A Contrastive Study of the Reference Frames and Spatial Expressions in Chinese and English

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.01.003

Abstract

Abstract: Research is quite rich in spatial language and cognition; however, there is little work done contrastively in Chinese and English. This study compares and analyzes the spatial expressions and frames of reference (FORs) used in Chinese and English discourse within Danziger's (2010) four way typology. The results show that there are likenesses and dissimilarities in spatial descriptions between the two languages. The likenesses are that both languages utilize the Figure Ground and Ground Figure sequence and the four FORs to describe the objects' location. The dissimilarities are as follows. First, the Ground Figure structures occur overwhelmingly in Chinese while the Figure Ground structures are prevailing in English. Second, absolute FORs are more preferred in Chinese, but object centered FORs more so in English. Third, in Chinese a postposition is normally required, with or without a preposition concurring, to localize the Figure, whereas in English a preposition is always used to specify the Figure's location. It is also suggested that the similarities in spatial descriptions between the languages are driven by universal cognition in space, yet the differences thus found are attributable to cognitive and semantic diversity.

CLC Number:

H319

LIU Lijin, LUO Huan. A Contrastive Study of the Reference Frames and Spatial Expressions in Chinese and English[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2016, 16(01): 23-30.

References

Brown, P. 2008. Up, down, and across the land: Landscape terms, place names, and spatial language in Tzeltal [J]. Language Sciences 30:151-81.
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A.& D. A. Irwin. 1993. Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above [J]. Cognition 46: 223-44.
Danziger, E. 2010. Deixis, gesture, and cognition in spatial frame of reference typology [J]. Studies in Language 34(1): 167-85.
Danziger, E. 2011. Distinguishing three-dimensional forms from their mirror-images: Whorfian results from users of intrinsic frames of linguistic reference [J]. Language Sciences 33: 853-67.
Greenberg, J. 1995. The diachronic typological approach to language [A]. In M. Shibatani & T. Bynon (eds.). Approaches to Language Typology [C]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 145-66.
Kry-Kastovsky, B. 1996. The linguistic, cognitive and cultural variables of the conceptualization of space [A]. In P. Martin & D. René (eds.). The Construal of Space in Language and Thought [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 329-44.
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. & D. P. Wilkins (eds.). 2006. Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-23.
O'Meara, C. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Seri [J]. Language Sciences 33: 1025-46.
Pederson, E., E. Danziger, S. C. Levinson, S. Kita, G. Senft & D. P. Wilkins. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization [J]. Language 74 (3): 557-89.
Pérez-Báez, G. 2011. Spatial frames of reference preferences in Juchitán Zapotec [J]. Language Sciences 33: 943-60.
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space [A]. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (eds.). Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application [C]. New York: Plenum Press. 225-82.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems [M]. Cambridge/Massachusetts/London: MIT Press.
Terrill, A. & N. Burenhult. 2008. Orientation as a strategy of spatial reference [J]. Studies in Language 32 (1): 93-116.
方经民. 1987. 汉语“左”“右”方位参照中的主观和客观:兼与游顺钊先生讨论[J]. 语言教学与研究 (3): 52-60.
刘宁生. 1994. 汉语怎样表达物体的空间关系 [J]. 中国语文(3): 169-79.
刘丹青. 2002. 汉语中的框式介词[J]. 当代语言学 (4): 241-53.
齐沪扬. 2009. 现代汉语的空间系统[J]. 世界汉语教学 (1): 22-33.
沈家煊、完权. 2009. 也谈“之字结构”和“之”字的功能[J]. 语言研究 (2): 1-12.
完权. 2010. 语篇中的参照体目标构式[J]. 语言教学与研究 (6): 38-45.

[1]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 35-41.
[2]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 72-81.
[3]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 82-91.
[4]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 92-96.
[5]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 97-102.
[6]	XU Ying, BI Yu, ZHANG Yaqing. A Review of Vocabulary and English for Specific Purposes Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 104-108.
[7]	GUO Hongjie, ZHANG Daqiu, DING Dong. An Integrated and Innovative Talents-fostering Model with Practices for FLL Discipline at Chinese Financial Universities in the New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 35-44.
[8]	PAN Haiying, LIU Shuling. Innovation and Development of College Foreign Languages Teaching in the Construction of New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 45-52.
[9]	MA Bingjun, CHANG Hui. Research on L2 Chinese Syntactic Processing: Theories and Empirical Studies [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 61-70.
[10]	TAO Jifen. POA-based Reading and Speaking Approach to Oral English Teaching [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 96-103.
[11]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 106-110.
[12]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 84-95.
[13]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 96-105.
[14]	Lihe HUANG. Foreign Language Teaching and Research in the Post- pandemic Era: A Multimodal Paradigm [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 75-85.
[15]	Yongyan ZHENG. Multilingual Research in a Post-COVID Era: Reflection and Prospection [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 64-74.