Abstract
Reviewed by: Camille Brisset, Univ. Bordeaux, Laboratory of Psychology EA4139, Bordeaux, France; Rhéa Rocque, Laval University, School of Psychology, Quebec, Canada
This book of 408 pages lies within the scope of cognitive developmental psychology and intercultural psychology. The general topic discussed by the authors, Pierre R Dasen and Ramesh C Mishra, concerns child development in interaction with culture. They explore the development of spatial language and cognition in Indonesia, India, Nepal, and Switzerland. “Put the knife to the east, and the fork to the west!” (Dasen and Mishra, 2010, p. 3) illustrates very well the reality apprehended in this book. As surprising as this formulation is, it refers to a language rarely used in Western countries, a language in which the frame of reference (FoR) is said to be geocentric. Conversely, in an egocentric FoR, one would speak about the left and the right of the plate.
Pierre R Dasen is a Professor Emeritus in cross-cultural approaches in education at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Geneva (Switzerland). He has explored throughout his career topics relating to the interaction between culture and cognition. He is also one of the founding members of the Association internationale pour la Recherche Interculturelle (International Association for Cross-Cultural Research) and is an honorary member of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. Those who know Pierre Dasen will agree that this book reflects a great part of his personal journey.
Ramesh C Mishra is a professor at the Department of Psychology in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the Banaras Hindu University (Varanasi, India). His research pertains to the field of cross-cultural psychology and he is interested principally in cultural influences on human development. He has also contributed to numerous scientific publications in India and abroad relating to domains such as cognition, acculturation, schooling, and cross-cultural studies.
This book is the result of 20 years of research and a decade of collaboration between both authors who, throughout 15 chapters divided in four parts, demonstrate how children aged from 4 to 15 develop a geocentric FoR in verbal and nonverbal language.
Part 1 – Introduction and method
The first chapter introduces the underlying theories pertaining to the authors’ interrogations. The debate relating to universality and relativity of human development is presented. The authors then expose their position concerning this debate: basic cognitive processes are universal, but are expressed differently depending on the cultural context. Therefore, cultural differences observed in cognition would be due to predominant cognitive styles in each culture, which are derived from environmental demands, rather than being due to the presence or absence of cognitive processes within a particular culture. This argumentation is also valid for spatial cognition and for the “choice” between a geocentric or egocentric FoR. Piaget and Inhelder’s (1948/1956) work as well as Levinson’s (1996, 2003) research in comparative linguistics on the development of spatial FoRs are the starting point of this book. However, the authors moderately subscribe to Levinson’s (2003) paradigm of linguistic relativism, which stipulates that “language determines the use of an egocentric or geocentric frame due to non-linguistic cognitive processes” (Dasen, Mishra, Niraula, and Wassmann, 2006, p. 147, free translation). Finally, it is Dasen’s (2003) integrative eco-cultural model that provides a theoretical framework for the study of development with a cross-cultural perspective.
Chapters 2 and 3 are methodological and are based on the fact that it is necessary to both understand the culture in which the research is conducted (the choice between an egocentric or geocentric FoR greatly depending upon the ecological environment) and “culturally” adapt the tools to the studied population while preserving their validity. Chapter 2 describes the adapted version of Levinson’s (2003) verbal and non-verbal tasks that were used, and Chapter 3, the cultural contexts and their spatial orientation systems, in which these tasks were administered.
Part 2 – Results
Chapter 4 presents a pilot study conducted in Bali in 1994, as well as two studies in India (Roopchandpur and Varanasi) and in Nepal (in the region of Dolakha) in 1999–2000. It is in Bali that the authors discovered among children as young as age four, the existence of a geocentric FoR at a verbal and non-verbal level, and conclude that both FoRs coexist in each individual, independently of the culture. These results somewhat confirm the universality of cognitive processes and supports the idea that it is rather the situation that determines the use of a certain FoR, and not the language. Ecological and acculturative influences are also highlighted, thus corroborating the cultural relativity of human development. These three first studies have raised a certain amount of interrogations that have led the authors to the principal study presented in this book, a study that was conducted in five different locations between 2002 and 2007.
Chapter 5 displays the results obtained in Bali in 2002. The authors corroborate their conclusions of 1994 about the precocious acquisition of geocentric language, but only with Balinese-speaking children in rural milieus. In order to explain the observed differences between Balinese-speaking children and Indonesian-speaking children, the authors emphasize the impact of the acculturation process among those speaking Indonesian. Moreover, FoRs appear to be profoundly linked to the eco-cultural context, but do not exclusively rely on language. The orientation systems in the local topography, as well as symbolic and religious aspects, are other components of this context.
Chapter 6 presents the main study conducted in Varanasi (India). The authors put forth the influence of schooling milieu on the use of geocentric FoRs. They specify that Sanskrit schools, “traditional” Indian schools (as opposed to Hindi schools, which are more Westernised) favor the development of geocentric FoRs. Results show that, in corroboration with the Bali study, variability in spatial cognitive processes cannot be reduced to the sole influence of language. Indeed, a set of variables constitute the ecological environment and each of their role varies in determining the organization of spatial language and cognition. However, sociocultural aspects do not stand out as much here compared to the Bali study. The authors report an association between the development of an egocentric FoR and media access (as an indirect acculturation measure), and between geocentric language and knowledge of the cardinal system as well as spatial abilities.
These first results lay half-way between the debate of universality and relativity of human development. The coexistence of both FoRs in Bali and in Varanasi supports universality, but ecological and cultural variability observed in the expression of these FoRs would support relativity. To better understand cognition in relation to culture, it appeared necessary to see what the situation was like “elsewhere.”
Chapter 7 focuses on the results obtained in Katmandu (Nepal). The location was chosen for data collection in response to the observed differences according to the spoken language in Bali (Balinese being considered as having a geocentric FoR and Indonesians, an egocentric FoR). Indeed, in Katmandu, the authors had the possibility to study spatial language and cognition among bilingual children. Considering that both FoRs coexist within one individual and that Nepali should favor a geocentric FoR and English an egocentric FoR, the authors decided to compare children attending English schools with children attending Nepali schools. Surprisingly, learning in English does not lead to a particular preference for the egocentric FoR. What seems to be important is the language spoken in the community. Moreover, by crossing data from this study with the one conducted in Dolakha in 1999–2000, the authors corroborate their conclusions relating to the ecological contrast between rural and urban milieus: geocentric language is predominant in both milieus, and egocentric language is only apparent in urban milieus (Katmandu) and absent in rural milieus (Dolakha).
Chapter 8 presents data collected in Panditpur, a rural town in India, where an egocentric language is used to give directions. However, results indicate a preference for a geocentric FoR for children and adults. As much as the authors do not seem to be able to explain why an egocentric language was used during the testing, it is evident that geocentric FoR is dominant in spoken languages in rural milieus. This finding supports the ecological hypothesis.
Chapter 9 presents findings obtained in Geneva. This Swiss city was chosen for the necessity of a control group. Even though Dasen knew that Western children did not implicitly use a geocentric FoR, it was necessary to verify this empirically to allow for comparison. Data confirm that French-speaking children never turn to geocentric language. However, two of the oldest children provided some geocentric answers, which pushed the authors to consider the possibility of a flexible use of FoRs depending on the task at hand.
In short, these different chapters indicate that all children, whether they are Swiss, Nepali, Balinese, or Indian, can elaborate different FoRs and that the expression of these FoRs will clearly depend on the environmental demands.
Part 3 – Additional studies
In the third part of this book, the authors present a series of additional studies specific to certain locations and samples.
Chapter 10 focuses on the development of spatial language in children who have grown up in an environment where the geocentric language and the use of a geocentric orientation system are the norms. Children do learn spatial language from their parents, but as they evolve in their environment, they learn new ways to manage spatial realities, leading to a better adaptation to their environment.
The existence of a deictic language, an “intermediate” language between egocentric and geocentric (“this way/that way” accompanied by a hand movement), led the authors to question, in Chapter 11, the precocity of geocentric FoR through gestures, and therefore before the acquisition of language itself. Among Nepali children in Kathmandu, where both FoRs are used in everyday life, geocentric FoR gestures predominate over egocentric ones. The developmental trajectory observed here appears to be the opposite of that of Western children.
In chapter 12, the authors look more closely at how children using a geocentric FoR organize and describe a spatial layout from different viewpoints (when rotating it). Regardless of the dominant FoR, most children described it differently. The tendency to describe it -identically or not- appears intimately linked to the schemes used to organize the spatial layout at task.
In chapter 13, the authors examine the neurophysiological correlates of geocentric space. Two studies, one with Varanasi and Kathmandu children and the other with brain-damaged Varanasi patients, led to the conclusion that the neuronal circuits involved in each FoR might be different. However, these results are exploratory and need to be further examined.
Chapter 14 focuses on the concept of dead reckoning, a process through which an individual continuously estimates his/her position in the environment. In most researches, dead reckoning clearly appears as egocentric, but these were conducted with Western samples. The authors thus explore this process with children using a geocentric FoR in Sanskrit and Hindi schools. Although children appear to be good navigators, their navigation skills do not solely rely on their FoR.
Part 4 – Conclusions
What can we conclude from these results? In the light of the universality/relativity of human development, Levinson’s linguistic relativism (2003) and Dasen’s integrative eco-cultural framework (2003), the authors explain why they consider FoRs as cognitive styles, why the underlying basic processes of spatial language and cognition are universal and how ecology, cultural belief systems and acculturation play a special role in the use of a FoR.
Conclusion
“Put the knife to the east, and the fork to the west!” is a colloquialism so unusual that it immediately attracts attention and peaks the reader’s curiosity. Reading this book was a touristic and scientific journey. One gets to discover unfamiliar spatial orientation systems and cultures. Moreover, the number and quality of references (nearly 400), the permanent concern to consider the work relating directly and indirectly to the development of spatial language and cognition, and the contributions of the results to the scientific community make of this book a great treasure that deserves to be better known by the academia. Their contributions, in our opinion, provide very interesting neo-Piagetian and “neo-Western” reflections. Writing a book review, however, was a difficult task. A careful reading, with several back and forths, was needed to grasp the (many) details of this book.