Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- List of abbreviations
- 1 A foundational cultural model in Tongan language, culture, and social relationships
- 2 The Kingdom of Tonga: country, people, and language
- Part I Space in Tongan language, culture, and cognition
- 3 Space in Tongan language
- 4 Space in Tongan cognition
- 5 Tongan culture and space
- Part II Radiality
- Part III Radiality in social relationships
- References
- Author Index
- Subject Index
5 - Tongan culture and space
from Part I - Space in Tongan language, culture, and cognition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 August 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- List of abbreviations
- 1 A foundational cultural model in Tongan language, culture, and social relationships
- 2 The Kingdom of Tonga: country, people, and language
- Part I Space in Tongan language, culture, and cognition
- 3 Space in Tongan language
- 4 Space in Tongan cognition
- 5 Tongan culture and space
- Part II Radiality
- Part III Radiality in social relationships
- References
- Author Index
- Subject Index
Summary
Culture and space
In the previous two chapters, I suggested how a number of factors such as complexity of mental operations, perceptual input versus short-term memory, and small-scale versus large-scale space play a relevant role in affecting choices of specific frames of reference for Tongan speakers. In addition, I introduced a clear tendency to privilege different FoRs in linguistic production in small-scale space (relative) and performance in the three psychological ‘frame of reference’ tasks in the same space (absolute). In other communities (i.e., Guugu Yimithirr, Australia; Kilivila, Trobriand Islands; and Tamil, India), Levinson (1996a, 2003), Senft (1994), and Pederson (1993, 1995) administered the same tasks (linguistic and psychological) and obtained very different results.
In speakers of Guugu Yimithirr, a high congruence between the use of the absolute FoR in the language tasks and the psychological tasks was found (Levinson, 1996a). In the second group, Kilivila, no specific preference was detected in either group of tasks (Senft, 1994). And finally, two different groups of Tamil speakers, one urban and one rural, were found to privilege either a relative or an absolute FoR, respectively. Both groups were consistent in both type of tasks (Pederson, 1993, 1995).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Space, and Social RelationshipsA Foundational Cultural Model in Polynesia, pp. 105 - 170Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009