1. LANGUAGE & CULTURE: Are there Differences in the Conceptualization of Landscape and Space? David M. Mark, University at Buffalo

2. Cultural Differences Is GIS software biased toward the ‘culture’ that produced it? Or is it based on universal aspects of human conceptualization, computers, and geographic reality? These questions were often asked, in print and in talks, in the 1990s, but seldom answered

3. COSIT’95:

4. How significant are cultural differences in Spatial Cognition? Montello (1995) reviewed the topic What does it mean to claim that there are cultural or linguistic effects in Spatial Cognition? The ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’: Does the conceptual structure of language influence thinking?

5. What would it take to demonstrate Cultural Differences in Spatial Cognition? What ‘counts’ as “Cognition”? What ‘counts’ as “Spatial”? What ‘counts’ as “Cultural” or “Linguistic” difference in “Spatial Cognition”? Is there evidence that is so good that it would convince a (typical) psychologist?

6. Possible Kinds of Cultural/Linguistic Differences Reference Frames Spatial Relations Geographic Categories Wayfinding and Landmarks? (Other classes of possible differences?)

7. Re-stating the Question Are cross-linguistic and/or cross-cultural differences in spatial cognition greater than within-language and within-culture differences?

8. Frames of Reference Whether speakers mainly use a –relative, ego-based Frame of Reference, –a cardinal-direction/or landmark-based absolute Frame of Reference, or –an object-based, intrinsic based Frame of Reference –If more than one, which frames in which situations? This also influences how they solve and conceptualize non-linguistic spatial tasks

9. Frames of Reference In some cultures, people use an absolute or cardinal directions reference frame even indoors

10. Mean agreement values for 'cruzar' against 'crosses' (N = 135 to 144) Spatial Relations

11. Spatial Relations in English and Korean Speakers of each language probably distinguish hundreds of ‘spatial relations’ Each languages groups those into perhaps a dozen of so terms Languages group relations differently!

12. English “in”“on”

13. Korean

14. Korean & English But do Korean speakers think that these situations are more similar to each-other than English speakers do? We don’t know!

15. Categories "Of all the countless possible ways of dividing entities of the world into categories, why do members of a culture use some groupings and not use others? What is it about the nature of the human mind and the way that it interacts with the nature of the world that gives rise to the categories that are used?” (Malt, 1995, p 85)

16. (Geo)Spatial Categories The question applies both to categories for spatial relations and to categories for spatial objects It also applies to the delimitation of object-like features from continuous geospatial fields

17. Where are the categories? Categories in the world (“Cutting nature at its joints”)? Or Categories from the mind? Or Categories in the words! "When I use a word, … it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." (Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass”)

18. Categories “Psychologists are ultimately interested in concepts, that is, the mental representation that underlies the observed categories, and they have used a variety of measures to uncover different aspects of the mental representations” “Anthropologists, on the other hand, have focused primarily on analysis of the categories, that is, the sets of objects that are treated as equivalent and given a common name” (Malt, 1995, “Category Coherence …” p 134)

19. “… treated as equivalent and given a common name” A central research question for me is, which geographical entities are “treated as equivalent and given a common name,” and which are treated as different, placed into different categories, and labeled with different terms? And, which geographical entities are extracted (by human cognitive processes) from the continuous surface of the Earth, to even be considered to be entities?

20. ‘Natural Kinds’ in the Landscape ‘Natural kinds’ may not exist at all, but there are strong approximations in some domains, such as plants and animals But there are few if any phenomena at landscape scale that come even close to being ‘natural kinds’ Thus, there is more opportunity for cross- language differences in conceptualization and categorization in the geographic domain

21. Landscape Categories For 8 years now, I have been conducting research on landscape categories implicit in landscape terms in two indigenous languages (in Australia and the U.S.A.) has shown that the categories associated with common terms in these languages do not ‘line up’ Furthermore, the landscape categories within each of these languages are different from the landscape categories inherent in English

22. Example 1: French and English Categorize Standing Water Bodies Differently (Mark, COSIT’93) No Outlet

23. English No Outlet

24. French No Outlet

25. Marnda Language(left)(right) EnglishHillMountain Different Categories NavajoYisk‘idDził Different Categories YindjibarndiMarnda Same Category Example 2

26. Granularity of Categories If all we know is that something is a marnda, we do not know whether it is a mountain or a hill or a mesa We know less about it that we would know by knowing that it is a hill

27. Bikooh Language(left)(right) (American) EnglishArroyo, Dry wash Canyon Different Categories NavajoBikooh Same Category? YindjibarndiWundu (not a feature)?? Example 3

28. River (in English) Oxford English Dictionary: A river is “a large stream of water…” The water, the bed, and the banks are (perhaps!) parts of the river Example 4

29. Parts of a River (American English; 23 participants) water9 mouth9 bank6 bed3 delta3 source3 current2 fish2 rock2 tributaries2 body2 (no answer)2

30. What is a river? The fact that a river is still present even when there is no water in it means that the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong!

31. A “wundu” in Yindjibarndi country

32. Yindjibarndi: Wundu = River? No! Wundu refers to a stream channel, arroyo, or wash Wundu is usually dry If water is present, it is in the wundu, it is not ‘part of’ the wundu Yindjibarndi has several terms for the water, depending on flow intensity

33. Yindjibarndi: Flow Intensity mankurdu if flowing deep and fast yijirdi if flowing shallow and gently bawa if it is just lying there temporarily yinda if it is permanent

34. Thardarr The Yindjibarndi word thardarr refers to “A place on a cliff where water sometimes falls, whether the water is flowing or not.” When water is flowing, the water is manggurdu (flood) or yijirdi (trickle)!

35. Back to GIS If there really are significant cross-cultural or cross-linguistic differences in “spatial cognition”, what are the implications for GIS? If the “GIS” is the ‘empty’ software, maybe only differences in spatial relations would have GIS implications Differences in entity types have implications for Spatial Data Infrastructures

36. Multilingual Ontology of Landscape? Within a language, the taxonomies and partonomies for landscape appear to be shallow Across languages, the taxa do not line up, so if we just intersect the categories we would get a combinatorial explosion Environmental modeling tends to use continuous fields of qualities of location; it is not obvious how to express those in DOLCE

37. Thank you for your attention! Questions and Discussion?