Universitärer Forschungsschwerpunkt Sprache und Raum
Mountain Scenario in online Route Directions Ekaterina Egorova
[email protected] Department of Geography & URPP Language and Space University of Zurich Switzerland
Introduction
Results
The way we acquire and communicate spatial knowledge is a central question in spatial cognition [1]. Route directions are an ideal laboratory for the investigation of mental representation of space [2].
In total, we have identified 353 discourse entities, representing geographic objects. The specifics of the genre has resulted in certain refinements of the taxonomy.
Online alpine route directions constitute a very specific case. As with any route directions, the route provider is taking the recipient on a mental tour, proceeding linearly along the route [3]. However, online route directions represent an asynchronous mode of communication. For a route provider, this implies no opportunity to adjust directions to the knowledge of a recipient. They thus have to assume a certain level of knowledge of alpine space, shared in the mountaineering community. In this exploratory study, we investigate the existence of a “mountain scenario” (cf. “kitchen scenario” [4]) — the presence of geographic objects characteristic of the alpine space — by answering the following research question:
Which information is presented as new and which information assumes the recipient’s familiarity with it?
Represent new information that cannot be known to the route directions recipient, e.g. “There are 3-4 passes over the range which are negotiable”. BRAND-NEW
Encoded by toponyms, represent information assumingly known, but also findable in other sources, e.g. “Follow Whitewater Trail 3429 to its intersection with Jefferson Park Trail 3373”. UNUSED
As introduced before, e.g. “There is a broad presummit ahead when you are on the snow. Pass it on the south side”.
Textually evoked
Situationally evoked
Cannot be found in asynchronous communication by definition.
Represent known properties (spatial parts) of geographic entities, e.g. “face”, “foot” for a mountain, “top”, “bottom” for vertically oriented features such as chutes. Can also represent geographic objects such as “peak”, “slope”, “bergschrund”, e.g. “There are a couple of ridges on sand and gravel which take you onto the snow fields without too much difficulty”.
INFERRABLE
Represent a unique type. As situationally evoked entities, these are often introduced as salient features of the environment, as if seen by the recipient, e.g. “Follow the signs (red paint) toward the prominent buttress (NW)”, “Proceed to the chute on your right”.
EVOKED IN THE FUTURE
Data
50%
We extracted ten route directions from an online platform [www.summitpost.org]. Each includes the Getting there and the Route description parts, describing two different types of space and ways of locomotion. We annotated them separately and compared the results to gain a further insight into the link between the specifics of spatial mental representation and context. Getting there “The climb starts from the Arbenbiwak (3224m). From the Zermatt train station (1606m) follow the crowded main street (S) until you find a wide path branching right at the end of town. Follow this trail to Zmutt (W), then follow the signs to the Schonbiel hut. Cross a bridge (2340m) and go up the Ar-benbach (N) now on a wide road. At the end of the road catch the moraine to your right (Arbengandegge). The moraine ends in a boulder field with rocher moutonee. Follow the signs toward the prominent buttress (NW) where the bivouac is perched (5:30 hours)”.
30%
Route description “To get to the Arbengrat you have to reach, and follow a slanting ledge (ramp) traversing the lower-left part of the south face. Scramble up (W) an easy rock band behind the bivouac. A boulder field leads (N) to the upper Arben Glacier. Proceed shortly (N) on the glacier then turn right up a steeper snow slope (bergshrund). Start climbing the broken rocks of the south face entering into a gully to your left. At the end of the gully look for a passage left to go over the spur. When you pass over the broad spur the slanting ledge comes into full view. Reach the ledge and follow it to the end”.
Methods To account for various degrees of assumed familiarity, we apply the taxonomy of new and given information [5] , suggesting five types of discourse entities from the perspective of their information status: A hearer has to create a new entity, e.g. “In the park yesterday, a kid threw up on me” (marked by an indefinite article). Brand-new
The entity is known to the hearer, although not activated in his consciousness at the time of the utterance, e.g. “Noam Chomsky went to Penn” (represented by proper nouns). Unused
The entity is present in the discourse model on a textual ground (has been introduced before), e.g. “A guy I work with says he knows your sister”.
Textually evoked
The entity is present in the discourse model, representing a salient feature of the extratextual context, e.g. “Pardon, would you have change of a quarter?”.
Situationally evoked
The entity can be inferred via logical/plausible reasoning from entities already present in the discourse model, e.g. “He passed by the Bastille and the door was painted purple” (marked by a definite article).
Inferrable
40%
20%
10%
0%
BRAND-NEW
UNUSED
TEXTUALLY
INFERRABLE
EVOKED
EVOKED in the future
The figure above presents the percentages of entities belonging to Getting there ( ) versus Route description ( ). The difference in the proportions of the unused and brand-new entities reflects the different levels of granularity of spatial information relevant in these two parts.
Discussion We see the traces of the “mountain scenario” — certain geographic objects and their properties are introduced into the discourse as inferrable. Thus, alpine space is not unstructured as has been assumed [6]. We also see the way context is reflected in the amount of brand-new information. The cognitive processes involved in the production of route directions are further reflected in the need to adjust the original taxonomy. Thus, we introduce one more type of entity to account for the interplay between the mental representation of the route provider and the future orientation of their instructions.
References [1] Montello, D.R. (2009). Cognitive geography. In R. Kitchin & N.
Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (vol. 2, pp. 160–166). Elsevier. [2] Tversky, B., & Lee, P. U. (1998). How space structures language. In Spatial cognition (pp. 157-175). Springer. [3] Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1992). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and language, 31(2), 261-292.
[4] Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge
University Press. [5] Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. Radical Pragmatics. [6] Egorova, E., Tenbrink, T., & Purves, R. S. (2015). Where snow is a landmark: Route direction elements in alpine contexts. In International Workshop on Spatial Information Theory (pp. 175-195). Springer.
