected axes is located at the center of the space at the villa e, and the front section foms the side which is adjacent to the. front .side of the speafer, the back section is the section furthest away from this posibon. The

M . Carroll

40

front/back axis is thus rotated during this process, while the left right axis is not. What counts as the left and right side of the village corresponds to the speaker's left and right side. The orientation of the subject is thus a sufficient source in German when setting u spaces. The s atial domrun is not constrained by the object domain to the degree otserved in Engl?sh. The process of setting up spaces at a global level of organization for the description is dominated by the subject or origo in German. If the deictic origo is accorded the role of ensuring coherence in the frame of reference used to locate objects in the text, freedom from specific constraints defined in other domains will ensure its viability. Significantly, the axis which is consistently tracked in the frame of references used in German is the one which is mostly close1 related to the subject. Once the coordinate axes have been projected at a global level use of the lateral axis to describe locations at other entities within the village is constrained. If the viewpoint is left implicit, it coincides with the global viewpoint alread established in the frame of reference (use with row of buildings on the north side o t the village). Otherwise the axis is not applied at all ("neben" IS used) or the local viewpoint adopted is explicitly stated. The lateral axis is used unambiguously across all contexts, but this consistenc does not apply for the fronthack axis. Speakers can use the fronthack axis at indvidual ob'ects even though the space designated as "the front space" does not correspond to the "front space" desi nated by the original viewing point (see section on non-facing objects above). #ere we have the case where viewpoint adopted with the eminently s aker-related "left/right" is defined, thus avoiding ambiguity in the frame of regence used, but the axes which also correspond to features of objects (front/back) are not. While the full implications of such loopholes are not et entirely clear, what is clear at this point, however, is that while subjectrelated Xatures and associated s atial concepts (lefthght) are properly tracked in the frame of reference when descriling locations, the features which slip through, so to speak, are those which also relate to parts of objects (e.g., "the front side" at a town hall). Does the deictic origo lose track when subject and object features coincide at objects? (The space in front of the viewer facing the front side of a building such as a town hall, for example, is also the space adjacent to the intrinsic front side of the building, so the assignment for the front axis overlaps given an intrinsic or deictic perspective. There is no overlap for left or right sides.) The loo holes in the production process in each language form a perfect mirror image. b h i l e the subject-related lateral axis is tracked carefully in German, this axis is used ambiguously in the descriptions in English. The viewing point ado ted at individual buildin s, for example, IS not specified when the object domain is Aminant, and use of "le t/right" is thus ambiguous for the interlocutor since the left and right sides defined at this level depart from those defined deictically for the entire space at the villa e. Although there is a preference to use these axes lower level (and this may form a first preference when intrinsically in English at interpreting the associated expressions), this does not entirely resolve the ambiguities iven since they are also used deictically at a higher level in the frame of reference. contrast with the lateral axis, the fronthack axis is used consistently (intrinsic) in English.

B

8,

In German, on the other hand, the axis which is not tracked consistent1 is the fronthack axis. Its use is amb.iguous and there is no evidence that speders of German prefer either an intrinsic or deictic assignment when inte reting forms which denote front spaces. A series of s stematic studies on the use o';pthe system of coordinate axes by speakers of German g y Graf and Herrmann (1989) underline the preference for a canonical, facing position when using axes in isolated contexts.

Deictic and Intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions

41

However, the patterns observed in that study cannot be directly related to those under discussion here since the context, or more specifically, the overall frame of reference established, constitutes the crucial factor in determining the use of spatial concepts in complex texts. The conditions in the present case differ since the constraints on the use of the coordinates at individual objects arise in relation to the way the frame of reference is organized. Irrespective of the recise nature of the conditions which lead to inconsistencies in the use of e! fronthack axis, the patterns found across different frames of reference show that inconsistencies arise when linking spatial concepts anchored at different leveIs in a frame of reference. Built-in constraints in ensunn consistency fail at interestin ints. They reflect the way in which the spati3 domain is structured and w e er the concepts which do+nate when setting up s aces +sub'ect- or object;bas+. These opeons in perspechve taking are central to $e way in wkch informahon is conceptualized in the representahons underlying descriptive texts. If a lan uage or sub-system within a language is geared to an external reference point sucfi as the sub'ect/origo when setting up spaces, and if this int is required across widejy different contexts when structuring space for exampp" reference e, it will be useful to have expressions which easily fit into a number ok different contexts. Locative expressions in German which denote spaces based on the fronthack and yertical axes, for example, show a lower degree of lexical s cificit or semanhc transparency, com apl to En lish (for "vor" there is "in f%t of" at $.he fronl of', and the tem r$ before", k r example). We can assume that this is no coincidence given the di erent contexts onto which axes based on the speaker/origo are projected. (Adult learners of German do not ac uire use of expressions relating to the fronthack axis until advanced stages of bvelopment, compared to learners of French and English. Analysis of form/function ma pinss takes much longer when German is the target lan ?age (see Carroll & Bec er, in press). Since English tends to adopt an internal or &ect-based reference point when setting up spaces, we can see how lexical s cificity and the attention to ob'ect features in the locative ex ressions !n this Gguage is motivated, compared to German. Speakers of Englis cannot simply impose a structure on a s cific state of eatures of the affairs. They have to accomodate, to a greater degree, to specific p" situation and the entities under description when setting up spaces. This factor is reflected in the semantic transparency of the spatial expressions available, compared to German. Object-based constraints. are not .observ+ in German to the same degree. Preferred patterns of informahon orgamzahon in texts are thus relfected in the system of locative expressions in each language. Similar observations are reported in Slobin (1992) in a contrastive study of the use of motion verbs in English and Spanish, and range of verb forms which each language provides. In narrahves, speakers of Spanish rovide more background information on the setting in which a motion event will place, while specific information on the copse of the event (manner of motion, course or direction taken) are not encoded exphcitly to the same de ree as in English. Information which is encoded qxplicitly in verbs in English !s l e i to be inferred in Spanish from the rich descripuons proyided on the frame in which the motion event occurs. The meanin encoded in mohon verbs and directionals is less specific, and the number of di erent verb forms or particles that are used or are available to encode manner of motion and direction is lower, compared to English. These patterns of information organization across different languages show that the criteria. which define the applicability of spatial concepts in texts are set at the highest level in the planrung process.

ftr

F?

k)

1

&

B

The relevance of general principles of information organization was also shown for the categorization of units of information into topic and focus. com onents. Within the quaestio framework, topic and focus are information categones w ich are

K

42

M. Carroll

defined at the outset of the planning process. The patterns of topic/focus assignment described above for spatial concepts show how information organization cannot be adequately treated in terms of categories such as "given" and "new", where these categories are not related to the conce tual domains which serve to interrelate information in texts at a global level, a d t o text organization as a whole. The data analysis shows that the lines are clearly drawn along conceptual boundaries in topic focus assi nments, but that these shift in accordance with the nature of the dominant conceptuaf domain used in linearizing information and insuring cohesion in the text. Topic focus organization and the corresponding word order regularities cannot be explained without due attention to such factors. At a more eneral level, speakers of English are required to adopt an "objective" view ofthings when using spatial conce ts in context, compared to speakers of German. The spatial concepts used in Enghh are mediated by features of the entities under descnption and application is sanctioned at this level. The prefe+ option when sfructurin space accords full control to the object domain in estabhshmg and mmntsuning coference in texts. Given the dominant role of the deictic o r i ~ o ,on fhe other hand, speakers of German tend-to-adopt a sub'ective stand int in relahon to different tasks, thus ensuring the wabdi of the domain whicpensures cohesion across different tasks. The use of s ati concepts is not hindered by s ific features of the objects under description. h e preferred options in each case rmonstrate how we learn to "think for speaking" (see Slobin, 1991) @ven a s p i f i c language. While this does not mean that things cannot conveyed in other ways in these languages, the patterns described above in informahon organization show how preferences in conceptualizing information for expression are channeled.

9

References Becker, A. (1991). I-OkQlsierun sausdruecke im Sprachvergleich. Unpublished dissertation, Umversity of didelberg. Boers, F. (1987). Behind, beyond, under, underneath, beneath, below: A descriptive and explanatory study of spatial and non-spatial senses. Annverp Papers in Linguistics, 53. Carroll, M., & Becker, A. (in press). Reference to space in learner varieties. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult hguage acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, M., & Stutterheim, C. von (1992). Conceptualisation and linguistic re resentaiion of s atial configurations in discourse. Unpublished manuscript, Aversity of HeiLlberg. Ehrich, V., & Koster, C. (1983). Discourse organization and sentence form: The structure of room descriptions in Dutch. Discourse Processes, 6, 169-195. Ehrich, V. (1985). Zur Linguistik und Psycholinguistik der sekundaeren Raumdeixis. In H. Schweizer (Ed.), Sprache und Raum. Stuttgart: Metzeler. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Towards a descri tive framework for s atial deixis. In R.J. Jarvella & W . Klein (Eds.), Speec% place and action: ! d i e s in deixis and related topics. Chichester: John Wiley.

Deictic and Intrinsic Orientation in Spatial Descriptions

43

Garnham, A. (1989). A unified theory of the meaning of some spatial relational terms. Cognition, 31,45-60. Graf, R., Dittrich, S., m a n , E.,& Herrmann, T. (1991). Lokalisstionsse uenzen: Sprecherziele, Partnermerkmale und Objektbnstellationen (Teil 11). (xrbeiten aus dem Sonderforschungsbereich 245 "Sprache und Situation". Bericht Nr. 35). Umversitaet Mannheim: Lehrstuhl Psychologie III. Graf,

R., & Herrmann, T. (1989). Zur sekundaeren Rawnreferenz: Gegenueberobjekte bei nicht h n i s c h e r Betrachtelposition. (Arbeiten aus dem Sonderforschungsbereich 245 "Sprache.und Situation" Bericht Nr. 11). Universitaet Mannheim: Lehrstuhl Psychologie III.

Graumann, C. F. (1989). Perspective setting and taking in verbal interaction. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social contea3. Amsterdam: North Holland. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Herrmann, T. (1990). Vor, hinter, rechts. und links: das 6H-Modell. Psychologische Studien zum sprachlichen Lokalisieren. Zeitschnp firer Literaturwissenschqj und Linguistik, He# 78, 117-140.

9

Klein, W.,& Stutterheim, .C. von (1987). uaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzaehlungen. Linguistische Berichte, 32, 77-115.

2

Kohlmann, U., Scharnhorst, U:, Speck, A., & Stutterheim., C. von (1989. Textstruktur und S rachhche Form in Objektbeschreibungen. Deutsc e Sprache, 17, 137-168 Kuipers, B. (1978). Modelling spatial knowledge. Cognitive Science, 2, 129-153.

Lang, E. (1991 . A two-level approach to projective pre ositions. In G. Rauh (Ed.), Approac es to prepositions. Tuebingen: Gunter &IT.

1

Levelt, W. J. M. 1981). The speaker's linearization roblem. Philosophical Transactions ojthe Royal Society of London, B295, 3&-315. Levelt, W.J. M. (1984). Some perce tual limitations on talking about space. In A. van Doom, W. de Grind, & fkenderink (Eds , Proceedings of the Tenrh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Dor recht: Foris.

3

Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Led, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambndge Umversity Press. Slobin, D. I. (1991). Learning to think for speaking. Pragmatics, I, 7-25. Slobin, D. I. (1992). l b o ways to travel: Mrbs o motion in English and Spanish. Unpublished manuscript. University of Caliiornia, f Berkeley. Stutterheim, C. von, & Klein, W.(1989). Referential movement in descri tive and narrative discourse. In R. Dietnch & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), &nguage processing in social contat. Amsterdam: North Holland.

44

M.Carroll

Talmy, L. (1987). The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics @p. 165-205). Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Wunderlich, D. (1982). Sprache und Raum. Studium Linguistik, Ted I: 12, 1-19; Teil II: 37-59. Wunderlich, D., & Herweg, M. (1991). Lokale und Direktionale. In A. von Stechow &, D. Wunderiich (Eds.), Sernma’k. Ein intem’oiudes Handbuch der zeitgendssischenForschung . Berlin: de Gruyter.