1

Andrej A. Kibrik(aakibrik@gmail.com)

Space in Alaska:

Cognitive variations on Upper KuskokwimAthabaskan

Time and Space in St. PetersburgMarch 29, 2012

2

Upper Kuskokwim

3

What’s space in the Upper Kuskokwim like?

4

5

Basic information about Upper Kuskokwim Athabaskan (UKA)

About 25 speakers left out of the population of about 200

Most speakers reside in the village of Nikolai Prior work – Collins and Petruska 1979 Kibrik’s field trips in 1997, 2001, 2009, and 2010 As in other Athabaskan:

polysynthesis highly complex verb morphology and

morphophonemics

6

7

Welcome to Nikolai

8

Domains under consideration

Dimensional directional (DD) adverbs Riverine orientation Elevational orientation Relativity of spatial orientation

Conceptualization of movement Absolute vs. relative frame of reference

9

Data

Natural discourse recordings (transcribed) Folk stories Personal stories Conversation Interview at school

Elicited examples

10

Dimensional directionalsnoygi digheloye hidenin ghelheˀ yats’in

nehwdadidził ts’eˀuphill mountain slope perhaps other.side

brush.was.piled.up and

notsints’eˀ nehulkanh ts’eˀ degheneˀ <…>downhill they.were.pushing.earth Comp he.used.to.say

yiˀots’ digheloye denin yihw hulkanh <…>from.uphill mountain slope there they.ploughed.out

nodigw hwk’oy hwts’inh noˀin yotsin hidenin hwdinelkanh<…>

uphill ridge from further downhill slope it.was.leveled.out

11

Schematic representation of the UKA native area

12

Riverine orientation:upriver vs. downriver Roots:

-n- ‘upriver’ -d- ‘downriver’

Basic examples y-o-n-aˀ zido ‘He lives upriver’

Pref-Pref-upriver-Id he.lives

n-o-d-o-ts’ tekashPref-Pref-downriver-Id-El you.paddle‘Come this way (by boat, from downriver)’

13

Elevational orientation:uphill vs. downhillRoots:

-n(w)g- ‘uphill’ -ts- ‘downhill’

Basic examples: n-o-ts-in tighisyoł

Pref-Pref-downhill-Id I.will.go‘I will go downhill’

minh y-o-ng-w-tlake Pref-Pref-uphill-Id-Punct‘The lake is up there’

14

Templatic morphologyA B C D E F

Referential Prefix Prefix Root Idiosyncratic suffix

Localization

hw(areal)

y (default)n (default)d (relative)

o (default)

d (downriver)n (upriver)ts (downhill)n(w)g (uphill)

oˀaˀini/w

w(gh) (regional)(e)t (punctual)(e)ts’(eˀ) (elative)ts’in (adessive)

ghw (diminutive)

Close to 100 forms just from these four roots

15

Relativity 1: deictic orientation X is at the river bank, Y is away from the

river:

X (= origo) speaks to Y: n-o-ng-i tighisyoł ‘I will go uphill’

Pref-Pref-uphill-Id I.will.go

Y (= origo) speaks to X: y-o-ts-ets’ teyosh

Pref-Pref-downhill-El you.go‘Come here (lit. from downhill)’

16

Relativity 2: relevance of scale Local scale: y-o-ng-i si-kayih hi-ts’eˀ

notighisdołPref-Pref-uphill-Id my-house Ar-to I.will.go‘I will go to my house’

Grand scale: dotron’ n-o-ts-in nonot’wh

raven Pref-Pref-downhill-Id it.flies‘A raven flies away from the mountains’

17

Local vs. grand scale

rivermountain

s

yongi ‘uphill’

notsin ‘downhil

l’

local slope

grand slope

18

Conclusions on dimensional directionals DDs display a remarkable variety of forms DDs are used in discourse to provide a detailed

description of actual location/movement Precise specification of locations, directions,

and paths constitutes a salient component of ethnic cognitive representation

DDs represent location and movement not in an absolute way, but in a relative way, with respect to a frame of reference: deictic or scale-based

19

Conceptualization of movement across spaceClassificatory verb rootsConsider four stereotypical meanings

(i) ‘lie/sit’ (ii) ‘move/fall’ (iii) ‘throw/drop’ (iv) ‘bring/carry’

20

Different classificatory roots for (i) ‘lie’ and (ii) ‘move’/‘fall’

Compact roundish (rock)

Stiff elongated (gun)

Multiple (gloves)

Animate (baby)

(i) ‘lie’ -ˀo -to -la -ta

(ii) ‘move’/‘fall’ -ninh -gheł -dak -yo

NB: classification in groups (i) and (ii) is similar, but not identical

21

‘Throw’/‘drop’(iii) verbs are causatives from ‘move’/‘fall’ (ii)

a. dichinh no-di-ghe-ø-ghiłstick down-Pref-Md-NormVal-SEO.move.Pf ‘the stick fell down’

b. dichinh no-di-ghi-ł-ghiłstick down-Pref-Md-[1Sg.Nom-]Caus-SEO.move.Pf‘I dropped the stick’

‘Throw/drop’ means ‘cause to move/fall’‘Carry/bring’ may also be expected to be construed as

‘cause to move’

22

However, ‘carry/bring’ (iv) verbs’ roots coincide with those of the ‘lie’ (i) verbs

a. tudzile zi-ø-tonh ice.pickMd-NormVal-SEO.lie.Pf

‘the ice pick lies’

b. tudzile ni-s-ø-tonhice.pick Md-1Sg.Nom-NormVal-SEO.lie.Pf‘I brought an ice pick’

‘Carry’/‘bring’ does not mean ‘cause to move’Completely different verb rootsNo increase in transitivity

23

Relationships between four stereotypical meanings

(i) ‘lie/sit’ (ii) ‘move/fall’ (iii) ‘throw/drop’ (iv) ‘bring/carry’

+Caus

24

Explanation Throwing or dropping is conceptualized as

causing independent movement of an object In contrast, in carrying/bringing the patient

moves together with the agent In carrying/bringing, the patient remains at

rest relative to the agent ‘A carries X’ essentially means ‘X is at rest

within the frame of reference of moving A’ The idea of movement is rendered not by the

root but by derivational or inflectional affixes

25

Drop

26

Carry

27

Athabaskan relativity Carrying and dropping may

seem similar actions of movement causation from point 1 to point 2, from an objective perspective.

But these types of movements are conceptualized differently, in a relativist fashion

Athabaskans have known long before Galileo and Einstein: object location/motion is different depending on the frame of reference

28

Proviso: Animacy against relativity Carried animate patients are treated

simultaneously as being at rest and moving independently Verb roots: same as in ‘lie’ verbs Increase in transitivity, causation of movement

a. to-ø-tał‘he will lie down’ Fut-NormVal-An.lie.Prog

b. si-gh-e-ł-tał ‘you carry me’ 1Sg.Acc-Md-2Sg.Nom-Caus-An.lie.Prog

Animate referents have their inherent frame of reference and their physical movement is understood as linguistic movement as well, even when they are at rest relative to the agent

So in the Atabaskan conceptual system relativity of motion is partly overruled by animacy

29

Neurophysiological parallel

Andreeva and Malinina in press: “Is the human a moving frame of reference?”

30

Conclusions on conceptualization of movement Movement of object through space is

conceptualized differently depending on the frame of reference

Independently moving objects have their own frame of reference

Objects’ movement together with an agent is conceptualized as being at rest with respect to the agent’s frame of reference

Animate referents have their own frame of reference, even when moving together with an agent

31

General conclusions Conceptualization of space is largely relative The notion of frame of reference is crucial

for understanding the semantics of space in Athabaskan

Lakoff and Núñez (2000) have demonstrated how scientific mathematical concepts grow from the basic embodied concepts

Likewise, ideas of theoretical physics are based on deep-ingrained notions

Exotic languages may reveal such notions, not expressed transparently in the languages spoken by most physicists

32

Tsenˀan! Thanks to all speakers of Upper Kuskokwim

who contributed evidence used above Thanks to many individuals and

organizations that helped to collect and process the data, in chronological order: Michael Krauss James Kari Raymond Collins Alaska Native Language Center Fulbright Program Endangered Language Fund Bernard Comrie MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig Russian Foundation for the Humanities National Science Foundation

33

If you think that the Alaskan space is very remote... just cross the Neva river and visit the

Kunstkamera