iese rock climbers'use of deictic verbs of motion' - CiteSeerX

Pragmatics 14:4.409438 (2004) International Pragmatics Association

CO-CONSTRUCTION OF A MENTAL MAP IN SPATIAL DISCOIIRSE: A CASE STUDY OF JAPA|IESE ROCK CLIMBERS'USE OF DEICTIC VERBSOF MOTION' Kunivoshi Kataoka

Abstract By focusing on a wayfinding discussion by Japaneserock climbers, this case study shows that even a short segment of discourse can sufficiently embed several layers of "denotational" and "interactional" texts (Silverstein 1997) that emerge through discursive interactions. On the denotational level, there appearsto be a highly consistent pattern in which iku'go'tokens are used in the earlier phase of the segmentand kuru'come' tokens are used in the latter, with both tokens highly systematically distributed and aligned through the conceptual "equivalence" (Jakobson 1960) of deictic tokens. This pattern also evokes and resonates with the interactional text, which has been indexically constructed by the manipulation of the time-space deixis. I show that social configurations can be tacitly and immanently createdwith these deictic tokens in interaction, and I stress the importance of studying the sequential vicissitudesof penpectival maintenance and shifts in discourse. Keywords: Deictic verbs of motion, DenotationaVinteractional texts, Frames of reference, Poetics.

l.Introduction Mental imagery of the surrounding environment, whether rendered depictive or propositional,is often comparedto a map that coordinatesour spatial positioning and movement(e.g.,Downs & Stea 1973;Kosslyn 1990;Golledge 1999).Although such a map is usually assumed to be an individual construct, I would rather focus on '

I wish to thank Jane Hill, Adrienne Lehrer, and Tsuyoshi Ono for their invaluable comments and suggestionson the earlier versions of the paper. Especially, I owe much to Wataru Koyama for the indexical analysis of the "interactional text" in the data. I also benefited from various comments and questionsfrom the audience of the'Spatial Relations in Natural Language" Panel organized by Hubert Cuyckens and Ldszl6 I. Koml6si at the 7th IPrA Conference in Budapest, Hungary, and also from Stephen Levinson, Sotaro Kita, Gunter Senft, Sachiko lde, and other participants in my workshop presentation at the Mm Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. My gratitude also extends to Ray Hardesty for careful editing, and to participants at the 6th Meeting of the Japanese Association of SociolinguisticSciencesand the 21" National Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan for useful comments. Finally, I would like to note that this study was supported by Graduate College Dean's Fellowships 1996-1997 (Graduate College, University of Arizona) and Grant-in-Aid for ScientificResearch(B) (l) (No. 15320054\,2A0V2003 (the JapaneseMinistry of Education, Science, Sports,and Culture). All misconceptions and errors that may remain are of course my own.

410

Kuniyoshi Kataoks

cooperativemanagementof spatial imagery in this sfudy.2Thus I use the term "mental map" rather broadly here to addresssocio-cognitiveconfigurationsmotivated by spatiotemporal imagery and constructedby the correspondinglinguistic tokens. For this pufposeI will carefully examinereferential and non-referentiallinguistic tokens - especiallyindexicals- in terms of "poetic" (Jakobson1960)and "interactional" (Silverstein1985, 1997,n.d.) alignmentof text emergingin sifir. The interactionaltext, much like mental imagery, immanently underlies the 'odenotational" (semanticoreferential) text and characteristicallyem€rgesthrough a valued alignment of deictic tokens. The use of deixis in naturally occurring discoursehas been regarded as the battleground of what is denotationally represented and connotatively presupposed/created (Silverstein 1976),and it has beenrepeatedlyclaimed that even the spatio-temporaldeixis is inevitably meshed with interpersonalconfigurations created Haviland 1996,2000; amongdiscourseparticipants(Levinson1983;Hanks 1990, 19921' Silverstein1995, 1997; Kataoka 1998; Enfield 2003, Wortham 2003, to name only a few). In other words, the surface indexical configurations, here realized as a poetic alignment of deictics, may inexorably subsume some social orders and inequalities tacitly formulated in ongoing discourse. A covert assumption here is that, however seemingly physically grounded a spatio-temporaldeixis may be, it servesas a trace that reachesthe underlying social values embraced, disseminated, and re-created zrmong discourse participants in a particular "indexical ground" (Hanks 1992). One such example of deixis is "deictic verbs of motion" (hereafterDVMs), which often embedvalue-ladeninformation about the Speakerand the Addresseevis-ir-vis the source and the goal of motion, which are variably empathized.In order to focus on this aspectof deixis, I specifically examine ik-u'go' and larru'come' in the wayfinding discourseby the recurrentuseof Japanese, rock climbers. I argue that these DVMs immanently index diflerential epistemological understandingsthat codiff both denotational and interactional values of the sociocognitive space.

l.l. Deictic verbs of motion (DVM{ and interactional significance The construction of spatial mental imagery is contingent upon the positioning of the viewer in relation to the surroundingenvironment, and thus it mainly determinesthe choice of COME and GO.'Since mental imagery customarilyevokes certain spatial configurations and motion events, it is often assumed to induce systematic and schematicextensionsof caseframe strucfures,metaphoricalexpressions,and linguistic constructions(e.g., Fillmore 1982a; Lakoff 1987; Langacker 1987). Also, spatial motions could be either physical or "fictive" (Talmy 1996;Matsumoto 1996),and have the (imaginary) energy transmission. Local semantic roles encoded by such energy 'Such a mental (or cognitive) map was previously defined as "an intemalized reflection and reconstruction of space in thought" (Hart & Moore 1973: 248) and was characterized by "a series of psychological fransformations by which an individual [italics mine] acquires, stores, recalls, and decodes information about the relative locations and attributes of the phenomena in his [sic] everyday spatial environment" (Downs & Stea 1973:7). t Here, I use the uppercase COME and GO as representing semantically primitive, languageindependent notions. They can be a matrix for English come andgo, Japanesekuru and iftz, Indonesian datangandpergi, German kommenandgehen,etc. SeeGoddard(1997) forelaborationofthisidea.

Co-construction of a mental map in spatial discourse

4l I

transmissionscan thus be representedby SOURCE, PATH, and GOAL (Fillmore 1997 [1971], 1982b),often with a less accuratecandidate,DIRECTION (e.g.,Lakoff 1987: 275; Jackendoff1983: 168) as well. To specify these semanticcategoriesof space,one needsto identifr the viewer's origo or the "home base" (Fillmore 1997 |971]) because its positioning affects the features of a motion event such that the motion from a "source"could be at the sametime motion toward a "goal," dependingupon which end of the segmentthe viewer happensto be more affiliated with. Therefore, the notion of origo can be adequatelypresupposedand achievedby the useof COME and GO. One of the major theoriesof DVMs was formulatedby Fillmore (1997 [971]), whoseapproachrelies on appropriatenessconditions for linguistic expressionsincluding come and go - and by extension talre and bring. His approach has been extremely influential and has motivated numerous cross-linguistic studies of motion verbs (Macaulay 1982; Merrifield 1992; Williams 1996) and their relation to temporal reasoning(Taylor 1988).Thesestudieshave elaboratelydecomposedspacesemanticsin termsof whether or not the moving entity was oriented to the speaker,the hearer,or the projectedhome base. They revealed that some conditions required for COME in one languagemay sometimes correspond to the conditions for GO in other languages, allowingfor cross-linguisticvariation in terms of which portion of spatial motion may becut out to be encodedin the motion verbs.a Another approachis to seek cornmon semantic elementsof COME and GO in terms of metalinguistic decomposition into, for example, 'Natural Semantic Metalanguage"(Goddard 1997; Goddard & Wierzbicka 1994), which is claimed to be applicableto every language.Experiments(e.9., Wilkins & Hill 1995; Senft 2000) have shownthat the spatial motion representedby GO is not necessarilydeictic given the possibilities of neutral progression neither o'from," nor "toward," the discourse participants.Thus, it hasbeen generallyestimatedthat COME and GO may respectively be glossedas "goal-orientedmotion toward the speaker"and "source-orientedmotion NoTtowardthe speaker." In addition, COME and GO often emerge suffused with emotive tints. For instance,evaluative connotations are claimed to be attachedto come and go (Clark 1974)- €.8.,(arguably)positive connotationsfor "come" as in "The airplanecamedown safely." vs. negative connotations for "go" as in "The airplane went down safely." Thesedifferenceswere re-analyzedby Radden (1996) in terms of four types of image schemasidentified byJohnson (1987) "uniform just motion/compulsion/diversion /termination"- and they have been classified as representativeand universal construals of imageschema. Overall, thesestudiesexaminedthe ways in which the appropriatenessconditions of DVMs are semanticallyparameterized,and such conditions were analyzedin terms of (1) presuppositionsabout the potential presence(or absence)of the speakeror the hearerat the Sourceor Goal, (2) the portion of the motion eventsto be encodedin (or outside)the lexicon, (3) the evaluativeconnotationsthat are associatedwith COME and n For some languages, however, deictic motion is not a simple concept separately encoded in COME and GO. Deictic motions may be combined with a (non-)directional sense of arrival, a return path, and tense/aspect.Intensive work has been done in the Mixtec and Zapotec languages with regard to these aspects of motion verbs (e.g., Speck & Pickett 1976; Macaulay 19821'Menifield 1992; Williams 1996) and in some other languages(e.g., Ohye 1975; Kuno & Kaburaki 1911; and Morita 1977 on Japanese;Grenoble 1989 on Russian and Polish). These studies have revealed an intricate ramification of the space-time-viewpoint compound (see also Taylor 1988).

412

Kunioshi Kataoka

GO, and (4) the types and classificationof deictic image schemas,often in relation to othermotion verbs such as take andbring, give andreceive,arrive andleave. Linguistic studiesalong this line of researchhave attemptedto reveal the underlying mechanisms and default conditions for the DVM usage, but few of them have intensively investigated the spontaneousactivation of indexical values that are cooperatively achievedin a streamof discourse,much lesshow the deictic managementof theseverbs relatesto the social order and immanentinteractionalsignificance.

1.2. Signiticance of deixis in interactian As Jakobson (1970: cf. Silverstein 1976) noted before, deictics (or "shifters") essentially encode the properties of the speaker "I" - possibly variably voiced and identified - in the immediate speechcontext, and they are thus unavoidably social. The speakership,usually achievedby the fnst-personpronoun "I," is essentiallymulti-vocal (cf. Volosinov 1973) and is a reflection of multiple personae,diverting into (at least) several discursive stancesrealized as, for example, the animator (utterer), the author (composer),and/or the principal (responsibleparty) (Goffrnan 1981), as well as the hearership variably conceived of as, soy, addressee,ratified hearer, by-stander, eavesdropper,etc. (see Levinson 1988 for further decompositions).These differential stancesmay be, at least partially, representedthrough the use of DVMs becausethey could variably denote and connote the source orientation (typically the speaker),the goal orientation (typically the hearer), and other orientation (e.g., a third-person participant). To use the Silversteinianparlance,they are both "referential" and "nonreferential" indexes in that they reveal the covert and overt relationships among the discourseparticipants.In other words, the indexical grourd signified by these verbs is essentially sociocentric, and it is not perpetually static but rather constantly shifting during interaction (seealso Hanks 1990, 1992).In addition, the maintenance,shift, and creation of the indexical ground may not necessarilybe random but rather systematic and poetic (in the sense of Jakobson 1960) in accordance with interactionally coordinated"ritual" processesembracedby the participants. Silverstein(1976, 1985, 1995, 1997,tr.d.),for example,posited(at least)two typesof "text" - "denotational" and "interactional." The organizationof referentialtexts is partially, if not completely, correlatedwith indexical types such as speechparticipant pronouns, demonstratives,status terms, tenses and moods, and deictic verbs to the extent that relevant indexical tokens reflect the speaker's relative psycho-physical distancewith respectto the referent.On the other hand, such a referential text does not necessarilycoincide with the interactionaltext. The latter embedsthe former and serves as the mafrix that will engenderprototypical interpretationsof denotationaVreferential tokens, but it still lurks behind the referential text and reflects something more or somethingelse.Given sucha relationship,referential/denotational tokenscould be best conceptualizedas projected from the interactional text that immanently naturalizes discursive interactions. And it is deixis that bridges the literal interpretation of an utterance(i.e., denotationaltext) and the contextualemergenceof covert social relations irmong participants (i.e., interactionaltext) through the inter-subjectivevalorization of epistemologicaldistances(or "footing") in the indexical ground. Therefore,in addition to the lexical and syntactic cohesionbasedon a referentialtext (e.g., Halliday & Hasan 1976), we could also think of the coherenceand vicissitudesof the interactionaltext,

Co-construction of a mental map in spatial discourse

413

which reflect the participants' epistemologicaland social stancesin the ongoing verbal exchange. With this referentialdeicticdiscursive nexus, one can trace down to the underlying social order by ernploying the deictic expressionsas the medium through which to glimpse the interactively constructedtext impticitly embracedby discourse participants.Put differently, deictics not only contribute to the construction of the referential interpretation of text but also help reflect on it the presupposedsocial relationsamongdiscourseparticipants.

1.3.Spatial perspective-tokin g Equally relevant to the following analysis are the types of spatial perspective-taking becausethe variable uses of COME and GO representdifferent spatial configurations and stancestoward the (co-constructed)mental map. A cunently acceptedview of spatial perspective-taking mainly comprises three types of "frame of reference" (hereafterFoR): Relative (viewer-centered),intrinsic (object-centered),and absolute (environment-centered/ (Levinson 2003). Theseperspectivesare not randomly assigned to given spatial environmentsbut may incorporate particular propertiesor even allow mutualimportationsin dynamicmanners. For example, Taylor & Tversky (1992U 1992b) defrned two context-sensitive FoRs in spatial descriptions:A route perspectiveand a survey perspective.A route perspectiveis characterizedby a mental tour of the environment with the changing perspectives of the investigator/explorer(as typically seen in Linde & Labov 1975; Klein 1983;Grenoble 1995; Kataoka to appear).This perspectivethus usually includes variableorigos and is intrinsic to the moving entity, including the speaker-navigator. A survey type is different from a route tour in that it is more like a detached, bird's-eyeview of the environment,relating nodes and landmarksfrom a higher-order point of view. The survey perspective is also characterizedby a fixed and stable viewpoint,and thus it often evokesa survey on a map. Here, the origo is not with the speaker-navigator but with the omniscient narrator/describerof the environment. Its perspectiveis usually basedon the environment's absolute FoR (see also Kataoka to appear). Taylor & Tversky (1996) further differentiatedone more intermediatetype - the gazeperspective.The gaze perspective,like the survey perspective,is characterizedby the scanningof an environment from a single, fixed point of view (e.g. Levelt 1996; Ehrich & Koster 1983; Shanon 1984). However, being usually applied to a less expansiveenvironment than the survey perspective,this type is normally associated with the viewer's relative frame of referenceand can be most efficiently utilized for relatingobjectsin a given environment.Using this framework, the three types of spatial perspective-takingmay be consideredconceptually equivalent to Levinson's (2003) coordinatesystem(if we regardthe moving agent's "tour" perspectiveas equivalentto the "intrinsic" perspectiveof a relatum/referenceobject). Table I is a partial summary presented in Taylor & Tversky 1996,Levinson2003,and Golledge1991.

414

Kuniyoshi Kataoka

Table 1. ThreeTypes of Perspective-Taking ROUTE (onroun/wenrNc) Perspective Relations Can be seen in one view? Single Origo?

GP\ZE

SIjRVEY

Outside (from above), vertical.fixed Relateobjectswith respecttc Relate objects with respect Relate objects in terms of absolutedirections the addressee to oneanother Yes Yes No Within, changing

Outside (on the eye level), horizontal- fixed

No Exp I oration/navi gation

Yes

Yes

Descriptivetype

Gazelattention shift

Terms of reference

LRFB

LRFB

Bird's-eyeview NSEW(UP/DOWN)

Not necessarily

Not necessarily

Relative

Absolute

Declarative knowledge

Declarative, knowledee

Sp.'s previousvisual Necessary input In Levinson's frame Intrinsic? ofref. Representation type Procedural knowledge of knowledge

configurational

1.4. Purpose of study Below I will presenta casestudy of the systematicdistribution of JapaneseDVMs ift-z and ku-ru vis-i-vis the physical and social conhgurationsof discourseparticipants.The use of the DVMs will be shown to correlate not only with the referential organization of a (Hallidayan) "cohesive" text but also with a well-organizedinteractionaltext lurking behindthe indexical tokens employedby expert and non-expertparticipantsin the given interaction.Aligning myself with the discourseanalytic, social-constructiveorientation, I will demonstrate the ways in which certain DVMs achieve the intersubjective constructionof a poetic and interactivetext of social order, alignment,and resistance. More specifically, my objective is to argue, by focusing on the real-time expositionof past experience,that the effect of using suchDVMs is both "denotational" and "interactional" (Silverstein 1985, 1997; n.d.), which means that these verbs may servenot only as indexical cohesiondevicesand topic botrndarymarkers,by binding the speaker'sperspectivesto salient vantagepoints,but also as covert embodimentsof the underlying social order and evolving human relations in the collaborative effort of imagery building. I will also reveal that the use of COME and GO in the current text is highly systematicallycoordinatedin terms of a "poetic" structure- even in this multiparty, heavily overlappeddiscussion- to constructa sharedmental map.

2.D*a 2.1. Background The data come from the discussionthat spontaneouslydevelopedamong nine Japanese rock climbers when they tried to identiff the original route that some of them should have climbed earlier that day. It occurred in a base c€rmptent where all of the

Co-construction of a mental map in spatial discourse

415

participants in the climbs (eight climbers) and a newcomer to the base camp gathered for dinner.Excluding the time for dinner, the discussionlastedabout 19 minutes. The discussioninitially concernedthe causeof the 60-foot fall that one of the climbers had unexpectedlyexperiencedon M Route on the Center Face of Peak 4 (Figure 1).5(Fornrnately, she suffered no major injuries - only several bruises.) The danger-of-deathaccident occurred right after the climber went through the crux of the route.Later, in the base camp tent, the climbers set out to identiff where the accident actuallyhappened,becauseno other membersof the group saw the sceneof the fall. By exchanginginformation about the scene,the location of the fall was pinpointed to be nearthe "X" rnark in Figure 1. At that moment, only IM, who is an expert in the area andthe in-coming member to the base camp that day, questionedthe authenticity of the routethey claimed. His commentsled to avid exchangesof spatial information on the route.Finally, it becameclear that the route they had climbed was at least a variation of the original M Route,or possibly even a totally different one. This finding was obtained through various identification processessuch as multiple perspectivesfrom different anglesof the scene and descriptionsof the geographic relationships adjacent to the route.

rl

|

-/

Clntenhace 'l \t t

M \

! tH-S

RouIe fRoute

Figure 1. Schematicmap of Peak4 and M and H-S Routes The discussionconsistsof a tripartite macrostructureaboutthe M Route,the H-S Routes,and related locations. Divided into the three major sections, it respectively concemsan accident - i.e., the fall of a member - and identification of the location (Section1), the correct line of the M Route (Section 2), and the correct startingpoint of theM Route(Section3). As shown in Figurel, Section 1 and Section3 mainly comprise the descriptionsof steepslopesbefore and after the M and H-S Routes,and Section 2 dealswith the vertical phaseof the route. The following analysisonly concernsSections I and 3, in which DVMs were extensively used in order to identiff the original

t The M Route was first ascended almost 70 years ago, and it is considered to be a genuinely historic one in the Japaneseclimbing community. It still is popular and serves as a ritualistic entry into the climbing experience in that area.

416

Kuniyoshi Kataoka

"correct" line leading up to Peak 4 (Section 1) and the starting point of the M Route (Section3). In a multi-participant discussion like this, utterances inevitably include numerous false starts, repetition, overlap, and concurring speeches.These are in themselvesimportant issues,but they are not particularly relevantto the current issueof COME and GO, and thus they were tentatively modified into what are similar to "extendedclauses"(Chafe 1987).This way, I respectivelyobtainedi05, 329, and 143 clausesfor the three sections, or 577 clausesin all. Of these, 109 clausesincluded DVMs. Here, modal usagessuch as "I am coming to like him," which do not encode actual spatialmotion, were excludedfrom the analysis.My criterion is that, as far as iku and ku-ru encode any kind of spatial movement,they are included in the following analysis. The tokens in focus are either the "bare" forms of ik-u and,ku-ru or the "compound" forms in the present (nns) and past (rsr) conjugations - (V-te)(i)k-u (vxs)/(Yte)(i)Ha (rsr) 'go/went -ing' and (v-te) kur-u (yus)l(v+e) ki-ta (rsr) 'come/came-ing.' There is in fact a lasting argumentthat the -(r)u/+a forms are not exact theoretical equivalents to the present/pasttenses, but the degrees of match between -(r)u/+a and pns/psr are irrelevant in the following analysis becausethe importancelies in the shift of indexical values inducedby the proximal and distal forms in relation to the deictic center (the speaker)and the referent (landmark, location, or person). Thus, for the sake of convenience, I will refer to these sets of concepts interchangeably.

2.2. Denotational meaning of JapaneseDVMs Before the analysis, it would be useful to delineate some fundamental features of JapaneseDVMs in comparisonwith their English counterparts:Come andgo vs. kuru 'come' and iku 'go,' respectively. Basic featuresof theseverbs have been intensively discussedin Fillmore (1997 [1971]), ohye (1975), Gathercole(1977, l97B), Morita (1977),lmani (1990), and Nakazawa(2002), among others.What we need here is a conceptualformulation effrciently adaptedto the current data and analysis. In some languageslike Japanese,COME does not so widely allow deictic projection as in English. The use of COME to representmotion to the hearer's location, which is generallyavailable in English, is extremely restrictedin other languageslike Japanese, Spanish,and possibly Thai and Mandarin (Gathercolel97S). In theselanguagesCOME alwaysencodesthe motion to "me," not to "you." Thus,the responseto "come here" is not "I'm coming" but "I'm going"-ima iki masu in Japanese(and Voy in Spanish); hencethe asteriskin the "accompaniment"situationin (1).6 (l)

a. Anata to isshoni {ittemo/*kitemo} ii desuka? 'Can I (Sp) {go/*come} with you (Hr)?' b. lltatashi to isshoni {ro(ra)re/ike} masuka? 'Can you (Hr) {comelgo} with me (SpX'

" However, there seems to be dialectal variation for the "speaker orientation" encoded by kuru. Aoki (1990) discussed a dialect in Nagasaki (South Japan) that exhibits the same type of "speakerfrearer orientation" as seen in the English come.

Co-construction of a mentol map in spatial discourse

417

Thus, the schematic representationfor COME and GO in Japanese(and in Englishfor comparison)can be shown as follows (Figure 2).'

\Y-/"

*@'*

."roo'g

-#-

iktt

go" Figure 2. Default use for COME and GO: Japaneseand English ln Japaneseo when the speakeris the agent of latru, as is the casewith our data, useof lcuruenvisagesthe origo as being purely subjectiveto the speaker'sperceptionat Goal,which further connotesthe first-hand experienceof being/gettingthere regardless of the hearer'spresenceor absence.[n contrast,the motion representedbyilu could be either departure,arrival, or passage,ffid it is thus indeterminateas to the indexical value. In this respect,we could assumethat the indexical potential for encoding the notion of origo is higher for kuru than for ilaL ln English, however, use of come with the first-personsingular subject still under-specifieswhether the territory indicated by comeis the speaker'sor the hearer's,which representsa lower indexical value aboutthe origo.E

3. Analysis 3.1.Individual construction of a mental map: Convercion of different perspectives Beforeembarkingupon an analysisof the cooperativeconstructionof a mental map, I will first examinethe systematicityof an individually constructedmental map, which is characterized by the conversionof different points of view but also by the maintenance of a commonindexical ground. The following segmentcomesfrom Section I in Figure I and mainly concernsa denotationaltext, but is suffusedwith covert presuppositions sharedby the participantsin this wayfinding discourse.Here, the focus will be placed on the exquisite spatial configuration in which the "perspectival" cohesion is t

Ohye (1975) applied Fillmore's early formulations of deixis to Japaneseand elaborated on the differencesbetween English and Japanesedeictic motion verbs. He explicitly claimed that laru can be usedonly when the speaker is at the goal, emphasizing the "subjective" nature ofJapanese speakers' perspective-taking(Ohye 1975: l8-9). Also, as Fillmore (1997 |9711: 100) pointed out the conditions far come and go sentences in an "accompaniment" sense are not freely transported across languages (see,for example Nakazawa 2002 for cross-linguisfic accounts among English, Japanese,and Chinese). t For example, Morita (1977:71-2) pointed out that iku/kuru verbs in the V-te iku/kuru construction encode four types of spatial motion with respect to the preceding verb V-te: (1) coordinationof actions: gohan o tqbe-te iku'eat a meal and go'; (2) parallel actions: magat-te iftl 'curve andgo'; (3) state/mannerof actions: hasit+e iku'go running'; and ( ) merged actions: kare ni tui-te iht 'going after/following him.' Generally speaking, the compound form could be more "experience-neat'' than dre bare form in that it particularly depicts the contingent actions to the agent (see also Imani 1990 andHasegawa1993 for formal and generative semantic applications).

418

Kunioshi Kataoka

corroboratedby the choice and shift of deictic verbs of motion - a strategy not emphasizedin the initial conceptualizationof cohesion (Halliday & Hasan pZt;. es statedabove,the Japaneselaru exclusively signifies goal-orientedmotion toward the speaker- unlike the English come, which can equally encode goal-orientationtoward the addressee.Thus, the use of laru always pi.ruppor"r th" current position (imaginatively)occupiedby the speaker. First, let us look at how the cohesionof the vantagepoints was achievedby Climber IZ throughthe switch of iku andkuru (2). (2) 1) 2l 3) 4l 5) 6) 7) B) 9) 10) 11) 12) f3) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20)

2r) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 21)

rz:

kyoo omottan d.aked,o ne, bokura igai no paatii wa, minna ano, kotej'i (j) no hoo ni, no ano, go-hoo gawa no hoo no shita (2) no bando mitaina toko zuutto torabaasu shite, shita (3) agaxte kita kara (4) deshoo? AIt: U:n. rz: boku dake zenzen chigau toko noboXte kita (5) wake desu yo. Soko wa sugoku yokatta yone. Nan'nimo fuan naku, moo zairu toite, taka taka taka taka taka taka, moo kimochi yoku, IM: iya dakara ne -rz: katai iwa o ftsutatte kuru

(6) --l

rI4: Inani, ato no] shuuryooten no hanashi? rZ: shuuryooten made agatxe (i)ku (7) hoo, yonpoo no choojoo made agatte (i)ku hoo, agaru nichi desu.

rz:

Afl: rzz

IM: rzz rM: rz:

r was thinking today, you know, a-Il the other parties except us (came) over/toward this (1), way I mean, traversed a1l the way along something like a rock band peak down there (Z) toward 5, and cane up (4) here fron down below (3i, right? yeah :. onry r (clinbed and) came up (5) on a completely different trailr know. lou That was a very nice trail, you know. r had no worries, and took my rope off, trotting and trotting all the way up, WeII, you know __ coning along (6) rigid rocks what? Are you tarking about the end_point of the route? r mean the trail going up (7) to the end of route, uh, leading up, going up to the top of peak 4.

In Text (2),IZ makesextensivecornmentsabout the trail he took to get to Peak4, where he waited for other membersto come up after the climb (Figure fl fne shift of the deictic centerfrom the basecamp to the (envisioned)peak + was a tacit one ((l) kotchi in Figure 3), and was never articulated.Although the conversation took place in the basecamp tent, his remark on the trail toward Peak5 (kotchi no hoo.over/toward this way') and the accompanyinggesturemadewith the remark (inward waving motions by the right hand) conceptuallyand immediately situatedIZ at peak 4 - his secondary deictic center.This comment was also complementedby go-hoo gowa no hoo no shita (2) no banndo mitaina /ofto 'something like a rock band down thJe (2) toward peak 5, (Lines M)- Here' the inward shaking gesture correspondsto the traversing motion toward Peak 5 seenfrom Peak 4. The use of shita'down there' (Figure 3 (2fand (3)) also confirms that his perspectivehas now been transposednom i,is current origo (the basecamp) onto a place where he can observethe traversingtrail from above(i.e., peak 4). For the traversing section, the spatial relationshipsbetweenIZ andthe oiher party

Co-corstruction of a mental map in spatial discourse

4I9

memberswere coordinately representedby the use of the vertical dimension term in shita kara'from down below (3)' and agat-te '(move) up (4),' as well as the goalindexing motion verb ki-ta 'came.' The following utterances also stick to this perspectivefrom Peak4.V continues,bolat dakBzenzenchigau tokn nobot-te ki-ta (5) 'only I (climbed and) came up (5) on a completely different trail' and then katai iwa o tsutat-te ku-ru (6) 'coming along (6) rigid rocks.' These expressionsexhibit the reachingmotion at Peak4, his secondarydeictic center.

Peak 4 =lZ's secondary

(l) kotchi = shift rf deictic center

End o f t h e rout e -->

tI; t

\ /\ .

Traii y'oM ,nd H-S route

= deictic

-->

= shift

description

of deictic

center

= ridge

t1

= peak

Figure 3. Cohesionof vantagepointswithin an individual The tokens of kuru used in (5) and (6) contain different agentsfrom that of lwruin (4): the agentsof the motion in (a) were membersof otherparties,but in (5) and (6) it was Z himself. Even in a seriesof sentenceswhere different agentsare chosenin the subject slot, his deictic center was consistently situated at P4 in terms of the perspectivalauxiliary compound -te lruru'come -ing' and the coordinate terms shita 'below' (and agaru'go up'). More interestingly,when IZ's perspectivewas forced to moveto the endpoint of the H-S Route (7) by IM's inquiry - "are you talking about the end-pointof the route?" (Line 22-23), the goal of the movement(Peak4) was still kept intact during the following utterances(Lines 2415). His remark shuuryoo-tenmade agat-te(i)k-z'going up to the end of the route,' which was apparentlya false exposition becausethe current origo should be the end of the route, was instantly corrected to yonpoono choojoo madeagat-te(i)k-z 'going up to the top of Peak4' (Lines 25-26).ln otherwords, IZ's and IM's vantagepoints now convergedaround "the endpoint of the route," as is denotedby the iku-compoundphraseagot-te(i)k-z 'going up.' However, after this converging move, the goal orientation toward Peak 4 was indexically neutralizedand replacedby the non-deicticverb aga-ru'movelgo up' (Lines 26-27). Notice that throughoutthe main chunk of discourse,IZ systematicallyrelated geographicfeatures in the indexical ground with the DVMs ikulkuru and their compounds,while the traverse section was consistently differentiated by coordinate

420

Kuniyoshi Kataoka

expressionssuchas shita'down/below(twice),' aga-ru'move (/go) up,' and torabaasu (su-ru)'traverse.'n The fact that the deictically and coordinatelyidentified vantage points were madeto centripetally convergeon a single point implies that the constancy of perspectivescan serve as a denotational indexical for textual cohesion. People achieve cohesion not only by lexical and syntactic ties such as ellipsis, substitution, and/orpresupposition(about locations)(Halliday & Hasan 1976)but also by this sort of recurrent(centripetal)imagery convergingon the deictic center, In other words, deictic rnotion verbs,in collusion with other indexicals - I, you, now, and there and coordinate terms such as up/down, and right/left - sewe to establish a denotational continuity through recurrentspatial referenceand motions. At the sametime, however, IZ highlighted his convergencewith IM with the source-indicatingDVM agatle ik-u'going up' (Line 24-25) by temporarily merging with IM's vantagepoint at the end of the route. It is not yet clear whether it was due to empathy,social power, stylistic anomaly,or somethingelse that causedlZ to make this conciliatory move toward IM. IM, in fact, emergesas the key person in the following analysis,and I will argue that his social influence was covertly perceived and realized on the non-referential,interactionallevel. By closely examiningthe recurrentexchanges of DVMs, I will show that there are at least multiple levels of explanationthat induced the cooperative convergenceand divergence in indexical values in the form of a complex, but systematicallycoordinated,poetic structure.

3.2. Co-constructionof a mental map In this section,I will presenta synthetic accountof (1) denotationalpatterning encoded by iku and kuru, the distribution of which serves to indexically construct a multisegment poetic structure; and (2) an interactional patterning of social inequality reflectedby the choice and the tenseforms of DVMs. The point of this sectionis to see how the discursive interaction in discussingthe causeof a "fall" accident converged "centripetally" on IM's authoritative perspective through the use of deictics and perspectivalshifts lodged on the conspicuouslandmarks, or the (temporary) origos, lodged on the route. In effect, the experientially differentiated perspectivesof the participantsbecame "adjusted" to that of the expert through heuristic revelations of expertknowledgeand interactionallyemergentsocial relationships. Also, I will argue that, however physically grounded and seemingly unconsciouslydeployed,those DVMs may inevitably encodecertain aspectsof social motivation. ln this respect, I will echo Silverstein's (n.d.: 6) assertion that interactionally significant components of denotation represent a two-fold function: "first, as contextually differential characterizersof some denotatum,... but second,as indexesof users' presumed-upon(or even would-be) relational positions in a social distribution of conceptualknowledge." That is, the text, in its broadestsense,embeds both what is denotationally signified and what is socially indexed with respect to a particular occasionof utterance/writingat a certain time and place. And it is deixis that immanently mediatesthe "denotational" and "interactional" texts in such a way that the configuration of (denotational)tokens (various representationsof here-and-norar and its distal equivalent, then-and-there) enacted in the ever-changing discursive actions eAlthough I tentatively translated agaru as '(go) up' here, agaru only represents an ascending motion and has no connotation of the type of source orientation that iku 'go' often encodes.

Co-corctruction of a mental map in spatial discourse

421

constitute the conceptual poetics underlying the positionings of deixis. Silverstein continues:"(T)his more inclusive 'text' (i.e., interactionaltext) of social relationshipsin-progress here-and-now is what we read from the figurational dynamics of denotationalmaterial,the words and expressionsof discourse(ibid: l5)." With these ideas in mind, the following discussion focuses on the identiffing processesof salient landmarksdiscussedin Section 3, which led to the "discovery" of the correct spatial organization of the landmarks. The schematicmap of the sceneis reproducedand elaboratedin Figure 4. It was reconstructedfrom the drawing by the climber who had an immense fall during the climb (TU), and it was later verified by otherparticipantsin the climb. Before we begin, it is important to acknowledgethe participants' experiential differencesbecausethey are heavily contingent upon the analysis that follows. Eight rock climbers(four pairs of two) embarkedon two routeson the Center Faceof Peak4: four members(two parties of trvo) on the M Route, and the other four (two parties of two) on the H-S Route. However, their trails approachingtheserouteswere all difilerent (Figure4 (b)). Two parties(IZ-SH and SM-DO) climbed up a gully and mergedinto the middlesectionof the trail leading from Terrace 1 (hereafter,Tl) to Terracey (Ty). The IZ-SH party then climbed the H-S Route, whereasthe SM-DO party traversedleft to a lower ledge, which we tentatively call Tx, going up on false M Route - to avoid confirsion,I neverthelesscall this line the M Route. A short while later, the KA-IC and TU-ST parties embarked on the H-S and M Routes, respectively: the KA-IC party reachedTy via T1, while the TU-ST party haveled via Tl to the baseof the M Route (Tx). TU is the climber who had a fall during the climb. The thick line marked by "IM" indicateswhat he assumesto be the authentic passageelaborated in the following discussion.(IM did not participatein any of these climbs but is an expert climber familiarwith this area.)He arguedthat this is the original trail to reachthe startingpoint of theM and H-S Routes,which differs from thosetaken by the currentparticipants. To Haimatsu-Terrace (H-T)

-IC

(a)

l l

su-il'Iz su

(b)

Figure 4. Schematicmap of (a) Center Face of Peak 4 and (b) the approachtrails in Section 3

422 Kuntyoshi Kataoka The following text (3) showsheavily and multiply overlappedexchanges,which eventually led to the participants' heuristic moment(s) about the geographic relationships between the wrong route (called the M route here) and the authentic passageto embark on the M and H-S Routes.For notation, the researcher'scomments are given in double parenthe;psin the English translation.The bracketsin the Japanese text indicatespeechoverlap.'u

(3) 1) 2\ 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) B) 9) 10) 11) 12\ 13) 14) 15) 16) 71) 18 19) 20) 2I) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29\ 30) 31) 32) 33) 34)

I I " 1 :I y a , h a j i m e w a n e e , yasashii rfjjf dakara-tte, zairu tsukeyoo ka dooshiyoo ka-tte yuu gurai no tokoro o, koo nobotte iku wake ne. S T :u : : n . IZ:e:hehe? IM:Ano, T7 kara. sM:u:n. Wakaru wakaru. Kyoo, [kyoo kiXa- nobotta t o k o . I ( ( t o S T )) ST: fkyoo watashira ga kita, ] kaketa tokoro? iki TU:NI::, asoko ka! S I ' I :I X X X d e i t t a tokoro] IZ: [:6o- do- do- doko doko doko doko?l KA: faa aa aa. ] TU:watashira ga nobottetta ftokoro. ] S I " I :[ s o o s o o ] s o o . s o o . SH:[henna hoo] kara dete kita ne. SM:Soo soo soo. DO:Ah: {soo soo soo.l ga] nobotte kita TU: [watashira henna rijji mitaina [toko]. IM: [Honde] are ga, hore kara-IC: Iare ga:, ] wanpitchime-tte koto? TU: [Are ga wanpitchine] nanda. DO: [Un soo soo soo. ] [Are ga wan pitchi-ne. l

t 1 (( )

ro Transcription keys: speechoverlap researcher'scomment

IM:

ST: IZ: IM: sM:

ST: TU: SM: IZ: KA: TU: SM: SH: SM: DO: TU: IM: IC: TU: DO:

Well, at the beginning, we wonder if we should use a rope cuz it's an easy ridge. That's (to take where we lto climbing on M Route). Weeel-L. wha:t? I mean, from T1. Hrunm. f understand, I understand. That's where (we/you) came--, ( (to ST) ) you climbed today. is the route where we ( (to It TU) ) ca.ne--, started to gro? I see, there!? That's where you went xxx. Wh- wh- wh- where where where where? Yeah, yeah, yeah. ( (nodding) ) The trail (/ridge) we ( (to ST) ) went climbing, you know. Right, right, right, right. I know you guys cane out from a strange pl-ace. Right, right, right. Yeah, right, right, riqht. That's the trail on the ridge, along which we crile climbing. And, that is, then-pitch, Is TIIAT the first you mean? pitch, That is the first yes. Yeah, right, right, right. pitch. That is the first

elongation truncation

Co-construction of a mental map in spatial discourse

35) 36) 3 7) 38) 39) 40) 41) 42) 43) 44) 45) 46\ 4'l ) 48) 49) 50) 51) 52\ 53) 54) 55) 56) 57) 58) qql

60) 61) 62) 63) 64\ 65) 66) 6 1\ 68)

IM: [wan-pitchi nobotta] tokoro kara fi€, ookii terasu atta ra? A7:Hai hai. Arinashita. D"I:Sokkara neel [nigi e] za:tto torabaasu shitekua da. SM: [migi e] SI4:Ah: yappari soo da. Bokura 9d, Il[:l[igi e da:-tto torabaasu shiteku. DO:M: ah: KA:Un un. Sl'I:bokura ga saa (to DO). hidari ni torabaasu shita jan. ni iku-] [Are o nigi DO: [atchi-gawa kara] kurir kara, machigaeru no ka. gya- kotchi- a- ja IZ:M:, nani, asoko no semai ban' bando mitaina toko o, gryaku kara kunt'nda. IZ:Demo ne, boku ga ima yutteru no wa ne, kono lJnainnhanarr z-lacrr .n .: na n d esu. H oojoo shinmura wa, kono hangu no kotchi-gawa o tootteru desho. sore wane sonna rnurishite konna fuu ni iXte nain desu yo. kekkoo sunao ni pyuuu-tto agatte(i)ku to, koko ni kuru-n desu yo. ST;soo soo. Kurrr kuru.

IM:

A1: IM: SM: SM: IM: DO: KA: SM:

DO: IZ-.

IZz

ST:

423

you climbed After one pitch, there was a big terrace, right? Yes, yes there was. From there you go traversing all- the way to the right. To the right? Yes! That's what I thouqht. You know, I-Go traversing further to the right, OK. Yeah yeah. Humm humrn. You remember where we ( (toDO) ) traversed to the left? We need to go right on that trail I Oh, we make mistakes because we coue from the other side! Oh, the opposi- this way, you mean, we should cone from the opposite side on that narrow rock band, right? ( (Open a map) ) But what I am talking about now ( (pointing is this overhang. gestures) ) H-S Route passes on this side of this overhang. ( (sliding gestures) ) That (route) does not go like this. ( (sl-iding gestures)) So if you/we go straight up and fast (along this you corDe line), here, you know. Right, right. We do (cone), we do (come) .

A generalsequencewas as follows: The clue toward the heuristic momentswas first given by IM, whose commentson the first pitch of the M Route were questionedby otherparticipants(Lines 6-7).At that pofurt,only SM gave an affirmative responseto IM's comments(Line l0). SM's supportivecommentin Lines ll-12 gave TU a clue to decodingthe puzzling spatial relationships,and she offered a supportive comment in Line 15 and later (Lines20-21,2718, and 32). By Line 34, most of the participants beganto envision the correct picture of the scene,which induced a respectiveheuristic momentamongparticipants. Building on TU's explanationsand IM's further comments (Lines 35-40), everyonein the discussionfurther acknowledgedthe original line to embark on the H-S Routeand the geographicrelationshipsbetweenTx and Ty by Line 56. Although V did gasp the spatial relationships,he still poseda questionabout the authenticity of the M Routeindicated by IM, by pointing out its discrepantspatial relationship to the H-S Route,which he had climbed that day (Lines 57-66). His comments,however,were left unattended after SM's responsein Line 67, andthe discussionwas suddenlyterminated by Z's appealfor recessto sleep.

424

Kuniyoshi Kataolca

Now, let us exarninein detail the use of JapaneseDVMs. The participantsused the DVMs more frequently than in other portions of the text, most probably for the pu{poseof identifring and relating the geographiclandmarksin their mental maps-inthe-making. Once grounded in a mental map, these landmarks could be utilized as pivots onto which the participantscould hook their emergentvantagepoints with these motion verbs. The text is further divided into three sections- (a), (b), and (c) - according to salient landmarkson the trail. Lines 1-34 focus on the segmentconstitutedby T1 and Tx (Section (a)); Lines 35-56 on the segmentbetween Tx and Ty (Section (b)); and Lines 57-68 on the segment between Ty and H-T on the H-S Route (Section (c)). Below, I will delineate section by section the spatial motions with respect to which participantsutteredwhich DVMs.

3.2.1.Section(a) This section deals with the progressionfrom Tl to Tx. Table I shows the phrases, including spatio-temporaldeixis, DVMs, and relevant features.The fourth and fifth columns from the left representthe locative notions related to a respectiveDVMS(ource), P(ath), G(oal), and D(irection), although each clause does not necessarily include explicit locative expressions.My treatment of the notion Path is quite broad here. I included in the category not only path locatives (e.g., "or/along the trail") but also other phrasesthat refer to a portion of a Path or describeits features(e.g., 'lhe trail on which we went climbing"). Also, the landmarksand a trail (or portions thereof) may or may not be deictically indexed by DVMs. As mentioned above, lwru always connotes"speaker('s territory)-as-goal," and thus is "deictic" and strongly "indexes" Goal, whereas iftu usually (but not necessarily) encodesorientational connotation such as "speaker('s territory)-as-source."Iku can equally representa neutral motion that is neither from nor toward the speaker's/hearer'sterritories, and thus it may or may not be "deictic" and "index" Source.First, I will illustrate and summarizewhat portions of the trails are "profrled" (i.e., articulated)or "indexed" through the use of DVMs. The rightmost column in Table 2 refersto the temporal deixis representedby the -ru/-ta (roughly, PRS/PSr) forms. In Section(a) of Table 2, IM startedto delineatethe traditional route from T1 to Tx. His current deictic center was firmly establishedat Tl by the SourceexpressionZ/ knra 'from Tl' (Line 8), precededby the "departure" and "short-range" path motion encoded by the compound expressionnobot-te ik-u 'go climbing' (Line 5). An interestingpoint here is that IM could have imaginedhimself at Tx and have saidnobotte ku-ru'come climbing' insteadof nobotle ik-u'go climbing,' but he did not dare to take the option. Although it is theoretically possible to do that, it must have been inappropriate at this moment to jump to Tx and use kuru since Tx was yet to be identified and shared.Therefore,IM still neededto start from the common ground,Tl. In addition,IM could not legitimatelyusethe -ta (nsr) form (it-ta'went' and hra ocame'),as othersdid, becausehe did not participatein the specific climb referredto by the (relatively) distal temporal deixis. Thus, he insteadusediftz 'go' in the -ru form (ens), which is the default choice for describinga generalfact or an expert's omniscient view. By choosingto use iku'go' in the -ru form, he seemedto have assumedthe status

Co-construction of a mental map in spatial discourse

425

of an outsider (and an expert), unlike other memberswho actually participated in the climb on that particular day.

Table2. Sequence of iht/kurx,acrossindividualsin Section(a) Keys:E.g.,"115" = "Token #lLine #": Spkr = speaker:H-T : Haimatsu Terrace; S(ource), G(oal),D(irection).P(ath); loc. : Iocative;Profiled = 'explicitly elaborated (by locative and relevant expressions)'; lndexed : 'covertly and deictically indicated (by deictic motion verbs)' #/Line: Sok

l/s-8 IM

2t1t: SM 3^3: ST

4lt6: SM 5t20: TU 6t23: SH 7t27: TU

Section(a): nobot-te ik-u ... Tl kara (S) 'go climbing from Tl' kyoo ki-ta, nobot-ta (parapfuased) toko 'where (: the trail on which) (you) came, climbed today' kyoo watashira ga ki-la, iki kake-ta (paraphrased) tolaro 'where (: the trail on which) we (TU & ST) came, startedto go today' 'where we went'; presumably il-ta tokoro describineST and TU's Path on Tl-Tx. watashirq ga nobot-te(i)t-to tokoro '(the place/trail) where we went climbing' henna hoo kara de-te hi-ta'(you) came out from a strange place' watashira ga nobot-te hi-ta henna rijji 'something like a ridge along which we cameclimbins (to Tx)'

Notes S profiled

1 lku i ft loc.) S=TI

G attempted but paraphrased

Kuru (+ loc.)

ru./ta form ru

(G)

ta

(G)

ta

P profiled, G attempted but abandoned

P

P (betw. Tl & Tx) profiled

(P)

ta

P (betw. Tl & Tx) profiled S profiled, Into Sp's perception P profiled, Tx as G indexed

P

ta

: -i | -i

s (+rl)

tct

G (l Tx) P G:TX

ta

For 2lll and 3/13, the situation is a little more complicated.SM, who was talkingto ST, his wife, first used ki-ta'came,' merging his perspectivewith his wife's. SM was a legitimate user of lu-ru to recruit Tx as the goal becausehe had passedthe tenaceon his ascentand had also climbed the route severalyears before. However, he paraphrased ki-ta right away with nobot-ta 'clirnbed.' This is an extremely interesting switchthat deservesfurther examination. First, I assumethis was due to the fact that, becauseTx was not yet identified and shared, SM must have felt it premature to conceptually finalize the segmentwith the goal-indexingverb ku-ru'come.' Secondly, the parapbrasemay have been motivated by the avoidanceof an inconsistentdeictic center,astypically discussedby Klein (1983),Brown (1995),and Levelt (1996).In fact, IM's originaldeictic centerwas set at Tl, but it would havebeeninstantlymovedto Tx if SM had used fti-la 'came' at 2111, which obviously disrupts the perspectival consistency. The same phenomenon was observed once again in 3/13. This was ST's response to SM's statement,which overlappedwith ST's. ST first used /ri-tc 'came,' whichwas instantlyabandoned,and switchedto ik-i kake-ta'startedto go.' Again, this

426

Kuniyoshi Kataoka

switch indicates a re-setting of her vantage point onto Tl rather than onto T*tt, presumablybecauseshe was not yet certain if the portion under discussioncoincided with the trail she actually climbed. Given theseobservations,SM's and ST's switch to the neutral or less indexical terms 'climbed' and 'went' seemsto have been motivated by the premafirreconstructionof Tx as the goal, and thus by the underdevelopedstate of a commonmental map. We cannot exactly pinpoint the location referred to in 4116,but it seems to indicate the path from Tl to Tx. A similar portion of the path is described in 5/20, but its manner of motion is elaborated by the compound verb nobot-te (ik-u) '(go) climbing.' Also in Line 20, TU - one of the two memberswho climbed the path (TlTx), and the one who evenfuallyfell - clearly refers to the intermediatepath betweenTl and Tx, as is indicatedby the motion compound(nobot-te) it-tn'went (climbing).' However, this consistencyof the deictic center was suddenly violated by SH, who did not sharethe sameexperience- she bypassedTl, reachedTy, and went up on the H-S Route with IZ. Given the aboveobservation,one may wonder why she was able to use ki-ta'carne' here despitethe fact that she never reachedTx. In fact, however,she could legitimately use the phrasebecausekuru'come' doesnot necessarilyindicate the reaching motion to the speaker,but can simply indicate the entry into the speaker's perceptualdomain. Since SH was at Ty when TU and ST popped out on the ridge near Tx, her compound phrasede-tc ki+o'canne out' (6123)properly describesTU's/ST's unexpectedentry into her perceptual (precisely, visual) domain observedfrom Ty. Thus, the seemingbreachof the consistencywas actually not a violation but rather inducedthe departurefrom Tl to Tx. With SH's confirmatory comment,TU was now certain of her mental map and felt justified in using ki-ta tn L:-llre27. In order to verifr her understanding,her comment was directed to ST, with whom she actually climbed the portion of the route (Tl-Tx). TU's use of ki-ta'came' corroboratesthe goal orientation and implies that her deictic centeris now firmly settledon Tx. Thus far, the schematicmotion constructed by the participants is clearly linear, and its movement, with or without profiling and/or indexing, was systematically decomposedand elaboratedby the alternationsof ikulkurz phrasesin such a way that the earlier phaseof the motion was spontaneouslydepictedby iku and the latter phase by latru, with no specific cuesfor the shift. This is in fact surprising because,although it may not be very evident from the current transcription, these segmentsinclude heavy overlap of utterancesand a condenseddistribution of DVMs. As will be shown below, not only is the distribution of DVMs systematic,but also the tensal shift seemsto rely on a different mechanismthat is now emerging to reflect the asymmetricrelationship betweenIM and the other participants.

3.2.2.Section(b) By Line 34, the trail Tl-Tx was identified to be the first pitch of the M Route. The next questionwas how to embarkon the M and H-S Routesfrom Tx. With TU's shift of the deictic center to Tx (Line 27), lM picked up the perspectiveand describedthe next motion right'ward, again with the -nr form as he did in Section (a): migi e za:tto " The meaning of iki kakeru may be ambiguous. This phrase may just mean'be about to go,' indicating that the motion has not yet started. However, in the speaker's and my dialects, this phrase can also mean that the action has already been partially assumed.

Co-construction of a mental map in spatial discourse

427

torabaasushi-te ik-u 'go traversing all the way to the right' (Table 3, 1/40). This explanationtranslates into the spatial motion from Tx to Ty. Notice first that IM explicitly mentioned the source, wen pitchi nobot-ta tolaro kara 'from where you climbedone pitch (i.e., Tx),' then paraphrasedit to sok-karo'from there,' which was finally ellipsed in Line 44.lM corroboratedthe induced shift with the ellipsis and the repeateddirection phrasemigi e'to the right' (Lines 4H5).

Table 3. Sequenceof iku/kuru acrossindividuals in Section(b) #/Lne: Sola

Section ft): t/35Wan pitchi nobotta tokoro kara (S)... 40: kara (S) migi e (D).. torabaasu IM te(i)h-u 'from where you climbed pitch, from there, go traversing to right' 2t44-5: migi e (D) ... torabaasu shi-te(i)h-u

IM 3t50: SM 4t5t: DO 5t54-6 lz

Notes sok- S, D profiled shione the 'go

ru/ta form

ru

D profiled

D

ru

D, P profiled

D,P

ru

(S profiled) (G indexed) bandomitainatoko o (P) gaku k"ara(S\ *u- S, P profiled, n, 'come (to Ty) from the oppositeside G indexed

on thattrail like a rock band'

Kuru ft loc.)

S: TX, D

.tra:_e5.pg !glb_epgbll

are o (P) migi ni (D) ik-u'go right there (on the trail)' atchi-gawa kara (S) hu-ru 'come from the other side'

Iku (+ loc.)

(s: ry) (G: Tx) S (: Tx) P G: TV

For SM, the next user of ilcu (3150),this movement (Tx :> Ty) was oppositeto his actualprogression- he traversedfrom Ty to Tx. Becausethe current deictic centeris Tx, SM decided to follow the current orientation profiled by IM by conceptually situatinghimself at Tx. Thus, he tumed to DO (his partner on the M route) and confirmedthe motion with the path phraseare o'onlalong that (hail)' and the direction phrasemigi ni (ik-u) '(go) to the right' (3/50). Notice that in Line 50 SM could have situatedhimself at Ty and said hidari ni torabaasushite kita'(we) came traversingto the left.' However, he didn't opt for the indexical shift, just as he previously had withdrawnthe samekind of prematureshift to the intended goal (see Line I l). The next speaker,DO, was SM's partrrer,and they traversedtogetherfrom Ty to Tx, which was contraryto the current direction of mental scanning.He now realizedhis mistakeand admiffedthat if one atchi-gawa kara kuru (4/51) 'comes from over there [= Ty]' it would be a wrong move. He mediatedthe contradictoryorientations(i.e., source vs. goal) profiled by the precedingiku's and indexed by the current use of kuru (4151), buthe still maintainedhis temporarydeictic centerat Tx. Induced by DO's use of laru (Line 51), the scanning process has now been oriented toward the reaching phrase of the spatial movement between Tx and Ty. Althoughthe deictic center is still at Tx, the shift back to the ikz-phasehere, if used, runs counter to DO's use of latru (4/51). Thus, the next use of DVM needs to be suppliedby someonewho can both adequatelyfollow the currentscanningdirection and legitimatelyencodethe reachingmotion al Ty with kuru.I assumeit was not accidental that the next speakerwas V, who actually reachedTy, but who, unlike DO, had no

ru ru

428 KunioshiKataokn experientialbasisfor recruiting Tx as the deictic center.Z satisfiestheseconditions and actuallyutteredgtaku lcaraku-ru'(we should)come from the oppositeside' (5/55-56), confinedto and verified by his first-hand experienceat Ty. On the other han4 there is another type of convergence emerging in terms of "tense."Here, I proposethat the choice of tensesis an implicit means of constructing the "interactional"text in the immediatecontext. In Section(a), the participants(except for IM) relied wholly on the -/a form to describethe spatialmotion. However, after the participants had agreed to accept IM's trail as the templaie for their mental map construction,they all switchedto the -ru form in Section (b) and after. In other words, they switched their stancefrom the experience-baseddistal perspectivethen-and-there (-ra form) to the expert's (IM's) knowledge-basedperspective, which connotes a timeless, omniscient view in/at here-and-now (-ru form). This shift toward IM's authority indexesa temporal - in addition to spatial - alignment with the deictic center and covertly reveals the interactional text in the making in this particular indexical ground. This temporal shift may also be motivated by the heuristic dawning that the authentic route proceeds from Tl to Tx, and then to Ty, as claimed by IM. This progressionwas, at least for the participants,"counterfactual" or "mirative" (Delancey 1997)in light of their experiencesbecauseno one managedto follow the trail. Thus, the epistemicconvergenceonto IM offers enoughground to resort to the presenttense(-rz form) becausecounterfactualityis typically representedby the non-past.

3.2.3.Section(c) The following section (c) exhibits an interesting twist, or a slight deviation from the current discussion,but it also supports my assumption about the asymmetric use of DVMs. IZ, althoughadmiuing what IM and DO said, still seemeda little confusedand indeterminateabout the general spatial configuration. Thus, he suddenly openedup a route map, put it upright" and started questioning the presumed location of Haimatsu Tenace (H-T) (from Line 57), saying '(that) doesn't go like this (1/63)' and '(you/we) go straight up and fast (along this line) (2165)' (Table 4). He skippedthe sourceof the segment(Ty), but its absencewas spontaneouslycompensatedfor by his finger-pointing on the map, which then tracedthe segmentfrom Ty to H-T (i.e., source,direction, path, and goal).

Table 4. Sequence of iku/kuril acrossindividualsin Section(c) #[Lne: Sokr U63

tz zt65 lz 3/66 IZ 4/67 SM

' i

Section(c): '(that) doesn't go like konna fuu ni it-te nai this' sunao ni pyu:tto agat-le(i)k-u 'you/we go straightup and fast (along thrq tine)l koko ni (G) ku-ru'(we) come here' ku-ru, ku-ru '(we) come, (we) come

Iku

Notes S, D, P gestured

) (+ toc.) i (S, D, P)

D, P gestured

i (D, P)

G gestured, pofiled and indexed G indexed

Kuru (+ loc.)

ru/to form ru ru

G G: H.T G:H.T

ru ru

Co-constuction of a mental map in spatial discourse

429

The final set of kurus were anchored on H-T. The first of them (3/66) was utteredby IZ to mark the endpoint of the segment,then it was echoedby SM (4/67), who had climbed H-S Route several years before. SM acknowledgedZ's staternent with the descriptionku-ru ku-ru '(yes, we) come (there), (we) come (there)' in the -ru form, indicating again that this is a sharedinterpretationand a widely acceptedfact. GivenSM's previous experience,it would be possibleto seehis useof the presenttense asmotivatedby a (pseudo-)expertstatussimilar to IM's. Going back to IZ's abruptmove to take the floor (Line s7),lsuspect that there is another social and interactional motivation lurking behind it - presumably, IZ's resistanceagainst the imposition of the "authentic" view of IM, who predeterminativelyacted as an initiator or a "ritual" leader of the discussion. ln fact a ritualistic tone has been present from the onset of the discussion. First, dinner usually serves,as well as mountaineeringitsell as a ritual eventthat consolidatesgroup identity andemotionalties, and it was used here as a common arenafor investigatingthe cause of the accident. During dinner, IM steadfastly asstunedthe "rihral initiator" role during the discussion.For example, Sections (a) and (b) were consistently initiated by his descriptionswith iku in the present tense, and the remainders of the sections were complementarily described by his "followers" through their experience-laden perspectivewith path locatives and latru. The same iht-kuru sequencewas maintained thnoughoutthesesections and beyond. On the other hand, IZ was not as experiencedas IM, but he was one of the most energeticmembersand a spiritual leader of the climbing club. His authority was now being threatenedby IM's presence,and it seemedto me he struggled to somehow resumehis control throughoutthe discussion- as can be seenfrom his verbosity around the end of Section (b) and onward. Seen in this light, his next move was highly symbolic: he broke the implicit, ritualized turn-allocation paffern by snatching the initiator role from IM at the outset of Section (c). Furthennore, as a supportive action for the resumedauthenticity, he resorted to an even greater source of authority, a route map,in orderto surpassIM's authority. The breachof the ritualized patternmay thus be a reflection of IZ's aspiration for recovering his interactional control in the group. Actually, right after this exchange,IZ declaredthe adjouming of the meeting and the recessfor sleep,exerting his authority that had now beenrestored.

3.3.Summaryand discussion To sumup the discussionso far, I have shown in Tables2,3, and4 that Sections(a) to (c) areclearly demarcatedby concatenatedchains of vantage-pointshifu, characterized by the "Source-Goal-Source-Goal"profiling/indexing pattern at the boundaries.This covertlinkageof vantagepoints suggeststhat (l) in this co-constructedmental map,iku was often explicitly profiled for Source at the section initial, while kuru was rarely profiledbut rather was indexed for Goal at the section final; and that (2) the "neutral" (i.e.,non-deictic)motion on the path was dominantly elaboratedby iku, with or without Source. Further, it is notable that (3) descriptions of the spatial imageries are collaboratively relayed without specific cues onto the next speaker through the sequentialprofiling of the "Source :> Direction :) Palh :> Goal" schema"as is most prominentlyobservedin Section(b). Although not all of theselocative categoriesare

430 KunioshiKataoka constantlyseenin the utterances,they rarely disrupt the sequential order when multiple categoriesare aligned. This fact indicates that the speakersare attracted to follow the covert templateor a shared imagery by avidly accumulating, revising, and updating spatialconceptionsto make the schemamaximally coherent. Equally notable are the intricate grounding procedures of certain perspectivesffoRs.The constraints on the types of grounding of perspective are, for example,assumedto be variably influenced by "empathy" (Kuno & Kaburaki 1977), "coherence" (Sanford" Barton, Moxey, & Paterson 1995), "social power" (Johnston 1988),'aiewing arrangement"(Langacker(1990), and "cognitive load" (Tversky 1996), to name only a few. In our case,however, the procedures are mainly executed by the altemationand conversion of DVMs and the tense forms (Table 2, 3, and,4), which crosscutsome of the above mechanisms.Since it is practically impossible to consider all of these, I will consider the curent swirching phenomena by tentatively applying a modified "viewing arrangement"(Langacker 1990) to the current FoRs employed by the participants(Figure 5). I propose that one of the major causes for such alternations and conversions comes from the different types of FoRs applied to reconstructingthe recalled scenes throughdifferent voices,heie representedby "E" and'oI" (Figure 5 (l') - 13')).12For example, one could describe the whole sequenceby simply using ilat to depict a neuhal (i.e., non-deictic) motion from a detached (*E") point of view, the mode of which is characteristicof the gaze/surveyperspective(Figwe 5 (1); seealso Table l). This style is in fact representedby IM's use of DVMs in Sections (a) and (b), in which he consistently used only iku - although he did not utter a word in Section (c). On the other hand, the other participants followed the imaginary path through the eyes of a navigator (or "[") by systematicallyaltemating ik-u (honzontal lines) and ht-ru (vertical lines), the resultantmode of which is characteristicof the route perspective(Figure 5 (2) and (2'); Table 1). The surface deictic tokens we get in Sections (b) and (c) are ttre result of mediafing these perspectives(Figure 5 (3) and (3')), maintaining both the participants' route quatlty (alternation of iht and latru in the pasQ and IM's gaze quality (a consistent detached perspective in the present tense). However, the conversion was only one-way and not complete becausethe participants converged onto IM's stance in temrs of tense but still maintained their route perspective by sticking to the alternation of iku andhtru. Further, as to the experiential influence on the floor management, we could formulate the following hypothesisthat the distribution of DVM usersmay be limited to those participants who had the first-hand experienceon a particular geographic location - i.e., to those who had actually treadedon the path or reachedthe landmarksat issue. Table 5 shows, based on this hypothesis,(1) who should be the "potential users" of iku/latru depending upon their experiential statuses(see Figure 4 (b)), and (2) who are the de faao users of the relevant DVMs for the motion event under discussion. Here, SH, IC, and KA are put in parenthesesbecauseSH and IC are novice climbers and thus are socially insufficient to contributeto the expectedexpert knowledge,while KA was t2It is surely arguable whether multiple statusesof "I" (Goffrnan l98l) can be representedonly by the two types of "animator," "E' (ego, viewer) and "I" (agent in the scene), given other $rpes of *I" such as "authof' and "principal." [n our case, however, these stafuses all overlapped, and the participants only described the spatial movement/configurations of their own and did not embed other people's voices or interpretations. Thus, I assumed that it would be suffrcient to establish the two q,pes ofspeakership for the current purpose.

Co-construction of a mental map in spatial discourse

43I

theparticipantobsenrerand thus intentionally avoidedactive involvement. (In addition, althoughKA was an experiencedold timer, he had not practicedmountain climbing for severalyears,and in that sensehe was socially powerless.)

TI

Section (u)

Tx

$gction(!t)

Secrion(c)

H-T

( l) lM's objective (nns)in description penpective Gaze/survey i,t-y (nr-fonn) (?) Participanls' experiencebaseddescriprion(t s Routeperspective

+

it-ta (ta-fiorm)

ki-ta (ta-form)

(3)Surface indexical tokensin thetext

Hcuristic moments 'dn/hdone goes'

NertalmotionGO: IMs gazepenp. Vonegdmme'

ik-u ku-ru (nr-fornr) (ru-forrn)

ik-u (ru-form)

ku-ru (ru-form)

'Iwent/came'

DeicticmotionCOMHGO: participane ruEperry.

Deictic motion COME/GO : conversionof IMs ard participants'persp. (l')

(2'\ (3') Figure 5. Conversionof gaze androute perspectivesvis-d-vis the viewing rurangements Notes:oS=onstageregion;PF:perceptualfield;E:ego/viewer;I:agent; r:source;o : goal

432

Kuniyoshi Koraokq

Table 5. Deictic centerand experientialstatusof participants Note: [M: expert climber; SM: experiencedclimber who had climbed the H-S Route before; IC and SH: novice climbers; KA: participant observer; ---: N.A.; * indicates the abandoned use of kuru.

Section

Motion event ...

Potential users of iku/kuru basedon experientialstatus

(a)

"from Tl"

TU, ST(rC)(KA,)

"Path Tl-Tx" "to Tx"

(b)

"from Tx" "Path Tx-Ty" 'to Ty"

(c)

"from Ty" "Path Ty-H-T" "to H-T"

TU. ST

TU, ST,SM,DO TU, ST,SM,DO SM, DO IZ, (SH,) (IC,) (KA,) SM, DO IZ, (SH,) (lC,) (KA,) SM, DO IZ, (SH,) (lC,) (KA)

IZ, (SH,)(tC,)(KA)

De facto users of lfta IM TU, ST,SM,IM

De facto users of kzrz TU

*[sT,sMl TU,DO

IM SM,IM

IZ IZ (with gesticulation) lZ

--

IZ, SM

Table 5 generally confinns the assumptionthat "de facto users" of the iku/kuru expressionsall fall into the category of o'potentialusers," except for IM and SM (underlined), whose experiential statuses are qualitatively different from the other participants.First, IM did not actually participate in the climb but knows the "ins and outs" of the route under discussion,which gives him enough authority to comment on any portions of the climb - in the presenttenseand though the gazeperspective.Notice, however,that his participation in the interactionwas limited to the first two sectionsof the route and was suppressedin the last, probably due to the reasongiven above. Another anomalouscasewas SM, who uttered one iku expressionto comment on "Path Tl-Tx" (Section(a)) without the experientialbasis.He also useda setof kuru expressionsat the end of Section (c) to describethe reaching motion "to H-T." These casesappear to disrupt the current generalization,but there actually is an adequate reasonto make his usesof DVMs tolerable- especiallyin the presenttense- which is that he had previously climbed the H-S Route severalyears before. In fact, it was none other than SM who jumped in and made an affirmative comment to respondto IZ in Line 67. His ambiguousstatusas a genuineparticipant and a pseudo-expertmay have enabledhim to acceptrnultipleidentities(or perspectives) by mergingthe (participants') route and the @seudo-expert's)gaze perspectivesin spite of other participants' conformity to the experientialparameters. Given all these observations,we could detect at least four layers of texts activatedat the sametime for the use of iku and kuru: first, on the denotationalpoetic text, which constitutesa recursivewave form of ikus and kurus (Figure 6 (1)); second, on the denotational perspectival text differentiated in terms of route and gaze perspectives(Figure 6 (2)); third, on the interactional text, which indexes differential alignments in terms of authority and perceived social power through tense (Figure 6 (3)); and fourth, on another type of social text that seems to be individually accomplishedin terms of V's resistanceagainstthe total conversiononto the ritually establishedequivalencethrough the denial of an expectedturn allocation to IM (Figure 6 (4)).

Co-construction of a mental map in spatial discourse

Tx

Ty

433

H.T

( | ) Denotationalowave' form constructedbv equivalent distribufion of DVMs (2) Employmentand concurenceof different perspectives (3) Participants' interactionalconvergence ontoIM's authenticotext'

Participants' ROU1T pcrspective lM's GAZE pcrsprctive Participants'-to farm

aoataaa - e n a

(4) Individualresistance againsttotalconversion ontolM's ritualtext

IM's *nr form Participants'turn IM's tum

Figure6. Syntheticview of poetic constructionand interactionaltext

4. Conclusion Nthough this paper is limited in range and linguistic tokens considered,it shows that evena short (and seemingly chaotic) segment of discourse can sufficiently embed severallayersof information about social and cognitive statusesand vicissitudes.I have claimedthat, although spatial perspectivescan, theoretically, freely shift and assure emergentstancesin individual mental imagery, such perspectival shifts seem to be heavilyconstrainedin terms of the ritualized conceptualpoetics,experientialstatus,and socialorders(and resistance)amongdiscourseparticipants. Specifically, oo the denotational level, there appearsto be a highly consistent patternin which i/ru tokens are used in the earlier phaseof the segment and luru tokens are used in the later phase, with both tokens higtly systematically distributed and alignedthrough the conceptual"equivalence" (Jakobson1960) of deictic tokens. More precisely,kuru, alongwith iftn, exhibited a salient time-spaceiconicity in discourseand fi.rnctioned as a covert topic-boundarymarker in such a way that the mental scanningof boundedtrails beganwith Source/?ath-profilediku and ended with the Goal-indexing lruru. Also, kuru (and iku to a lesserdegree)may serve as a covert "cohesion" device (Halliday& Hasan 1976\; note that mental scanningof a boundedtrail was initiated by iku andendedwith kuru, through the participants' collaborativeshifts and convergence of perspectives. In this sense,letru'come' may function as an "agreement"markerand evoke an epistemological conversion of the participants' perceptions due to its centripetalprogressionto the deictic center. The use of iku/kunr is thus basedon the immanentpoetics, which are not necessarily measured out in transparent poetic organizationlike feet, lines, verses,or other formally metricalizedchunks, but rather are formulatedby conceptuallysegmentablenodes and regions in the sharedmental map. This conceptual map contains the repeated activations of poetic equivalence by appealingto the awarenessof spatial equivalence.

434

Kuniyoshi Kataokn

This pattern also evokes and resonateswith the interactional text, which was indexed through the poetic alignment of repetition and parallelism in the denotational text. I have shown, by decoding the recurrent pattern embedded in iht/kuru and revealing the participants' orderly convergenceonto the expert's tenseuse,the ways in which the social configurations can be tacitly and immanently createdwith these deictic tokens in interaction. In other words, DVMs encodenot only a physical space- where iku encodesmotion away from or not toward the speaker, and laru enclosesmotion toward the speaker - but also a socio-cognitive configuration in which the differential social order comesto be gradually legitimatedthrough the distribution and (tensal)shift of DVMs. In this respect,the conventionalview of DVMs is principally true but overly semanticized because, in actual discourse, the use of ilw and kuru can be more discursively constrained in terms of the speaker's experiential basis and interactional status. ln the current Japanesedata" we can detect - with respect to the choices of DVMs and the switch of -ru/la forms - the systematicconversionfrom the multi-vocal, divergent views through navigation to the uni-vocal, spatial logic representedby the expert's omniscient view of the whole scene. What is to be noted here is that the expert's perspectiveplayed the guiding role for the subsequentexchanges.In other words, various kinds of speaker roles and perspectives, based on differential experiential statuses,were enactedas variably situatedsocio-cognitive distancesto be minimized toward the deictic center, or the expert's authentic, legitimated interpretation. Such repetitive conversionsreinforce group identity and cohesive ties through unitary nomic truth (or the expert's knowledge) and a unitary "mental map" through an interaction ritual. At the same time, individual resistance also hinges upon the strategicuse of the sameresources.All thesephenomenapoint to the importanceof studying the sequentialvicissitudesof perspectivemaintenanceand shifts in discourse. More importantly, maintenanceand shift were systematicallyachieved here not by a denotational text alone but through the poetic and interactional texts emerging in situ.

References Aoki, H. (1990) Washa kiten hoogen to chooshakiten hoogen: Imi ron teki ruikei shiron. In Kunihiro Tetsuya Kyooju Kanreki Taikan Kinen RonbunshuuHenshuu linkai (eds.), Bunpoo to Imi no Aida: Kunihiro TetsuyaKyooju Kanreki TaikonKinen Ronbunshuu.Tokyo: Kuroshio,pp. 1-13. Brown, G. (1995) Speakers,Listeners,and Communication:Explorations in DiscourseAnalysis. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Chafe,W.L. (1987) Cognitive constraintson information flow. In R.S. Tomlin (ed.\, Coherenceand Groundingin Discourse.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,pp. 21-51. Clark, E.V. (1974)Normal statesand evaluativeviewpoints.Language50.2:316-332. Delancey, S. (1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpectedinformation. Linguistic Typolog,tl.l:33-52. Downs, R.M., & D. Stea(1973) Image and Environment:CognitiveMapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago:Aldine.

Co-constructionof a mentalmap in spatial discourse

435

Ehrich,V., & C. Koster (1983) Discourseorganizationand sentenceform: The structureof room 6: 169-195. descriptions in Dutch.DiscourseProcesses Enfiel4 N.J.(2003)Producingand editing diagramsusingco-speechgesture:Spatializingnonspatial relationsin explanationsof kinship in Laos.Journal of LinguisticAnthropologt 13.1:7-50. Fillmore,C.J. (1982a)Frame semantics.ln Linguistic Societyof Korea (ed.), Linguisticsin the MorningCalrn.Seoul:Hanshin,pp. 11l-138. Fillmore,C.J. (1982b) Descriptiveframework for spatial deixis. In RJ. Jarvella& W. Klein (eds-), Speech, Place,and Action. Chichester:JohnWiley, pp. 31-59. Fillmore,C.J.(1997[971]) Lectureson Deixis.Stanford,CA: CSLI Publications. Gathercole,V.C. (1977) A study of the comings and goings of the speakersof four languages: Spanistq Japanese, English,and Turkish. Kstsas WorkingPapersin Linguistics2: 6l-94. Gathercole, V.C. (1978) Toward a universalfor deictic verbs of motion. Kawas ll'orking Papersin Linguistics 3:72-88. Goddard, C. (1997)The semanticsof comingandgoing.Pragmatics7.2:147-162. Goddar4C., & A. Wierzbicka (1994) Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings.Amsterdam:John Benjamins. Goffinan,E.(1981)Formsof Talk.Oxford:Blackwell. Golledge, R.G. (1991) Cognitionof physicaland built environment.In T. Gilrling & G.W. Evans (eds.),Environment,Cognition, and Action: An Integraled Approach. New York Oxford University Press, pp. 35-62. Golledge,R. (ed.) (1999) Wayfnding Behwior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes. Baltimore:JohnsHopkins University Press. Grenoble,L.A. (1989) Negation and the infinitive: Verbs of motion in Russianand Polish. Slavic andEastEuropeanJournal 33.1: I -19. Grenoble,L.A. (1995) Spatial configurations,deixis and apartmentdescriptionsin Russian. Pragmatics, 5.3: 365-385. Halliday,M.A.K., & R. Hasan(1976) Cohesionin English. London: lnngman. Hanks,W.F. (1990) ReferentialPractice: Languageand Lived Spaceamongthe Maya. Chicago,IL: Universityof ChicagoPress. Hanks,W.F. (1992)The indexicalgroundof deictic reference.In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin(eds.), RethinkingContext: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon.Cambridge: Cambridge University pp. 43-76. Press, Hart,R.A.,& G. Moore(1973)The developmentof spatialcognition:A review.In M. Downs& D. Stea(eds.),Imageand Environment:CognitiveMapping and Spatial Behavior.Chicago:Aldine, pp. 246-288. Hasegaw4Y. (1993) Prototype semantics:A case study of TE K-/IK- constructionsin Japanese. Langnge& Communication I 3.1: 45-65.

436 KuniyoshiKataoka

and relativity.In J.J. Gumperz& S.C. Levinson Haviland,J.B. (1996) Projections,transpositions, (eds.),RethinkingLinguistic Relativity.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress,pp. 271-323. Havilan4 J-B. (2000) Pointing, gesturespaces,andmentalmaps.In D. McNeill (ed.), Languageand Gesture.Cambridge:CambridgeUnivenity Press,pp. 1346. Imani,l. (1990)'V-te kuru' to'V-te iku' nitsuite.Nihongogaku9.5:54-66. Jackendoff,R. (1983) Semanticsand Cognition Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Jakobson,R. (1970) Shifters,verbal categories,and the Russianverb. SelectedlV'ritingsVol. 2: Word and Language.The Hague:Mouton, pp. 130-147. Jakobson,R. (1960) Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok(ed.), Style in Language.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,pp. 350-377. Johnson,M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basisof Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago:The University of ChicagoPress. Johnstone, B. (1987)'He says... so I said': Verb tensealtemationand narrativedepictionsof authorityin AmericanEnglish.Linguistics25.1:33-52. Kataoka,K. (1998) Gravity or levity: Vertical spacein Japaneserock climbing instructions.Journal of Linguktic Anthropologt 8 .2:222-248. Kataok4 K. (to appear)Variability of spatial frames of referencein the wayfinding discourseon commercialsignboards.Langtnge in Society. Kleiru W. (1983) Deixis and spatial orientaiion in route directions.In H.L. Pick Jr. (ed.), Spatial Orientation: Theory,Research,and Applicatioz. New York: PlenumPress,pp. 283-31l. Kosslyn,S.M. (1990)Mental imagery.In D.N. Osherson,S.M. Kosslyn,& J.M. Hollerbach(Eds.), An Invitation to CognitiveScienceVol . 2: YisualCognitionand Action. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, pp.73-97 . Kuno,S.,& E. Kaburaki(1977)Empathyand Syntax.LinguisticInquiry 8.4:627472. Lakoff, G. (1987) Women,Fire, and DangerousThings.Chicago,IL: University of ChicagoPress. Langacker,R.W. (1990) Concept,Image, and Synbol: The Cognitive Basisof Grammar. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter. Langacker,R.W. (1987) Foundationsof Cognitive Grammar, TheoreticalPrerequisites(Vol. l). Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversity Press. Levelt, W.J.M. (1996) Perspectivetaking and ellipsis in spatialdescriptions.In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel,& M.F. Garrett(eds.),Languageand Space.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press,pp.77107. Levinson,S.C.(1983)Pragmatics.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress. Levinson,S.C. (1988) Putting linguisticson a properfooting: Explorationsin Goffrnan's conceptsof participation.In P. Drew & A. Wootton (eds.),Ervin Gofman: An interdisciplinary appreciation. Oxford:PolityPress,pp. 16l-227.

Co-constructionof a mentalmapin spatial discourse

437

Levinson,S.C. (2003) Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Linde, C., & W. Labov (1975) Spatial networks as a site for the study of languageand thought. Language51:924-939. Macaulay, M. (1982)Verbsof motionandarrivalin Mixtec.BLS 8:414426. Matsumoto,Y. (1996a) Subjectivemotion and English and Japaneseverbs. Cognitive Linguistics 7.2:183-226. Menifield, W.R. (1992) ConcerningOtomangueanverbs of motion. In S.J. Hwang & W.R. Menifield (eds.),Langnge in Context:Essaysfor RobertE. Longacre.Arlington, TX: The Summer Institute of Linguistics& The Universityof Texasat Arlington,pp.475-497. Morita,Y. (1977)Kiso Nihongo - Imi to Tsukaikata.Tokyo: KadokawaShoten. Nakazaw4T. (2002) "Kuru" to "iku" no toochakusuru tokoro 'Where come andgo reach.' [n N. 'ContrastiveLinguistics.' Tokyo: Tokyo Univenity Press,pp. Ogoshi(ed.), TaishooGgenngoga,hz 28I -304. Ohye,S. (1975) Nichi-Eigo no Hikaku Kenkyuu: Shukanseio Megutte.'A ComparativeStudy of Japanese andEnglish:On Subjectivity.' Tokyo: Nan'undoo. Radden,G. (1996) Motion metaphorized:The case of coming and going. In E.H. Casad(ed.), CognitiveLinguistics in the Redwoods:The Expansionof a New Parodigm in Linguistics. Berlin: MoutondeGruyter,pp.a8-458. Sanford,A., S. Barton, L. Moxey, and K. Patenon (1995) Cohesionprocesses,coherence,and anomalydetection.In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (eds.),Focusand Coherencein Discotrse Processing. Berlin:Walterde Gruyter,pp. 161-188. SenftG. (2000) *COME and GO in Kilivila". In Bill Palmer, and Paul Geraghty (eds.), SICOL. Proceedings of the SecondInternational Conferenceon OceanicLinguistics: vol. 2, Historical and descriptive studies.PacificLinguisticsSeries.(ANU: Canberra),pp. 105-136.. Shanon, B. (1984)Roomdescriptions. DiscourseProcesses 7:225-255. Silverstein,M. (1976) Shifters, linguistic categories,and cultural description.[n K.H. Basso and H.A. Selby,(eds./,Meaning in anthropologr. Albuquerque,NM: University of New Mexico Press, pp.I l-55. Silventein,M. (1985) On the pragmatic 'poetry' of prose: Parallelism,repetition, and cohesive structurein the time courseof dyadic conversation.In D. Schiffrin (ed.),Meuting form, and use in context:Linguisticapplications.Washington,D.C.: GeorgetownUniversity Press,pp. 181-199. Silventein, M. ( I 995) Indexicalorderandthe dialecticsof sociolinguisticlife. SALSAlll: 266-295. Silverstein, M. (1997)The improvisationalperformance of culturein realtimediscursivepractice.In K. Sawyer(ed.),Creativity in Performance.Greenwich,CT: Ablelq pp.265-312. Silventein,M. (n.d.).'Cultural' conceptsandthe language-culture nexus.Ms.72 pages.

438

KuniyoshiKataoka

Speck,C.H., & V.B. Pickett (1976) Somepropertiesof the TexmelucanZapotecverbsgo, come,and arrive. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics42.1: 58-64. Talmy, L. (1996)Fictive motion in languageand "ception".In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson,L. Nadel, & M.F. Garrett(eds.),Languageard Space.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press,W.211-276. Taylor, H.A., & B. Tversky (1996) Perspectivein spatial descriptions.Journal of Memory od Langnge 35:371-391. Taylor, H.A., & B. Tversky (1992a) Descriptionsand depictions of environments.Memory and Cognition20:483496. Taylor, H.A., & B. Tversky (1992b) Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions.Journal of Memory and Langnge 3l:.261-292. Taylor,K.A.(1988)We'vegotyoucomingandgoing. LinguisticsandPhilosophy ll:493-513. Tversky, B. (1996) Spatial perspectivein descriptions.In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson,L. Nadel, & M.F. Ganett (eds.),Langnge and Space.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press,pp.46349t. Volosinov,V.N. (1973)Marxism and the Philosophyof Langtnge. New York: SeminarPress. Wilkins, D.P., & D. Hill (1995) When "go" means'ocome":Questioningthe basicnessof basic motion verbs.Cognitive Linguistics6.2/3: 209-259. Williams, J.L. (1996) TezoatliinMixtec motion and arrival verbs.InternationalJournal of American Linguistics62.3: 289-305. Wortham,S. (2003) Accomplishingidentity in participant-denotingdiscourse.Journal of Linguistic Anthropologtl3.l: l-22.