This Content Downloaded From 195.220.106.16 On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC

Where Do Cardinal Direction Terms Come From?
Author(s): Cecil H. Brown

Source: Anthropological Linguistics , Summer, 1983, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1983), pp.
121-161
Published by: The Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of Anthropological
Linguistics
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30027665
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropological
Linguistics
This content downloaded from

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WHERE DO CARDINAL DIRECTION TERMS COME FROM?*
Cecil H. Brown
Northern Illinois University
Abstract. This paper compiles data from 127 globally distributed

languages which attest to cross-language uniformities in the
lexical encoding and naming of the four cardinal directions.
Languages tend to encode cardinal directions when the domain as
a whole acquires cultural salience. In addition, there is a
typical order in which cardinal direction terms are added to
vocabularies. This encoding sequence is explained by reference
to the differential natural salience of cardinal points.
Where do cardinal direction terms come from? Recent studies

have assembled cross-language evidence attesting to universal
tendencies in the development of nomenclature for referents of
several different lexical domains (Witkowski, Brown, and Chase
1981; Witkowski and Brown 1983a; Brown and Witkowski 1981, 1983a,
b; Brown 1982a, 1984). For example, languages have frequently
developed labels for tree in general by extending terms for wood
to that referent (Witkowski, Brown, and Chase 1981). Similarly,
a common way of lexically encoding the body part face is through
expansion of eye terms (Brown and Witkowski 1983a). Another
example is development of labels for the time period year through
referential extension of terms for a particular part of a year,
e.g., summer (Brown and Witkowski 1983b). The present paper
compiles cross-language data attesting to regular extensions in
the development of nomenclature for the four cardinal directions,
north, south, east, and west.
The comparative method of historical linguistics provides
direct evidence of regularities in the development of terms for
cardinal directions. For example, the reconstructed histories
of terms for north, south, east, and west in two unrelated
genetic groupings of languages, Indo-European and Polynesian,
show a number of parallels. Buck (1949) reports that terms for
east and west in Indo-European languages are largely derived
from words such as dawn, morning, to rise, evening, going down,
etc., all relating to either the rising or setting of the sun.
Not surprisingly, some terms for east and west in Polynesian
languages have similar derivations.' There are, however, some-
what less expected parallels which are strikingly similar in
content. For example, several Indo-European languages have
developed terms for north and/or south through extension of
terms for left (side) and/or right (side) to those cardinal
directions (Buck 1949). Such extensions have led to polysemy
whereby a term refers to both the original referent, left or
right, and the acquired referent, north or south: e.g.,
Cornish clth which denotes both left and north. At least one
121
195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
122 Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 25, No. 2
Polynesian language shows a similar development and resulting

polysemy: Hawaiian 'Rkau north, right and hema south, left.
Derivational histories of terms for cardinal points in
both Indo-European and Polynesian languages for the most part are
very transparent, reflected by either polysemy or literal trans-
lation. For example, while the Hawaiian term for south is an
unambiguous reflex (descendent form) of the Proto-Polynesian term
for left, *sema (Biggs 1979), the fact that it also refers to
left is clearly indicative of its etymology. Literal transla-
tion informs of etymology in a direct manner, for example,
labels for east and west translating literally sunrise or
sunset.
The etymological transparency of most terms for cardinal
directions in Indo-European and Polynesian languages suggests
that languages of these groupings have lexically encoded these
referents only in relatively recent times. In addition, careful
comparative study of forms and their distributions in these
genetic groupings reveals little basis for proposing any great
antiquity for any cardinal direction term. Clearly such terms do
not reconstruct for either Proto-Indo-European (cf. Buck 1949) or
for Proto-Polynesian (to be discussed presently), nor is there
any strong evidence for proposing such reconstructions for less
ancient parent languages which have given rise to genetic sub-
groupings within Indo-European and Polynesian. The same observa-
tion can be made with regard to other genetic groupings of lan-
guages with which I am familiar, i.e., Mayan and Uto-Aztecan (cf.
Kaufman 1964 and Miller 1967, respectively). In addition, an
extensive comparative study of names for cardinal points in
Finno-Ugric languages concludes that the vast majority of such
terms first arose during the individual development of each
language of the genetic grouping (Be6thy 1967:196-198). These
findings lead to the conclusion that on a worldwide basis lexical
encoding of cardinal directions is a fairly recent phenomenon.
That languages of the remote past generally lacked terms
for cardinal points is not particularly surprising. By and large
these languages were spoken by peoples of small scale societies
who had little reason for formulating notions of location in
terms of cardinal directionality. Cardinal points, of course,
provide directional information that is invariant over a wide
range of circumstances and, thus, is particularly useful for
people who are highly mobile and/or lack finegrained geographic
knowledge of their whereabouts. For the most part members of
small scale societies - nomadic ones excepted - only rarely are
motivated to venture much beyond their immediate environs of
which they usually have extraordinarily detailed knowledge. When
reference to direction is required, it can be handled in terms of
some geographic-specific feature, for example, through use of
expressions such as toward the mountain or on the other side of
the lagoon or through the use of general direction words such as
up, down, in front of, behind, left, right, and so on. On the
other hand, when people become more mobile and more often find
themselves in places with which they are not intimately familiar,
knowledge of pan-geographic fixed directions such as north, south,

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Cardinal Direction Terms 123
etc., becomes increasingly useful. Such mobility, of course,

is largely characteristic of large scale urban societies.
The general increase in societal scale and complexity over
the last several millenia of human history has no doubt pro-
moted lexical encoding of cardinal points in many of the world's
languages. Technological advances accompanying increases in
societal scale such as ocean-going vessels, the compass, maps,
mathematics, and so on, obviously have contributed significantly
to this development (cf. Taylor 1957). Today many languages
spoken by peoples of small scale societies also have terms for
cardinal directions, this probably often attributable to
Western influence. In some instances cardinal point terms
have been directly borrowed from Western languages. In others,
native terms have been extended to borrowed concepts of cardinal
directionality. It is, of course, possible that native concepts
of the four cardinal points have more than occasionally devel-
oped independent of Western influence.2 Whatever the case, a
primary purpose of the present study is investigation of
uniform ways in which languages, of both large and small scale
societies, have developed terms for the cardinal directions.
Polyseamy and overt marking. In this study literal trans-

lation, polysemy, and overt marking are assumhed indicative of
term derivational history. Of course, literal translation, for
example, sunrise for east, directly attests to derivation.
Polysemy and overt marking are somewhat more complex linguistic
phenomena.
Polysemy is the labeling of related referents, such as
hand and arm, by use of a single term. Overt marking is
another way in which related referents are nomenclaturally
connected. This involves a base term, such as a word for hand,
united with a modifier (or overt mark), such as handle,
creating a complex expression, such as handle (of) hand as a
label for arm (cf. Witkowski and Brown 1983a).
The development of polysemy involves extending a term for
one referent to another. For example, south/left polysemy in
Hawaiian developed through referential extension of a term
originally denoting left to the referent south. When such
expansion occurs, the term involved is commonly a salient,
frequently used word whose original referent is also important
and salient. On the other hand, the referent to which the term
is expanded is usually of low salience or importance (Brown and
Witkowski 1981, 1983a; Witkowski, Brown, and Chase 1981;
Witkowski and Brown 1983a). Thus, it is probably the case in
the Hawaiian example that at some point in the past a salient
term for a salient referent, left, absorbed a somewhat less
salient referent, south, creating south/left polysemy.
Overt marking often develops from polysemy and may result
in polysemy loss (Witkowski, Brown, and Chase 1981; Witkowski
and Brown 1983a; Brown and Witkowski 1983a). For example, a
language having south/left polysemy may optionally modify the
term involved with another term (overt mark) creating a complex

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
expression denoting south only. When this occurs, there is a

tendency for the original unmodified term to drop south as a
referent, leaving left as its only meaning. In such an event,
polysemy is lost.
Such a development apparently occurred in Celtic lan-
guages. As mentioned above, Cornish cleth denotes both north
and left. However, the Welsh cognate of the latter term, cledd,
denotes only Zeft. North in Welsh is labeled by use of the
complex expression gogledd which consists of the terms go- sub
and cledd left (Buck 1949). The Cornish usage suggests that in
the past Welsh cledd was similarly polysemous denoting both
north and left. If so, north/left polysemy in Welsh was lost
subsequent to the development of a term for north through overt
marking of cledd.
Occasionally when overt marking develops from polysemy, it
is the original referent of the polysemous term which becomes
designated by a complex expression. Such would be the case,
for example, if the referent left were to become labeled by a
modified version of a term denoting both south and left. In
addition, there are examples attesting to double overt marking
where both referents of a polysemous term develop labels which
are both modified versions of the polysemous term. Obviously,
in such instances, the modifiers or overt marks involved are
different words.
Overt marking tends to develop from polysemy when the
lower salience referent of the two united under one term for
one reason or another increases considerably in salience (Brown
and Witkowski 1983a; Witkowski and Brown 1983a). Languages
apparently do not usually tolerate use of a single term to
designate two referents both of which are high in salience.
As a consequence, as the lower salience referent of a poly-
semous pair increases in salience, polysemy tends to be lost
and the two referents become labeled by separate terms. This
process often involves development of overt marking, although
it need not always. Further increases in salience of a
referent designated by overt marking may eventually result in
the disappearance of nomenclatural evidence of an earlier
polysemous stage of development. This usually involves
deletion of the base element in a complex construction.3 For
example, if the base cledd left were deleted from the complex
Welsh expression for north, gogledd -- thus leaving *go alone
for north -- no language-internal evidence would remain of an
earlier polysemous connection between the referent north and
the referent left.
Terms for north, south, east, and west found in languages
of the large global sample surveyed for this study are
frequently polysemous, that is, they have referents in addi-
tion to cardinal points which seem to be semantically related
to them. For example, in addition to left and right, cardinal
direction terms often denote other more general directions
such as up, down, in front of, behind, and so on. Also, the
latter referents are sometimes related to cardinal directions
through overt marking constructions. Other referents often

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
nomenclaturally related to cardinal points through either

polysemy or overt marking include those relating to celestial
bodies and events, and those relating to atmospheric features,
especially winds (south wind, north wind, etc.), but also
weather conditions, temperature, and seasons.
While it is possible that these nomenclatural relation-
ships have occasionally developed through an initial expansion
of a cardinal point term to a related referent such as up,
down, north wind, south wind, and so on, it is more likely that
such relationships have usually developed in the reverse
manner, e.g., an up term extending to north. As noted earlier,
there is little reason to believe that cardinal directionality
would have been of any great use to peoples of small scale
societies of the past. On the other hand, terms for more
general directions (up, down, etc.), as in contemporary
languages, must have been of considerable utility. The same
is almost certainly true of terms for celestial bodies and
events and atmospheric features. However, as societies have
increased in size and complexity, cardinal directionality has
obviously become more important or, to use the current
terminology, more salient. In any case, when the notions of
north, south, east, and west were first innovated by or intro-
duced into small scale societies, they must have been of low
salience. Thus polysemous relationships such as north/up and
south/south wind found among languages surveyed here probably
arose through expansion of high salience terms for high
salience referents such as up, down, south wind, north wind,
etc. to less salient referents such as north, south, east, and
west.
This discussion of the usual direction of polysemy devel-
opment involving cardinal points is largely speculative in
nature. However, direct evidence can be provided by the com-
parative approach of historical linguistics. For example,
Buck's (1949) discussion of cardinal direction terms in Indo-
European languages provides numerous examples of referential
expansions of non-cardinal point terms to cardinal directions.
Reverse developments apparently are not attested for Indo-
European languages. Presently, evidence from a comparative
study of Polynesian languages is presented which also docu-
ments the usual direction of polysemy development involving
cardinal directions.
The data. The present study surveys cardinal direction

terms in 127 languages, an expanded and revised version of
the sample of languages used in earlier studies (Brown and
Witkowski 1981, 1983a; Witkowski and Brown 1983a). Informa-
tion for the most part is gathered from dictionary sources
(see appendix). The 127 languages are worldwide in distri-
bution and include representatives from most of the world's
major language phyla. Table 1 organizes the 127 languages
according to genetic relationship and broadly by world area.
A survey of cardinal direction terms in these 127
languages reveals that nomenclatural development involves

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
only four lexical source areas. These are (1) celestial

bodies and events, (2) atmospheric features, (3) other more
general directions, and (4) environment-specific features.
Table 1. 127 Languages Surveyed Organized by
Genetic Relationship and World Area
Eskimo: Ifupiat Eskimo (1).
Wakashan: Kwakiutl (2).
Salish: Puget Salish (3).
Algonkian: Natick (4), Ojibwa (5).
Siouan: Biloxi (6), Crow (7), Dakota (8), Osage (9).
Gulf (Springer and Witkowski 1980): Atakapa (10), Choctaw (11), Tunica (12).
Iroquoian: Mohawk (13), Onondaga (14), Seneca (15).
Athapaskan: Navajo (16).
Penutian:
Miwok: Central Sierra Miwok (17), Lake Miwok (18).
Maiduan: Maidu (19), Nisenan (20).
North American Isolate: Zuni (21).
Yukian: Wappo (22).
Hokan: Achumawi (23), DieguefEo (24), Tequistlatec (25), Yana (26).
Aztec-Tanoan:
Kiowa-Tanoan: Kiowa (27).
Uto-Aztecan:
Numic: Chemehuevi (28), Shoshoni (29).
Takic: Luisenfo (30).
Sonoran: Mayo (31), Papago-Pima (32), Tarahumara (33).
Aztecan: Mexicano (34).
Mexican Isolate: Tarascan (35).
Mesoamerican (Witkowski and Brown 1978):
Otomanguean:
Otomian: Mazahua (36).
Popolocan: Ixcatec (37).
Mixtecan: Mixtec (38), Trique (39).
Zapotecan: Chatino (40), Zapotec (41).
Zoquean: Mixe (42), Sayula (43), Zoque (44).
Mayan: Huastec (45), Mopan (46), Tzeltal (47).
Others: Huave (48) Totonac (49).
Barbacoan: Cayapa (50K, Colorado (51).
Ge-Pano-Carib:
Macro-Carib: Huitoto Muinane (52), Ocaina (53).
Macro-Panoan: Mataca (54), Tacana (55).
Andean-Equatoria Z:
Andean: Chayahuita (56), Quechua (57).
Jivaroan: Aguaruna (58).
Macro-Tucanoan: Movima (59).
Austronesian:
Oceanic:
Eastern Oceanic:
Polynesian: Hawaiian (60), Nukuoro (61).
Others: Ambrym (62), Eddystone (63), Fijian (64).
Papuan Austronesian: Muyuw (65).
Loyalty Islands: Dehu (66).
Micronesian: Kusaiean (67), Marshallese (68).

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Formosan Austronesian: Tsou (69).

Northwest Austronesian: Bikol (70), Bontok Igorot (71),
Chamorro (72), Manobo (73), Tiruray (74).
Indonesian Austronesian: Indonesian (75).
Central New Guinea: Awa (76), Kapauku (77), Tifal (78), Yareba (79).
Australian Macro-Phylum: Gidabal (80), Karadutjara (81), Ngandi (82),
Tiwi (83).
Mon-Khmer: Chrau (84), Katu (85), Sedang (86).
Kam-Tai: Nung (87), Thai (88).
Sino-Tibetan:
Tibeto-Burman: Ahi (89), Kham (90), Tibetan (91).
Chinese: Mandarin Chinese (92).
Chukchee-Kamchatkan: Kamchadal (93).
Altaic: Japanese (94), Korean (95), Mongolian (96), Turkish (97).
Uralic: Finnish (98), Hungarian (99).
Indo-European:
Indo-Iranian: Kotia Oriya (100), Pahlavi (101), Pali (102).
Slavic: Czech (103), Polish (104).
Baltic: Latvian (105).
Italic: French (106), Portuguese (107).
Celtic: Cornish (108), Welsh (109).
Germanic: Dutch (110), English (111).
Others: Albanian (112), Armenian (113).
Afroasiatic: Amharic (114), Galla (115), Mocha (116), Ngizim (117).
Niger-Congo:
Adamawa-Eastern: Sango (118).
Benue-Congo:
Bantu-Proper: Congo (119), Kikuyu (120), Swahili (121), Zulu (122),
Cross-River: Efik (123).
Kwa: Ibo (124), Yoruba (125).
Mande: Mende (126).
West Atlantic: Dyola (127).
Celestial bodies and events. Identifying east and west

through reference to the rising and setting of the sun consti-
tutes the most ubiquitous manner by which languages have
developed terms for any of the cardinal points. Tables 2 and
3 list languages of the sample which nomenclaturally connect
east with the rising sun and west with the setting sun
respectively. Languages are organized by genetic relationship
and world area, i.e. the order of listing follows that of
Table 1. Associated numbers are for identification of genetic
affiliation through reference to Table 1.
Table 2. Languages Surveyed Nomenclaturally
Relating East with the Rising of the Sun
1. Kwakiutl (2): east, lit. where the sun comes up
2. Ojibwa (5): east, lit. where the sun rises; east/in the morning
3. Biloxi (6): sunrise + toward = east
4. Crow (7): east, lit. where the sun rises
5. Dakota (8): east, lit. the sun rising
6. Osage (9): east, lit. the sun rising
7. Choctaw (11): sun + to come out = east; sun + the appearing place =
east

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
8. Tunica (12): east, lit. where she emerges

9. Onondaga (14): sun + UE = east
10. Seneca (15): east, lit. the sun emerges there
11. Navajo (16): east, lit. to be sun up
12. Maidu (19): east, lit. sunriser
13. Zuni (21): east, lit. direction of the coming day
14. Achumawi (23): east, lit. sun-of-arising direction
15. Diegueffo (24): sun + UE = east
16. Kiowa (27): sun + rise = east
17. Chemehuevi (28): dawn + UE = east
18. Shoshoni (29): sun + ascend + in direction of = east
19. Papago-Pima (32): east/early
20. Mexicano (34): east, lit. where the sun is born
21. Tarascan (35): sun + UE = east
22. Mazahua (36): east, lit. where the sun comes out
23. Mixtec (38): east, lit. place where the sun comes out
24. Chatino (40): east, lit. where the sun is born
25. Zapotec (41): road + born + sun = east
26. Mixe (42): where + sun + goes up = east
27. Huastec (45): goes up + sun = east
28. Tzeltal (47): east, lit. direction where the sun goes up
29. Huave (48): UE + sun = east
30. Cayapa (50): sun + rises + UE = east
31. Chayahuita (56): sun + goes up + UE = east
32. Quechua (57): sun + goes up + UE = east
33. Aguaruna (58): sun + goes up = east
34. Hawaiian (60): east/coming
35. Fijian (64): east/upwards
36. Bikol (70): rays of light + UE = east; -to shine + UE = east
37. Bontok Igorot (71): rising + sun = east
38. Manobo (73): UE + to rise + UE = east
39. Tiruray (74): to rise over the horizon + UE = east
40. Sedang (86): east, lit. toward the sunrise
41. Thai (88): sun + goes out = east
42. Ahi (89): east, lit. side where sun rises
43. Kham (90): east, lit. towards the sunrise
44. Turkish (97): sun + birth = east
45. Finnish (98): east/come forth
46. Hungarian (99): to rise + UE = east
47. Pahlavi (101): sun + UE = east
48. Czech (103): east/way out, exit
49. Polish (104): east, lit. a going out, up
50. Cornish (108): sun + rise = east
51. Welsh (109): rise + sun = east
52. Armenian (113): sun + UE = east
53. Galla (115): climb + brightness = east
54. Kikuyu (120): exit + UE + sun = east
55. Zulu (122): east, lit. where the sun comes out
56. Efik (123): direction + sun + rise = east
57. Ibo (124): rising + sun = east
58. Yoruba (125): line + sun = east

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Cardinal Diretion Ternms 129

Relating West with the Setting of the Sun
1. Ojibwa (5): west, lit. setting of the sun
2. Biloxi (6): sunset + toward = west
3. Crow (7): west, lit. where the sun sets
4. Dakota (8): west, lit. where the sun sets
5. Atakapa (10): UE + to come down = west
6. Choctaw (11): sun + UE = west
7. Tunica (12): west, lit. she disappears
8. Seneca (15): west, lit. the sun drops there
9. Navajo (16): west, lit. something roundish moves away out of sight
10. Maidu (19): west, lit, where the luminary floats down
11. Zuni (21): west, lit. direction of the place of evening
12. Achumawi (23): west, lit. sun-of-setting direction
13. Kiowa (27): sun + set = west
14. Chemehuevi (28): evening + UE = west
15. Shoshoni (29): the sun sets + in direction of = west
16. Papago-Pima (32): to descend + UE = west
17. Mexicano (34): west, lit. where the sun puts down
18. Tarascan (35): sun + IUE = west
19. Mazahua (36): west, lit. where the sun sets
20. Mixtec (38): west, lit. place where sun goes
21. Trique (39): toward + enters + sun = west
22. Chatino (40): west, lit. where the sun goes
23. Zapotec (41): road + put down + sun = west
24. Mixe (42): where + sun + enters = west
25. Zoque (44): sunset + UE + up, high = west
26. Huastec (45): enters + sun = west
27. Tszetal (47): west, lit. direction where the sun puts down
28. Tomoniac (49): west, lit. where the sun puts down
29. Cayapa (50): sun + enters + UE = west
30. Chayahuita (56): sun + enters = west
31. Quechua (57): sun + enters + UE = west
32. Aguaruna (58): sun + enters = west
33. Hawaiian (60): west, lit. come to rest; enter + UE = west
34. Fijian (64): west/down, below
35. Bikol (70): =to set + UE = west
36. Bontok Igorot (71): setting + sun = west
37. Manobo (73): to set + UE = west
38. Tiruray (74): to sink + UE = west
39. Kapauku (77): set of the sun + place = west
40. Sedang (86): west, lit. toward the sunset
41. Thai (8.8): sun + falls = west
42. Ahi (89): west, lit. side where sun sets
43. Kham (90): west, lit. towards the sunset
44. Hungarian (99): to rest + UE = west
45. Pahlavi (101): sun + UE = west
46. Czech (103): behind + fall = west
47. Polish (104): west, west + UE = go behind, go down (of sun)
48. Latvian (105): sunset + UE = west; evening + plural = west
49. French (106): west/setting
50. Cornish (108): sun + setting = west

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
51. Welsh (109): set + sun = west

52. Armenian (113): sun + UE west
53. Galla (115): climb + brightness = west
54. KikuyLd (120): UE + (sun) - west [( ) = optional]
55. Zulu (122): west, lit. where the sun sets
56. Efik (123): direction + UE + sun + to be lost = west
57. Ibo (124): setting + sun = west
58. Yoruba (125): UE + sun = west
59. Dyola (127): place + sun + UE = west
In a few cases polysemy constitutes the way in which east
or west is nomenclaturally related with the rising/setting sun.
For example, in Finnish (language 98) a single term denotes both
east and come forth, the latter no doubt related to the former
through the notion of the coming of the sun. Polysemy is noted
for Finnish in Table 2 by use of east/come forth. Development
of descriptive labels referring to the rising/setting sun
constitutes the principal way in which languages have innovated
terms for east and west. For example, the Biloxi (6) expression
for west combines the words sunset and toward, and, obviously,
has the literal translation toward sunset. This is noted for
Biloxi in Table 3 by use of sunset + toward = west. In some
instances translations are not known for some elements of
complex expressions. When this is the case, the symbol UE
(unknown element) is employed, e.g., Tiruray (74): to sink + UE
= west and Diegueno (24): sun + UE = east. In some cases,
rather than outlining meanings of constituents of complex
labels, literal translations are given in tables, e.g., Crow
(7): east, lit. where the sun rises. Tables 2 and 3 show no
cases where overt marking relates east or west with the rising/
setting sun.
The 58 languages of Table 2 and the 59 languages of Table
3 each comprise approximately 45 percent of the languages
surveyed. This figure is probably roughly indicative of the
frequency of the nomenclatural connection of east or west with
the rising/setting sun on a worldwide basis.5 In addition,
distribution of languages of Tables 2 and 3 respectively is
largely discontinuous across genetic and geographic language
boundaries (cf. Table 1). From this it can be inferred that
languages have often independently developed terms for east and
west through reference to the rising/setting sun, a conclusion
which is, perhaps, not unexpected.
Languages have also developed terms for north and south
through reference to celestial bodies and events, but clearly
not as often as in the cases of east and west. Tables 4 and 5
list languages nomenclaturally relating south and north
respectively with a celestial body and/or event.
Both polysemy and literal translation attest to the deri-
vational histories of south and north terms in Tables 4 and 5.
In addition, there is one example of overt marking. Hungarian
(99) has a term which denotes both south and midday. This term
can be combined with country to designate south alone.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Table 4. Languages Surveyed Nomenclaturally Relating South

with a Celestial Body and/or Event
1. Atakapa (10): south, lit. where the sun turns
2. Mohawk (13): to be daylight + UE = south
3. Seneca (15): daytime + UE = south
4. Navajo (16): south, lit. sun starts to move
5. Central Sierra Miwok (17): to climb + UE = south
6. Luiseto (30): house + UE = southward
7. Chatino (40): south, lit. where the sun is at midday
8. Huitoto Muinane (52): far away + day = south
9. Turkish (97): sun + UE = south
10. Hungarian (99): south/midday; south/midday + country = south
11. Pahlavi (101): south/midday; south/afternoon time
12. Polish (104): south/midday
13. Latvian (105): day + middle = south
Table 5. Languages Surveyed Nomenclaturally Relating North

with a Celestial Body and/or Event
1. Seneca (15): north, lit. the sun isn't there
2. Navajo (16): north, lit. it revolves. ..the Big Dipper
3. Huitoto Muinane (52): outside + day = north
4. Tiruray (74): to grow dark + UE = north
5. Turkish (97): north/pole star
6. Pahlavi (101): north/planet
7. Czech (103): half + night = north
8. Polish (104): north/midnight
Terms for south in Table 4 for the most part relate to
the sun's movement or position in the sky. In the northern
hemisphere, of course, the sun always travels from east to
west in the southern half of the sky. Atakapa (10), for
example, acknowledges this fact by equating south with where
the sun turns. In several instances reference is to where the
sun is located at the mid point in its trip from east to west.
Thus several languages have extended terms for midday to south
creating south/midday polysemy. Other languages show this
relationship in descriptive labels for south, e.g., where the
sun is at midday. Clearly the association of south and midday
is an areal feature in the part of the world where Hungarian
(99), Polish (104), and Latvian (105) are spoken. However,
its occurrence in Chatino (40) and Pahlavi (101) suggests that
it has been independently invented on various occasions.
Inclusion of Luisefio (30) with house + UE = south in Table 4
is based on speculation. I have assumed that house refers to
the house of the sun or, in other words, to the southern sky.
Only one language of Table 4 is spoken in the southern
hemisphere where the sun travels in the northern sky. Huitoto
Muinane's (52) south term translates literally, far away day.
This probably relates to the fact that in the southern hemi-
sphere daylight emanates from the northern sky and, thus, the
south is away from the day's source. In the northern hemis-
phere, of course, the light of the sun emanates from the

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
southern sky. This fact constitutes the basis for innovation

of Seneca's (15) north term which is literally, the sun isn't
there (see Table 5). It may also relate to the construction
for north in Tiruray (74), to grow dark + UE = north.
Both Czech (103) and Polish (104) relate north to the
middle of the night or midnight. This usage is possibly based
on analogy with use of midday in reference to south which is
common in Slavic languages. However, it is more plausibly
traced to the fact that at midnight the sun is at north, a
phenomenon which can be easily observed in the summer in
northern latitudes (Albert Heinrich, personal communication).
Atmospheric features. Words for celestial bodies and

events are a likely source for developing cardinal point labels
since their referents are invariably associated with certain
directions. Words for atmospheric features are similarly
appropriate for much the same reason. For example, warmer
weather arrives from the south and colder weather from the
north (at least in the northern hemisphere), and north winds,
obviously, blow from the north and south winds from the south,
and so on. Thus it is not surprising to find words for
atmospheric features, especially those for winds, drawn upon
in innovation of cardinal direction terms. However, while
such terminology is rather frequently used in developing north
and south labels, it only rarely figures into innovation of
terms for east and west.
Tables 6 and 7 list languages among the 127 surveyed
which nomenclaturally relate north and south respectively with
wind. Literal translation, polysemy, and overt marking are all
in evidence in these tables. In some cases languages show
double overt marking. When both expressions are complex, there
is always a common element that either denotes a cardinal
direction or wind depending on context, and a second constitu-
ent, different for each expression, that specifies designation
of the cardinal point or wind, respectively, for example, Crow
(7) with north/wind + UE = north and north/wind + UE = wind
(where two UE's are not the same form).
Relating North with Wind
1. Iflupiat Eskimo (1): north/northeast wind; north/northwest wind
2. Natick (4): northward/north wind + UE = northward; northward/
north wind + UE = north wind
3. Ojibwa (5): north/north wind
4. Biloxi (6): north wind + toward = north
5. Crow (7): north/wind + UE = north, north/wind + UE = wind
6. Zuni (21): north, lit. plains of the mightiest winds
7. Achumawi (23): north, lit. upstream-wind direction
8. Tequistlatec (25): north/wind
9. Chatino (40): north, lit. from where the cold wind comes
10. Mixe (42): where + wind + comes = north
11. Movima (59): north/wind + UE = north; north/wind + UE = wind
12. Fijian (64): face + north wind = north

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
13. Bikol (70): north/north wind; north/north wind + UE = north wind

14. Ahi (89): wind + UE = north
15. Latvian (105): north/northern wind; north/northern wind + pluralizer
= north
16. Swahili (121): north wind/hot season + UE = north
17. Zulu (122): north/north wind

Relating South with Wind
1. Natick (4): southward/wind blows from south + UE = southward;
southward/wind bZows from south + UE = wind blows
from south
2. Osage (9): south wind + there = south
3. Choctaw (11): south, lit. the water wind
4. Achumawi (23): south, lit. downstream-wind direction
5. Tequistlatec (25): south/south wind
6. Mixe (42): where + wind + goes = south
7. Tacana (55): wind + side = south
8. Fijian (64): face + south wind = south
9. Bikol (70): south/south wind; south/south wind + UE = south wind
10. Ahi (89): wind + UE = south
11. Turkish (97): south/south wind
12. Hungarian (99): south/midday + wind = south
13. Czech (103): south + wind = south
14. Swahili (121): south monsoon + UE = south
15. Efik (123): wind + cool = south/south wind
There are 24 languages of the sample that nomenclaturally
relate north and/or south with wind (see Tables 6 and 7). This
is roughly indicative of a worldwide frequency of 19 percent
(24/127). Here, too, distribution of languages involved is
largely discontinuous across geographic and genetic language
boundaries (cf. Table 1), indicating frequent independent
innovation.
Among the languages surveyed there are only three that
nomenclaturally associate east and/or west with wind. These
are I'upiat Eskimo (1), Natick (4), and Turkish (97).
Table 8 lists languages surveyed which nomenclaturally
relate atmospheric features other than wind with cardinal
directions. In all cases except one, Kapauku (77), the
cardinal points involved are north and/or south. Pertinent
atmospheric features are temperature, weather, and season of
the year.
Table 8. Languages Surveyed Nomenclaturally Relating Cardinal
Directions with Temperature, Weather, or Season
1. Biloxi (6): changing weather + toward = south (so called because
rain is brought by the south wind)
2. Tunica (12): UE + cold weather + UE = north; summer + UE = south;
UE + winter + at = west
3. Mohawk (13): UE + to be cold weather + UE = north
4. Onondaga (14): cold + UE = north
5. Seneca (15): UE + be cold + UE = north

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
6. Wappo (22): south, UE + south = summer

7. Kiowa (27): winter + region = north; to be cold + country = north;
summer + region = south; to be hot + country = south
8. Papago-Pima (32): north/to soak in
9. Chatino (40): north, lit. from where the cold wind comes
10. Tzeltal (47): north/storm
11. Marshallese (68): south/summer
12. Kapauku (77): east/good weather; east/good weather + place = east
13. Swahili (121): north wind/hot season + UE = north
14. Efik (123): wind + cool = south/south wind
15. Dyola (127): north/spring
Other more general directions. In languages lacking

labels for cardinal points or in which cardinal directions are
not particularly salient, a common way of referring to more-or-
less fixed directions is through use of general directional
words such as up, down, above, below, in front of, behind, etc.
Such usage is frequently reported in the ethnographic litera-
ture. For example, Mead (1956:67) writes of the Manus:
The known world was the world in which they lived - the South
Coast of the Admiralty Islands, each small creek mouth and bay
accurately known. When people spoke, they spoke of going
either up - toward the open sea - or going down - toward
the nearby shore - or going along - parallel to the shore.
And Abraham writes of the Tiv (1933:49-50):
The only concepts of direction known to the Tiv are
upwards and downwards and nearness and distance... thus
if I travelled eastwards from Y towards X, both being on
the same level or X being topographically higher than Y,
I say 'I went upwards X'...Similarly, if I travel westwards
from X toward Y, I say 'I sortied (in relation to) X which
is upwards and went downwards (in relation) to Y'.
And Redfield writes of the people of Tepoztlan (1930:57):
As in Polynesian islands where directions are not given in
terms of the compass points but rather as "toward the sea" or
"away from the sea," so in Tepoztlan a location with reference
to the speaker is not usually given in terms of north, south,
east, or west but is instead described as "down below" or
"a little way above."
Similarly, linkage of fixed locations with general direction terms is
apparent in the ordinary use of American English uptown and
downtownwhich, it seems to me, only rarely relates to actual
elevation of commercial centers.
An inventory of general direction terms such as upwards,
below, etc., which are also invariably associated with fixed
directions would seem to be an especially appropriate lexical
source for developing terms for cardinal directions. Indeed,
languages surveyed for this study indicate that terms for north,
south, east, and west have frequently been innovated through
referential expansion of such lexical items. Table 9 lists
languages which apparently have extended terms for up, down,
front, back, etc., to cardinal points.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC

Directions with Other Directions
1. Crow (7): face + below, downstream = south
2. Mohawk (13): east/down; west/up
3. Maidu (19): west, lit. downhill country
4. Wappo (22): front + UE = east
5. Shoshoni (29): behind, back + UE = south
6. Papago-Pima (32): east/back/up
7. Mexicano (34): north/up; south/down
8. Trique (39): south/under, beneath
9. Zapotec (41): north/up; south/down
10. Zoque (44): UE + up, high = east; sun set + UE + up, high = west
11. Totonac (49): east/front + UE = east; east/front + UE = front
12. Colorado (51): perpendicular + direction = north-south axis
13. Huitoto Muinane (52): toward downhill + UE = east;
toward up + UE + day = west
14. Ocaina (53): bottom + UE = east; top + UE = west
15. Hawaiian (60): southern/down
16. Ambrym (62): north/under, down; south/up, above; east, lit.
in front of us; west, lit. behind us
17. Fijian (64): east/upwards; west/down, below
18. Marshallese (68): UE + behind, in back of = west
19. Kapauku (77): west/over there; west/over there + UE = west
20. Thai (88): north/above; south/below
21. Finnish (98): south/in front place
22. Armenian (113): south/down under
23. Galla (115): north/above, up, upwards; north/above, up, upwards +
belly = northern; south/down
24. Ibo (124): south, lit. slope [down?] of a hiZZ
25. Yoruba (125): side + top = north; side + bottom = south
26. Mende (126): up + the inside = north/up country; south/down country
27. Dyola (127): north/up, above; east/front part; west/back part
There is an interesting tendency apparent in the data of
Table 9. While north and south are nomenclaturally associated
with a wide variety of other directional referents, the former
cardinal point most frequently shows an "upwardness" affilia-
tion and the latter a "downwardness" affiliation. "Upwardness"
is used here to indicate the commonality of up, above, high,
top and so on and "downwardness" the commonality of down,
below, under, beneath, bottom and so on. In Table 9 north is
nomenclaturally related to an upwardness referent seven times
while it is related to a downwardness referent only once.
Conversely, south is nomenclaturally connected to a downward-
ness referent 11 times while it is connected to an upwardness
referent only one time. This finding may be indicative of an
innate human predisposition for such associations but it is
equally plausible that it reflects diffusion of a western
prejudice, i.e. the ubiquitous aligning of north with the top
of maps.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Another regularity apparent in Table 9 involves east and

west and front and back. East is associated with front (front,
in front of, front part) four times and only once with back
(see Papago-Pima [32] with east/back/up). Conversely, west is
connected to back (behind, in back of, back part) three times
and not at all with front. The source for Ambrym (62) (Paton
1973:191) throws some light on this usage. In this language
east is literally in front of us and west is literally behind
us. According to Paton, speakers usually assume that they face
east, the sunrise, "as the natural basis for orientation."
Thus in Ambrym the canonical posture for humans is facing east.
The more frequent affiliation of east with front and west with
back may indicate that an eastward orientation is the usual
canonical posture for humans across cultures.
Another usage, mentioned earlier, suggests that canonical
posture more than occasionally influences concepts of direction-
ality. Underlying the nomenclatural equating of north and south
with right (side) and left (side) is the idea that the human
body is naturally orientated along an east-west axis. Table 10
lists languages of the 127 surveyed which associate cardinal
directions with right and left. While only six languages of
the sample make this association, they are geographically
distributed in such a manner that diffusion cannot totally
account for the feature they share. This indicates that
development of terms for cardinal directions through reference
to a canonical posture has occurred independently on a number
of occasions.
Directions with Left and/or Right Sides of the Body
1. Mataca (54): east, east + UE = right side
2. Hawaiian (60): north/right; south/left
3. Yareba (79): side of the body + UE = north
4. Cornish (108): north/left; south/right
5. Welsh (109): sub- + left = north; south/right
6. Dyola (127): north/left hand
Three languages of Table 10 equate north with left indi-
cating an eastward facing canonical posture. Given additional
evidence described above for the ubiquity of the latter, it is
perhaps surprising to find one language, Hawaiian (60), with
north/right and south/left associations indicating a westward
facing canonical orientation. In addition, Table 10 provides
evidence of an east/right nomenclatural association indicating
a northward facing canonical posture (Mataca (54)). The same
canonical posture is suggested by the connection of south and
back in Shoshoni (29) (see Table 9). In any event, the pre-
ponderance of evidence indicates that the most common
posture for humans involves an east-west axis and that an east-
ward orientation is usually preferred over a westward one.
This almost certainly relates to the fact that the east is
often of great salience for people since it is the place of
the sun's rising.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
The presence of rivers and streams is sometimes a strong

influence on how people think of directionality. In these
instances directional terms such as up river, upstream, down
river, and downstream constitute the primary vocabulary used
to denote roughly fixed directions. Tuan (1974:36), summariz-
ing Waterman (1920), describes such a situation for the Yurok
Indians of Northern California (see also Kroeber 1925:15-16):
The Yurok lack the idea of cardinal directions. They orient
themselves by their principal geographical feature, the
Klamath, and speak of directions as upstream or downstream.
Since the river is crooked, upstream and downstream may
designate almost all points of the compass. Yet the pre-
dominant trend of the river is clearly recognized: it
bisects their world. The sense of cardinal directions is
not necessary to the conception of a symmetrical world.
Tuan (1974:86) also describes the influence of the Nile on the
Egyptian concept of direction:
The course of the Nile exerted a powerful influence on
the Egyptian's sense of direction. The word "to go north"
meant also "to go downstream," and the word "to go south"
meant "to go upstream" or against the current. When the
Egyptian visited the Euphrates he would have had to describe
its course in some such circumlocution as "that circling
water which goes downstream in going upstream."6
Like terms for up, down, below, above, etc., upstream and
downstream words are apt lexical materials for developing labels
for cardinal directions. Table 11 lists eight languages of
those surveyed which have innovated terms for cardinal points
through use of words referring to the direction of water flow.
With one exception, Sedang (86), these languages are limited to
the Western Hemisphere. However, given the Southeast Asian
exception and the fact that the other seven languages are
broadly distributed through the Americas, it is likely that
independent invention has relatively often underlain extension
of terms for upstream, downstream and so on to cardinal points.
Directions with the Direction of Flowing Water
1. Kwakiutl (2): north/down river; south/up river
2. Puget Salish (3): east, lit. from up river
3. Crow (7): face + beZow, downstream = south
4. Achumawi (23): north, lit. upstream-wind direction; south, lit.
downstream-wind direction
5. Colorado (51): east/up river; west/down river
6. Tacana (55): down river + side = east; up river + side = west
7. Aguaruna (58): south/up river
8. Sedang (86): side + upstream = north; side + downstream = south
Combining information from Tables 9, 10, and 11, 36 lan-
guages or roughly 28 percent of the sample (36/127) have
developed at least one cardinal direction label through use of
a general direction term. Therefore, such a development is
clearly very common on a worldwide basis.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Environment-specific features. A fourth and final

strategy for innovating terms for cardinal directions involves
reference to environment-specific features such as mountains,
cliffs, rocky places, rough country, and so on. Among the
sample, 12 languages nomenclaturally relate such features with
cardinal points. These languages are listed in Table 12.
Directions with Environment-specific Features
1. Dakota (8): north, lit. at the pines
2. Osage (9): north/from the cedars; north/from the cedars + there =
north; west/a cliff
3. Maidu (19): north, lit. country toward another place
4. Zuni (21): north, lit. direction of the oak mountains;
Salt Lake + UE = south; west, lit. direction of the
home or source of mist and waters, or the sea
5. Papago-Pima (32): UE + wild = north; south/desert
6. Tarascan (35): south/rocky place
7. Huastec (45): big + sierra = south*
8. Marshallese (68): toward the lagoon side = east
9. Indonesian (75): straits + UE = south
10. Zulu (122): south, lit. place of many cannibals
11. Ibo (124): hill + Hausa (Hausa highlands) = north
12. Mende (126): roughness + the inside = east, west, up country
*Guy Stresser-Pean (personal communication) states that my source for
Huastec incorrectly identifies south as this term's referent.
According to him, its referent is actually west.
Clearly, of the four lexical source areas employed in
cardinal point term innovation, the environment-specific feature
area is least frequently used on a worldwide basis. This per-
haps relates to the fact that such features usually do not
become invariably associated with fixed directions since their
actual locations (north, south, east, west, etc.) change
relative to changes in human geographic position. Other more
general directional labels, terms for celestial bodies and
events, and those for atmospheric features apparently are
natural candidates for association with roughly fixed direc-
tions. When they become so associated, they constitute apt
lexical materials for developing nomenclature for the more
finely hewn fixed directions, north, south, east, and west.
Origins of Polynesian cardinal direction terms. Compara-

tive study of Polynesian languages reveals that they differ
little from other languages with respect to the limited
lexical source areas used for innovating terms for cardinal
directions. However, a detailed comparative look at this
genetic grouping is useful since it instructs us on the
specific directions and processes of linguistic change
pertaining to innovation.7
Given the well-known fact that Polynesian seafarers
possessed extraordinarily detailed knowledge of celestial
bodies and events, it is perhaps surprising to discover that

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Polynesian languages have only rarely drawn on celestial

terminology in innovating labels for cardinal directions.
I have encountered no instances where terms for north and
south have developed from celestial nomenclature. In
addition, reference to the rising/setting sun has only
occasionally figured into the derivational histories of
Polynesian terms for east and west.8 As it happens, terms for
atmospheric features and for other more general directions
have constituted the primary lexical resources for Polynesian
innovation of labels for all four cardinal points.
Several Polynesian languages designate north (or north-
ern) through use of their respective reflexes (descendent
forms) of Proto-Polynesian *tokelau (Niuean, Tongan, Maori,
Tuamotuan, and East Futunan). In most of these languages the
term involved is polysemous, also denoting a specific wind
blowing directly from the north or from the northern quadrant
of the compass. Reflexes of *tokelau are found in many other
Polynesian languages but are restricted in reference to
specific winds, for the most part those blowing from the north.
Distribution of forms and meanings across genetic and geo-
graphic boundaries clearly suggests that Proto-Polynesian
*tokelau denotes a wind, specifically the north wind. The fact
that reflexes designate north in several different languages
is almost certainly traced to diffusion and/or independent
referential expansion.9
In some instances in which *tokelau reflexes expanded to
north creating north/north wind polysemy, there was a subsequent
development of overt marking. For example, the Tahitian term
apato'erau designates only north. To'erau is a reflex of
Proto-Polynesian *tokelau which in its unmodified form is a
polysemous term denoting north, northwest, and the northwest
wind; the meaning of the other constituent of the Tahitian
label for north, apa-, is unknown. Another case involving
development of overt'marking resulted in polysemy loss. The
East Uvean label for north is potu tokelau. The constituent
potu means side and tokelau on its own refers to three islands
north of the area where East Uvean is spoken. Apparently
unmodified tokelau once meant north (and probably also
denoted a northerly wind) and eventually came to be applied
to a specific location in the north. Its polysemous applica-
tion disappeared when the complex expression potu tokelau north
developed through overt marking.
Reflexes of Proto-Polynesian *tonga designate south in
many of the same languages, plus additional ones, which use
*tokelau reflexes for north (Niuean, Tongan, East Uvean,
Samoan, Tahitian, Maori, Mangarevan, and Tuamotuan).
Similarly, most of these reflexes denote a wind in addition to
south, usually one blowing from the south. Reflexes of *tonga
occur in other languages but are usually restricted in
reference to a southerly wind. Again, distribution of forms
and meanings suggests that the proto-term designated a wind
rather than direction.10 Parallel extensions of the form to

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
south in several languages is almost certainly due to diffu-

sion combined with occasional independent referential
expansion. Indeed, one case of independent innovation is
clearly evident. The Anutan reflex, tonga, is a polysemous
term designating both east and the southeast wind.
At least one reflex of *tonga has entered into an overt
marking construction which has led to polysemy loss.
Rarotongan tonga designates only the southerly wind quarter.
In a modified form, pae-tonga, it denotes the direction south
(pae means side).
The wide distribution of reflexes of *tokelau and *tonga
in Polynesian languages, and the fact that these relatively
consistently designate the north wind and south wind,
respectively, suggests the importance of these winds for
speakers of Proto-Polynesian and the considerable salience of
terms they used to label them. Only one other form used in
reference to wind has a distribution comparable to *tokelau
and *tonga reflexes. Almost all Polynesian languages show
reflexes of Proto-Polynesian *matangi which was used to denote
the wind in general rather than a wind from a particular
direction. Interestingly, the Rennellese reflex of *matangi
developed the referent eastern wind through restriction of
meaning. Subsequently, the term was extended to the cardinal
direction east.
Three other forms designating winds which were extended
to cardinal directions show much more restricted distributions
and vary considerably from language to language with respect
to the actual winds they designate. For example, the word tiu
denotes north/northwest wind in Marquesan and north/north wind
in Maori, but labels west/west wind in Mangareva. In other
languages it has no association with cardinal directions and
designates several different winds: e.g., Tahitian southeast
by east wind, Rarotongan west southwest wind quarter, and
Tikopian northwest wind, west wind. In Tikopian the form has
taken on a cardinal direction referent, i.e. north, through
an overt marking construction, fakatiu (faka is probably a
causative prefix). If tiu does trace back to Proto-Polynesian,
then it almost certainly labeled some wind or winds of con-
siderably less salience than those to which *tokelau and
*tonga were applied.
The two other forms denoting winds which have been
extended to cardinal directions relate to ancestral terms
reconstructing as *laki and *malangai (although these did not
necessarily pertain to Proto-Polynesian). Reflexes of the
former designate north/northerly wind in Niuean, north in
Maori, and west/west wind in Tikopian. Other reflexes
denote only winds: e.g., East Uvean southeast wind and
northeast wind, Rennellese the west or southwest wind, Anutan
northwest wind, and Tuamotuan the south wind. Only one reflex of
*malangai, that found in Maori, denotes a cardinal direction,
i.e. east. The Maori reflex also designates the east wind. Other
wind applications of the form include: Ninuean the east-south-

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
east trade wind, Hawaiian name of a gentle breeze, Tahitian the

south wind, Rarotangan the south or southeast wind, Mangarevan the
southeast wind, and Tuamotuan a southeast wind, the north wind.
Terms for more general directions have figured prom-
inently in development of Polynesian labels for cardinal
directions. These include words for up, down, front, back,
right, left and others. An interesting feature is that these
referents usually are not consistently associated nomencla-
turally with specific cardinal points across Polynesian
languages. For example, reflexes of Proto-Polynesian *lalo
down, below, under designate north, south, and west in differ-
ent contemporary languages. This indicates that the form has
been independently extended to cardinal directions in differ-
ent Polynesian languages.
Reflexes of *lalo which denote cardinal directions are
invariably polysemous, also designating a more general direc-
tion having the property of downwardness, e.g., down, beneath,
under, below, the lower part, and so on. These occur in eight
languages: Niuean below/west, Rennellese below, under/west,
Hawaiian down, under/southern, Tahitian down, below/west,
Maori the bottom, under/north, Anutan down, below/west,
Rarotongan beneath, under, below, down/west, and Tuamotuan
below, under/west in one dialect and down, under/south in
another. The form occurs in virtually all remaining Polynesian
languages where it is restricted in application to a "downward-
ness" referent. In at least one case a *lalo reflex has
figured into an overt marking construction labeling a cardinal
direction. Pilena lalo designates only beneath. However,
combined with ifo (probably downwards) in laloifo, it denotes
west.
Reflexes of Proto-Polynesian *lunga up, above, over denote

south in Maori and in Tuamotuan and east in Rarotongan. The
form also refers to any land east of Anuta in the Anutan
language. Reflexes in all four languages have also retained
their original "upwardness" referent. The latter constitutes
the only referent of the form in the remaining languages
(15 in all) having it.
In several Polynesian languages the referent face or front
is nomenclaturally associated with east. In all cases this
association is realized in an overt marking construction
involving reflexes of Proto-Polynesian *mata eye/face(cf.
Brown and Witkowski 1983a). For example, the East Uvean label
for east is mata laa which is literally face or front sun and
clearly relates to the rising of the sun. Two other lan-
guages, Marquesan and East Futunan, combine *mata reflexes
with terms for land (respectively mata henua and mata fenua)
producing labels for east . In addition, Tuamotuan matahoa
refers to the entire easternmost section of an island.
Two Proto-Polynesian terms, *tu'a and *muri, which were
applied to back and behind, respectively, have contemporary
reflexes which are extended to cardinal directions. Reflexes
of *tu'a, which are so extended, in all but one language occur

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
in overt marking constructions for cardinal points: East

Uvean tua fenua west, Rennellese tu'a henua south, , Maori
tuauru west, and Anutan tuaaru south (fenua and henua desig-
nate land, -uru means enter, -aru is unknown). The exception
is Kapingamarangi with the reflex dua which polysemously
denotes both back and east. Reflexes of *muri behind which
designate cardinal directions are usually polysemous:
Rennellese rear, end/western end, Maori rear, hind part/north
in one dialect and rear, hind part/east in another, and
Tuamotuan behind, the rear/west.11 In addition, while East
Futunan's reflex, muli, denotes only behind, the term is
combined with a word for south wind to produce a complex label
for south (mulikeu).
As mentioned earlier, Hawaiian has extended terms for
Zeft and right to south and north, respectively. Hawaiian's
left/south term is a reflex of Proto-Polynesian *sema which
has descendent forms in many contemporary languages which
denote only left. Terms cognate with Hawaiian's right/north
label designate only right and are limited to the Central
Eastern Polynesian branch of the Polynesian grouping. The
underlying form is *katau. No other Polynesian languages have
extended reflexes of *sema or *katau to cardinal directions.
There are two final examples of the use of other direc-
tional terms in reference to cardinal points. Niuean's reflex
of Proto-Polynesian *'uta towards inland has developed a poly-
semous usage through expansion to east and the same is the
case for Kapingamarangi's reflex of Proto-Polynesian *tahi
towards the sea which has expanded to west.
Finally, I have encountered no Polynesian languages in
which a cardinal direction term has been innovated through the
fourth strategy documented for languages in general, i.e.
reference to environment-specific features.
Salience and the encoding of cardinal points. In several

studies salience has been shown to play a crucial role in the
lexical encoding of referents (Witkowski and Brown 1977,
1983a,b; Witkowski, Brown, and Chase 1981; Brown and Witkowski
1983a,b; Brown 1982a, 1984). All referents with which humans
interact possess for them varying degrees of salience. Some
things are high in salience for humans by virtue of having
certain natural properties that make them stand out perceptu-
ally (cf. Berlin, Boster, and O'Neill 1981). On the other
hand, referents that are not naturally salient may be salient
for humans because they are culturally important in some way
(cf. Witkowski and Brown 1983b). Of course, some referents
can be simultaneously naturally and culturally salient.
Priority of lexical encoding is directly related to the
salience of referents, be it natural or cultural. More
salient referents tend to be encoded before less salient ones
(cf. Witkowski and Brown 1977; Brown 1982a, 1984). The
frequently encountered etymological transparency of terms for
cardinal directions and the fact that these generally do not

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
seem to reconstruct for languages of the remote past suggest

that for much of human history cardinal points have been of
little interest to people or, in other words, have been of
low salience. This situation has apparently changed during
recent human history since the lexical inventories of many
contemporary languages contain terms for cardinal directions.
As proposed earlier, this may be due to a general increase in
societal scale which for several reasons would have fostered
interest in cardinal points. Thus it appears that the
cultural salience of cardinal directions has increased con-
siderably in recent times, at least to the degree that many,
if not most, languages now encode them.
Putting aside cultural salience for the moment, there are
rather obvious reasons for assuming that the four cardinal
points differ among themselves with respect to degree of
natural salience. For example, east and west are clearly, if
only roughly, defined by the rising and setting of the sun.
On the other hand, celestial events of equivalent natural
prominence do not correlate with north and south. In
addition, east would seem to have greater natural salience
than west since it heralds the beginning rather than end of
an important celestial occurrence, i.e., the movement of the
sun across the sky.
Assuming the differential natural salience of cardinal
directions, as the total domain has increased in cultural
salience with increases in societal scale, it seems likely
that cardinal points of greater natural salience typically
have been lexically encoded by languages before those of lower
natural salience. This, then, is to propose that languages
have tended to encode east before west and both of the latter
before north and south.
Lacking direct evidence of a usual order in which lan-
guages encode cardinal directions, this can be inferred
through implicational relationships (cf. Berlin and Kay 1969;
Brown 1977, 1979, 1982a, 1984; Burris 1979). For example,
an implicational relationship is in evidence if all languages
having terms for north and south typically also have terms
for east and west, but not vice versa, i.e. all languages
having terms for east and west do not typically have terms
for north and south. In this association terms for north and
south imply the occurrence of terms for east and west, but
terms for east and west do not imply the occurrence of north
and south terms. The existence of implicational relationships
holding across languages is usually due to systematic ways in
which lexical items are added to vocabularies. Thus, in the
case at hand, the relationship is accountable to the probabil-
ity that languages typically encode east and west before north
and south.
The possible implicational relationship described in the
immediately preceding paragraph is attested by information
organized in Table 13. Table 13 lists combinations of cardinal
direction terms occurring among the 127 languages surveyed and
the number of languages in which each combination occurs.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Table 13. Occurring Combinations of Cardinal Direction Terms

among the 127 Languages Surveyed
NO. OF LANGUAGES TERMS
(Total N = 127) East West South North
18
2 + - -
1 - - +
1 - - - +
12 + + -
1 + - - +
2 - + +
5 + + +
2 + + - +
1 + - + +
1 - + + +
81 + + + +
The majority of languages surveyed, roughly 64 percent,
have terms for all four cardinal directions. The remaining
36 percent lack one or more of these.12 Since sources
consulted are primarily dictionaries, some more extensive
than others, it is possible that the reported absence of terms
for cardinal directions in some languages is due to source
inadequacy. For example, shorter dictionaries consistently
exclude more esoteric vocabulary in favor of those which are
commonly used on a day to day basis. Such exclusions might
account for the fact that terms for cardinal directions appear
to be totally lacking in some languages surveyed (18 in
number, see Table 13). However, source deficiency clearly
does not explain all gaps in cardinal direction lexicons since
true omissions are fairly commonly reported in the ethnographic
literature. For example, as mentioned earlier, ethnographers
(Waterman 1920; Kroeber 1925) report that the Yurok totally
lack terms for cardinal points and the same is reported for
the Tiv (Abraham 1933). In addition, a similar lack of inter-
est in the points of the compass is described by Honigmann
(1949:261) for the Kaska Indians. Partial gaps are also noted
in the ethnographic literature. For example, Rowe (1946:300)
reports that the Quechua have terms for east and west but
lack terms for north and south. Similarly, Schapera (1930:
414) notes that Hotentots lack north and south while having
east and west. However, he also reports a single term for the
north-south axis and the occasional use of wind names in
reference to these compass points.
Putting aside the 81 languages having terms for all four
cardinal points and the 18 totally lacking them, 28 languages
remain. These languages show implicational patterns. For
example, 24 of the 28 have terms for east and/or west while
only 14 have terms for north and/or south. This means that
languages having north and/or south typically have east and/
or west but not vice versa. Of the 24 languages having terms
for east and/or west, 14 lack terms for both north and south,
five lack a term for north, and three a term for south. On

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
the other hand, of the 14 languages having north and/or south,

only four lack terms for both east and west, only two lack a
term for west, and only one a term for east. Thus the occur-
rence of east and/or west usually implies north and/or south
but not the other way around, this indicating the encoding
priority of east/west vis-a-vis north/south. The 28 languages
also indicate a tendency for both east and west to be encoded
before languages add a term for either north or south: east +
west minus terms for north and south is the most widespread
combination among these languages occurring 12 times. In
contrast, the combination north + south minus east and west
occurs only two times.
Above I propose that east is greater in natural salience
than west and, consequently, that the former will tend to
precede the latter in lexical encoding. The data of Table 13
lend tentative support to this proposal. There are only four
languages of the 127 surveyed which apparently encode only one
cardinal direction. In two of these four languages, the
cardinal point encoded is east, weakly suggesting the overall
encoding priority of this cardinal point. In addition, terms
for west seem to imply terms for east, but not vice versa.
Of the 28 languages having one to three terms for cardinal
points, 23 encode east and 20 encode west (Table 13). Of those
having west, only one lacks a term for east. On the other
hand, of those encoding east, four lack west. This, of course,
at least weakly suggests the encoding priority of east vis-a-
vis west.
Obviously implicational relationships involving terms for
cardinal directions are not absolute associations since there
are combinations of terms possessed by languages which do not
accord with them. Indeed, exceptions seem relatively extensive
compared to those which pertain to implicational relationships
discovered for other lexical domains such as color (Berlin and
Kay 1969) and plants and animals (Brown 1977, 1979, 1982a, 1984).
This indicates that differential natural salience of cardinal
points across environments may not be absolutely constant. In
other words, it is possible that a cardinal direction which is
usually low in natural salience, occasionally in some geo-
graphic contexts can possess considerably greater natural
salience.
For example, such would be the case in a habitat in which
exceptionally strong winds, such as monsoons, are seasonably
associated with a particular cardinal direction, say south.
As a result of this association, the natural salience of south
may surpass that of east and west resulting in its encoding
priority vis-a-vis the latter two cardinal directions. As
another example, in some instances a particularly conspicuous
geographic feature associated with a cardinal direction which
is typically low in natural salience may increase its
salience and thus influence its encoding. Tuan (1974:86-87)
brings such an example to our attention. He writes:

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
At the time the Egyptian language was forming the direction

south dominated the Nile dweller's world. He faced south,
the source of rising flood waters and of life... Facing
southward, east came to be identified with left, and
west with right (p. 86).13
Thus the conspicuousness and importance of the Nile influenced
development of an Egyptian canonical posture which subsequently
served as a framework for naming some cardinal directions.
Since the Nile flows from south to north, the Egyptian canon-
ical posture deviated from that most commonly encountered, i.e.
an eastward orientation, which, of course, is influenced by
the rising of the sun.
Apparently, a canonical southern orientation was partic-
ularly characteristic of Egyptians of the Upper Nile where the
river maintains a more-or-less sure south to north course
(Tuan 1974:86-87). On the other hand, in Lower Egypt, where
the channels of the Nile spread out in many directions, an
eastward orientation based on the rising of the sun predom-
inated. These differences had interesting consequences, as
Tuan (1974:86-87) informs us, following Lower Egypt's conquest
of Upper Egypt since both groups had used their particular
notion of canonical posture as a framework for religious
interpretation. Tuan (1974:87) writes, "Lower Egypt's theol-
ogy of the sun was superposed on Upper Egypt's theology of the
Nile; an east-west axis extended across the north-south axis."
As a result, alterations in mythology, world view, and so on,
became necessary. This complex cultural development, then,
would seem ultimately to trace to the unusually high natural
salience of south promoted by its association with an excep-
tionally conspicuous geographic feature, i.e. the Nile River.
In addition to implicational relationships, the lexical
encoding sequence for cardinal directions is mirrored by
regular ways in which languages have innovated terms for
cardinal points. When faced with the prospect of encoding
east and west, languages usually have seized on the most
obvious natural features associated with these directions,
i.e. the rising and setting of the sun, the very features
which contribute to the high natural salience of these com-
pass points. Thus terms for east and west have commonly
arisen through reference to the rising/setting sun and only
rarely through reference to other natural features associated
with these directions such as winds. Indeed, it does not
seem very remarkable to propose that the aptness of such
reference has promoted the encoding of east and west by
languages on many different occasions.
The lexical encoding of east and west logically sets the
stage for implicit recognition of north and south. In other
words, once a canonical axis is established, a perpendicular
axis is implied. Indeed, one of the languages surveyed,
Colorado (51), which has terms for east and west, lacks labels
for north and south but refers to the north-south axis
through use of an expression translating literally
perpendicular direction (see Table 9).

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
As outlined above, the initial encoding of east and west

is attributable to an increase in the cultural salience of the
domain of cardinal directions as a whole. Since east and west
are usually of greater natural salience than north and south,
when the domain increases in salience, typically the former two
cardinal points are encoded before the latter two. With
further increases in the salience of the domain as a whole, the
problem arises of developing names for north and south. The
very factors that contribute to the usual lack of natural salience
of north and south relative to east and west make the task of
innovating north and south terms considerably more complicated
than the endeavor of finding suitable labels for east and west
In other words, natural features associated with north and south
are usually far less obvious than those associated with east and
west, i.e., the rising and setting of the sun.
This complication is directly reflected by the fact that
strategies employed by languages in the development of terms for
north and south are considerably more diverse than those used in
the innovation of east and west terms (see Tables 3-12). While
reference to the rising/setting sun constitutes the usual way
of lexically identifying east and west, there is no one strategy
that dominates in the development of terms for north and south.
Nevertheless, there are clearly constraints on the naming of
north and south since lexical resources invariably involved are
limited to the four general types outlined above.
Conclusion. This paper has described cross-language

regularities in the lexical encoding and naming of cardinal
directions.*4 Data assembled indicate that east and west are
commonly encoded before north and south and that east may
typically precede west. In addition, languages have drawn on
only four lexical source areas in innovating terms for cardinal
directions: (1) celestial bodies and events, (2) atmospheric
features, (3) other more general directional terms, and (4)
environment-specific features.
The findings reported here indicate that human naming
behavior is rather severely constrained, a conclusion reached
in several other recent cross-language investigations of the
lexicon (e.g., Berlin and Kay 1979; Brown 1984; Brown and
Witkowski 1981, 1983a; Witkowski, Brown, and Chase 1981).
In the present case, development of names for cardinal direc-
tions involves the same processes extensively documented for
other lexical domains (Witkowski, Brown, and Chase 1981;
Witkowski and Brown 1983a; Brown and Witkowski 1983a). First,
a salient term for a salient referent is referentially
extended to another referent which is relatively lacking in
salience, creating a polysemous label. If, for some reason,
the acquired referent should increase in salience, this can
lead to overt marking and eventual loss of polysemy.
Polysemy development does not occur unless the two refer-
ents involved bear a relatively salient relationship of some
sort to one another. For example, languages commonly develop

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
eye/face polysemy by expanding terms for eye to face. The

pertinent relationship is "part of," that is, an eye is a part
of the face (Brown and Witkowski 1983a). In the case at hand,
the pertinent relationship seems to be contiguity. For
example, some celestial bodies and events are contiguous with
cardinal directions since they are invariably found or occur
in more-or-less fixed locations in the sky which happen to be
aligned with cardinal points. Thus cross-language uniformities
in the naming of cardinal directions may relate to a limited
inventory of features which are, to one degree or another,
rather obviously contiguous with cardinal points.
However, contiguity alone cannot explain regularities in
cardinal direction naming. Clearly the human mind is in some
manner predisposed to focus on such associations and make them
the basis of naming behavior. Thus, an important aspect of
cross-language studies of the lexicon such as this one is that
they provide an empirical foundation for beginning to understand
essential priorities and processes relating to human language
and cognition.
APPENDIX: LANGUAGE SOURCES
Achumawi. David L. Olmsted. 1966. Achumawi Dictionary.

Berkeley: University of California Press.
Aguaruna. Mildred L. Larson. 1966. Vocabulario Aguaruna
de Amazonas. Peri: Instituto Ling*istico de Verano.
Ahi. Alfred Li6tard. 1912. Vocabulaire Francais-Lo-Lo:
Dialecte A-Hi. Toung Pao.
Albanian. Stuart E. Mann. 1957. An English-Albanian
Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ambrym. W.F. Paton. 1973. Ambrym (Lonwolwol) Diction-
ary. Canberra, Australia: Department of Linguistics, The
Australian National University.
Amharic. Wolf Leslau. 1976. Concise Amharic Dictionary:
Amharic-English, English-Amharic. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Armenian. Adour H. Yacoubian. 1944. English-Armenian
and Armenian-English Concise Dictionary. Los Angeles:
Armenian Archives Press.
Atakapa. Albert S. Gatschet and John R. Swanton. 1932.
A Dictionary of the Atakapa Language. Bureau of American
Ethnology, Bulletin 108.
Awa. Richard and Aretta Loving. 1975. Awa Dictionary.
Canberra: Australian National University.
BikoZ. Malcolm W. Mintz. 1971. Bikol Dictionary. PALI
Language Texts: Philippines. Honolulu: University Press of
Hawaii.
Biloxi. James Owen Dorsey and John R. Swanton. 1912.
A Dictionary of the Biloxi and Ofo Languages. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 47.
Bontok Igorot. Lawrence A. Reid. 1976. Bontok-English
Dictionary. Canberra: The Australian National University.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Rev. Walter Clayton Clapp. 1908. A Vocabulary of the Igorot

Language as Spoken by the Bontok Igorots, Manila: Bureau of
Science, Division of Ethnology Publications.
Cayapa. John N. Lindskoog and Carrie A. Lindskoog.
1964. Vocabulario Cayapa. Quito: Instituto LingUistico
de Verano.
Central Sierra Miwok. L.S. Freeland and Sylvia M.
Broadbent. 1960. Central Sierra Miwok Dictionary with Texts.
Chamorro. Donald M. Topping, Pedro M. Ogo, and Bernadita
C. Dungca. 1975. Chamorro-English Dictionary. Honolulu:
The University Press of Hawaii.
Chatino. Leslie Pride and Kitty Pride. 1970.
Vocabulario Chatino de Tataltepec. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto
LingUistico de Verano.
Chayahuita. George Hart Elton and Helen Long de Hart.
1975. Vocabulario Chayahuita. Lima, Peru: Instituto
Linguistico de Verano.
Chemehuevi. Margaret L. Press. 1979. Chemehuevi: A
Grammar and Lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Choctaw. Cyrus Byington. 1915. A Dictionary of the
Choctaw Language, John R. Swanton and Henry S. Halbert, eds.
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 46.
Chrau. David Thomas. 1966. Chrau Vocabulary. Saigon:
B6 Gito-Duc.
Colorado. Bruce R. Moore. 1966. Diccionario
Castellano-Colorado. Colorado-Castellano. Quito: Instituto
Congo. Henry Craven and John Barfield. 1971. English-
Congo and Congo-English Dictionary. Freeport, New York:
Books for Libraries Press.
Cornish. R. Morton Nance. 1978. An English-Cornish
and Cornish-English Dictionary. Penzance. Cornwall:
Cornish Language Board.
Crow. Robert H. Lowie. 1960. Crow Word Lists.
Czech. Alois Cermak. 1963. English-Czech, Czech-
English Dictionary. New York: Saphrograph Co.; Carl
Darling Buck. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in
the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: University
Press.
Dakota. John P. Williamson. 1970. An English-Dakota
Dictionary. Minneapolis: Ross and Haines. Eugene Buechel.
1970. A Dictionary of the Teton Dakota Sioux Language.
Pine Ridge, South Dakota: Red Cloud Indian School, Inc.
Dehu. D.T. Tryon. 1967. English-Dehu Dictionary.
Canberra: The Australian National University. D.T. Tryon.
1967. Dehu-English Dictionary. Canberra: The Australian
National University.
Diegueio. Ted Couro and Christina Hutcheson. 1973.
Dictionary of Mesa Grande Diegueno: ?lipay Aa-English/
English-91ipay Aa. Banning, California: Malki Museum Press.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Dutch. F.P.H. Prick Van Wely. 1951. Cassell's English-

Dutch, Dutch-English Dictionary. London: Cassell and
Company Ltd.
DyoZa. Le R.P. Wintz, ed. 1909. Dictionaire Francais-
Dyola et Dyola-Franqais. Elinkine (Casamance): Mission
Catholique.
Eddystone. Peter A. Lanyon-Orgill. 1969. The Language
of Eddystone Island. Balmains, Stanley, Perthshire, Scotland:
The Crichton Press.
Efik. Hugh Goldie. 1964. Dictionary of the Efl'k
Language. Farnborough, England: Gregg Press.
English. 1979. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company.
Fijian. A. Capell. 1973. A New Fijian Dictionary.
Suva, Fiji: Government Printer.
Finnish. Raija Hurme and Maritta Pesonen. 1973.
English-Finnish General Dictionary. Werner S3derstr5
Osakeyhtio: Raimo Anttila (personal communication).
French. Marguerite-Marie Dubois, Denis J. Keen,
Barbara Shuey. 1955. Larousse's French-English, English-
French Dictionary. New York: Pocket Books, Inc. Carl
Darling Buck. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in
the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: University
Press.
GaZZa. E.C. Foot. 1913. A Galla-English, English-
Galla Dictionary. Cambridge: University Press.
Gidabal. Brian and Helen Geytenbeek. 1971. Gidabal
Grammar and Dictionary. Canberra: Australian Institute of
Aboriginal Studies.
Hawaiian. Mary Kawena Pukui and Samuel H. Elbert. 1971.
Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English, English-Hawaiian.
Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Huastec. Ramon Larsen. 1955. Vocabulario Huasteco del
Estado de San Luis Potosi. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto
Lingiistico de Verano.
Huave. Milton Warkentin and Clara Warkentin. 1952.
Vocabulario Huave. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Linguistico de
Verano.
Huitoto Muinane. Eugene E. Minor and Dorothy Hendrich
de Minor. 1971. Vocabulario Huitoto Muinane. Yarinacooha,
Peru: Instituto LingUlstico de Verano.
Hungarian. L. Orszagh. 1957. Hungarian-English
Dictionary. Brooklyn: K.P. Schick. L. Orszagh. 1957.
A Dictionary of the English and Hungarian Languages.
Brooklyn: K.P. Schick.
Ibo. Beatrice F. Welmers and Williams E. Welmers.
1968. Igbo: A Learner's Dictionary. Los Angeles:
University of California, Los Angeles and the United States
Peace Corps.
Indonesian. E. Pino and T. Wittermans. 1955. Kamus
Inggeris. Djakarta: J.B. Wolters. John M. Echols and
Hassan Shadily. 1961. An Indonesian-English Dictionary.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
I"upiat Eskimo. Donald H. Webster and Wilfried Zibell.

1970. IEiupiat Eskimo Dictionary. Fairbanks, Alaska:
Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Ixcatec. Ma. Teresa Fernandez de Miranda. 1961.
Diccionario Ixcateco. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historia.
Japanese. Andrew Nathaniel Nelson. 1962. The Modern
Reader's Japanese-English Character Dictionary. Rutland,
Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company. M. Takahashi. 1973.
Romanized English-Japanese Dictionary. Tokyo: Taiseido
Shobo. Senkichiro Katsumata. 1954. Kenkyusha'a New Japanese-
English Dictionary. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Hyojun Komaji Kai.
1973. All-Romanized English-Japanese Dictionary.
Kamchadal. Dean S. Worth. 1969. Dictionary of Western
Kamchadal. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kapauku. Marion Doble. 1960. Kapauku-Malayan-Dutch-
English Dictionary. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Kardutjara. W.H. Douglas. 1977. Topical Dictionary
of the Western Desert Language (Revised Edition). Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Katu. Nancy A. Costello. 1971. Katu Vocabulary.
Republic of Vietnam: Department of Education.
Kham. David Watters and Nancy Watters. 1973. An
English-Kham, Kham-English Glossary. Kirtipur: Summer
Institute of Linguistics.
Kikuyu. A Ruffel Barlow and T.G. Benson. 1975. English-
Kikuyu Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kiowa. John P. Harrington. 1928. Vocabulary of the
Kiowa Language. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 84.
Korean. Joan V. Underwood. 1954. Concise English-
Korean Dictionary. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Co.
Kotia Oriya. Uwe Gustafsson. 1974. An English-Kotia
Oriya, Kotia Oriya-English Glossary. Nagpur, India: Summer
Institute of Linguistics.
Kusaiean. Kee-Dong Lee. 1976. Kusaiean-English
Dictionary. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
Kwakiutl. David McC. Grubb. 1977. A Practical Writing
System and Short Dictionary of Kwakw'ala (Kwakiutl). Ottawa:
National Museums of Canada.
Lake Miwok. Catherine A. Callaghan. 1965. Lake Miwok
Dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Latvian. E. Turkina. (n.d.). Angliski-Latviska
Virdnica. Imanta. E. Turkina. 1964. Latvie~u-Anglu
Virdnica. K~benhavn: Imanta.
LuiseHo. William Bright. 1968. A Luiseio Dictionary.
Maidu. William F. Shipley. 1963. Maidu Texts and
Dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mandarin Chinese. Janey Chen. 1970. A Practical
English-Chinese Pronouncing Dictionary. Rutland, Vermont:
Charles E. Tuttle Co.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Manobo. Richard Elkins. 1968. Manobo-English Dic-

tionary. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 3.
Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Marshallese. Takaji Abo. Byron W. Bender, Alfred
Capelle, and Tony DeBrum. 1976. Marshallese-English
Dictionary. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Mataca. Maria Teresa Vifas Urquiza. 1974. Lengua
Mataca, Tomo 2. Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios, Linguisticos.
Mayo. Howard Collard and Elisabeth Scott Collard. 1974.
Castellano-Mayo, Mayo-Castellano. M6xico, D.F.: Instituto
Mazahua. Mildred Kiemele Muro. 1975. Vocabulario
Mazahua-Espaffol y Espaffol-Mazahua. Mexico: Biblioteca
Enciclopedica del Estada de Mexico.
Mende. Gordon Innes. 1969. A Mende-English Dictionary.
Cambridge: The University Press. F.W.H. Migeod. 1908.
The Mende Language. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner
and Co.
Mexicano. Forrest Brewer and Jean G. Brewer. 1971.
Vocabulario Mexicano de Tetelcingo. Morelos, M6xico, D.F.:
Instituto Linguistico de Verano.
Mixe . Alvin Schoenhals and Louise C. Schoenhals. 1965.
Vocabulario Mixe de Totontepec. Mexico: Instituto Lingjistico
de Verano.
Mixtec. Anne Dyk and Betty Stoudt. 1973. Vocabulario
Mixteco de San Miguel el Grande. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto
Mocha. Wolf Leslau. 1959. A Dictionary of Mona
(Southwestern Ethiopia). Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Mohawk. Gunther Michelson. 1973. A Thousand Words of
Mohawk. Ottawa: National Museum of Man.
Mongolian. John G. Hangin. 1970. A Concise English-
Mongolian Dictionary. The Hague: Mouton.
Mopan. Mateo Ulrich and Rosemary de Ulrich. 1976.
Diccionario Bilingue: Maya Mopan y Espafol, Espaiol y Maya
Mopan.
Movima. Robert Judy and Judit Emerich Judy. 1962.
Movima y Castellano. Cochabamba, Bolivia: Instituto
Muyuw. Daphne Lithgow and David Lithgow. 1974.
Dictionaries of Papua New Guinea Volume 1, Muyuw Language.
Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Natick. James Hammond Trumbull. 1903. Natick
Dictionary, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 25.
Navajo. Berard Haile. 1951. A Stem Vocabulary of the
Navaho Language. St. Michaels, Arizona: St. Michaels
Press. Robert W. Young and William Morgan. 1980. The
Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Ngandi. Jeffrey Heath. 1978. Ngandi Grammar, Texts,
and Dictionary. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborig-
inal Studies.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Ngizim. Russell G. Schuh. 1981. A Dictionary of Ngizim.

Nisenan. Hans Jorgen Uldall and William Shipley. 1966.
Nisenan Texts and Dictionary. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Nukuoro. Vern Caroll and Tobias Soulik. 1973. Nukuoro
Lexicon. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Nung. Nancy Freiberger. 1976. Nung Fan Slihng Vocab-
ulary. Manila, Philippines: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Ocaina. Ilo M. Leach. 1969. Vocabulario Ocaina. Peri:
Instituto Lingiistico de Verano.
Ojibwa. R.R. Bishop Baraga. 1973. A Dictionary of the
Otchipwe Language. (Originally published in 1878 by Ross and
Haines.) Minneapolis: Ross and Haines.
Onondaga. John Gilmary Shea. 1860. French-Onondaga
Dictionary. From a Manuscript of the Seventeenth Century.
New York, Cramoisy Press.
Osage. Francis La Flesche. 1932. A Dictionary of the
Osage Language. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 109.
Pahlavi. D.N. MacKenzie. 1971. A Concise Pahlavi
Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
Pali. A.P. Buddhadatta Mahatera. 1955. English-Pall
Dictionary. Pali Text Society.
Papago-Pima. Dean Saxton and Lucille Saxton. 1969.
Dictionary: Papago and Pima to English and English to Papago
and Pima. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Polish. Kazimierz Bulas, Lawrence L. Thomas, and Francis
J. Whitfield. 1962. The Koiciuszko Foundation Dictionary:
Polish-English. New York: Kosciuszko Foundation. Kazimierz
Bulas, and Francis J. Whitfield. 1960. The Kosciuszko
Foundation Dictionary: English-Polish. New York: Koiciuszko
Foundation. Carl Darling Buck. 1949. A Dictionary of
Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages.
Chicago: University Press.
Portuguese. N.J. Lamb. 1964. Collins Portuguese Gem
Dictionary: Portuguese-English, English-Portuguese. London:
William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd. Carl Darling Buck. 1949.
A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-
European Languages. Chicago: University Press.
Puget Salish. Thom Hess. 1976. Dictionary of Puget
Salish. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Quechua. Carolyn Orr and Betsy Wrisley. 1965.
Vocabulario Quichua del Oriente del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador:
Instituto Lingistico de Verano.
Sango. William J. Samarin. 1967. A Grammar of Sango.
The Hague: Mouton & Co.
Sayula. Lorenzo Clark and Nancy Davis de Clark. 1960.
Popoluca-Castellano, Castellano-Popoluca. Mexico, D.F.:
Instituto Lingfistico de Verano.
Sedang. Kenneth D. Smith. 1967. Sedang Vocabulary.
Saigon: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Seneca. Wallace L. Chafe. 1967. Seneca Morphology and

Dictionary. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press.
Shoshoni. Richley H. Crapo. 1976. Big Smokey Valley
Shoshoni. Reno, Nevada: Desert Research Institute Publica-
tions in the Social Sciences.
Swahili. D.V. Perrott. 1965. Concise Swahili and
English Dictionary. Dunton Green, Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder and
Stoughton Ltd.
Tacana. Donald Van Wynen and Mabel Garrard de Van Wynen.
1962. Tacana y Castellano. Cochabamba, Bolivia: Instituto
Ling*iUstico de Verano.
Tarahumara. Andr6s Lionnet. 1972. Los Elementos de la
Lengua Tarahumara. M6xico: Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de
M6xico.
Tarascan. Pablo Vel6squez Gallardo. 1978. Diccionario
de la Lengua Phorh6pecha. M6xico: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica.
Tequistlatec. Paul Turner and Shirley Turner. 1971.
Dictionary: Chontal to Spanish-English, Spanish to Chontal.
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Thai. Mary R. Haas. 1964. Thai-English Student's
Dictionary. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Tibetan. C.A. Bell. 1965. English-Tibetan Colloquial
Dictionary. Alipore, Calcutta: West Bengal Government Press.
Tifal. Phyllis M. Healey and Walter Steinkrans. 1972.
A Preliminary Vocabulary of Tifal with Grammar Notes, Language
Data. Microfiche AP2, Santa Ana, California: Summer Institute
of Linguistics.
Tiruray. Stuart A. Schlegel. 1971. Tiruray-English
Lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tiwi. C.R. Osborne. 1974. The Tiwi Language. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Totonac. Aileen A. Reid and Ruth G. Bishop. 1974.
Diccionario Totonaco de Xicotepec de Juarez, Puebla. M6xico,
D.F.: Instituto LingUistico de Verano.
Trique. Claude Good. 1978. Diccionario Trique de
Chicahuaxtla. M6xico, D.F.: Instituto Lingluistico de Verano.
Tsou. Tung T'ung-ho. 1964. A Descriptive Study of the
Tsou Language, Formosa. Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of History
and Philology, Academia Sinica.
Tunica. Mary R. Haas. 1953. Tunica Dictionary.
Turkish. H.C. Hony. 1947. A Turkish-English Dictionary.
London: Oxford University Press. Fahir Iz and H.C. Hony.
1952. An English-Turkish Dictionary. London: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Tzeltal. Marianna C. Slocum and Florencia L. Gerdel.
1971. Vocabulario Tzeltal de Bachajon. Mexico, D.F.:
Instituto LingUistico de Verano.
Wappo. Jesse O. Sawyer. 1965. English-Wappo Vocabulary.
Welsh. Jac L. Williams. 1973. Geiriadur Terman Dic-
tionary of Terms. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Carl

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Darling Buck. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the

Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: University Press.
Yana. Edward Sapir and Morris Swadesh (ed. by Mary R.
Haas). 1960. Yana Dictionary. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Yareba. Harry Weimer and Natalia Weimer. 1974. Dic-
tionaries of Papua New Guinea Volume 2, Yareba Language.
Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Yoruba. Samuel Crowther. 1913. A Dictionary of the
Yoruba Language. London: Oxford University Press.
Zapotec. Velma Pickett. 1973. Vocabulario Zapoteco del
Istmo. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto LingUistico de Verano.
Zoque. Roy and Margaret Harrison and Castulo Garcia H.
1981. Diccionario Zoque de Copainala. M6xico, D.F.:
Instituto LingUistico de Verano.
Zulu. C.M. Doke, D. McK. Malcolm, J.M.A. Sikakana. 1958.
English-Zulu Dictionary. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand Univer-
sity Press. C.M. Doke and B.W. Vilakazi. 1953. Zulu-English
Dictionary. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
Zuni. Stanley Newman. 1958. Zuni Dictionary. Bloom-
ington, Indiana: Indiana University Research Center in
Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics. Frank Hamilton
Cushing. 1896. Outline of Zuni Creation Myths, Thirteenth
Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of
the Smithsonian Institution 1891-'92, pp. 321-447. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.
WORKS CITED
Abraham, Roy Clive. 1933. The Tiv People. Lagos: The Government Printer.
BeSthy, von Erzsebet. 1967. Die Bezeichnungen fur Himmelsrichtungen in den

Finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Indiana University publications, Uralic
and Altaic series, Vol. 84. Bloomington, Indiana; The Hague: Mouton
and Co.
Berlin, Brent, James Shilts Boster, and John P. O'Neill. 1981. The
perceptual bases of ethnobiological classification: evidence from
Aguaruna Jivaro ornithology. Journal of Ethnobiology 1:95-108.
Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universali
and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Best, Elsdon. 1924. The Maori, Volume 2. Memoirs of the Polynesian

Society. Vol. 5. Wellington, New Zealand: Board of Maori
Ethnological Research.
Biggs, Bruce. 1979. Proto-Polynesian Word List II. Working Papers in

Anthropology, Archaeology, Linguistics, Maori Studies, No. 53.
Auckland: University of Auckland.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Brown, A.K. 1978. The English compass points. Me
Brown, Cecil H. 1977. Folk botanical life-forms: their universality

and growth. American Anthropologist 79:317-42.
1979. Folk zoological life-forms: their universality and
growth. American Anthropologist 81:791-817.
1981. Growth and development of folk zoological life-forms

in Polynesian languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society 90:8
1982a. Folk zoological life-forms and linguistic marking.
Journal of Ethnobiology 2:95-112.
1982b. Growth and development of folk botanical life-forms

in Polynesian languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 91
(in press).
1984. Language and Living Things: Uniformities in Folk

Classification and Naming. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers
University Press.
and Stanley R. Witkowski. 1981. Figurative language in a

universalist perspective. American Ethnologist 8:596-615.
1983a. Polysemy, lexical change, and cultural importance.

Man (n.s.) 18:72-89.
1983b. Part/whole and the naming of time. Unpublished

manuscript. Northern Illinois University.
Buck, Carl Darling. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the

Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: University Press.
Burris, H.W. 1979. Geometric figure terms: their universality and

growth. The Journal of Anthropology 1(2):18-41.
Honigmann, John J. 1949. Culture and Ethos of Kaska Society. Yale

University Publications in Anthropology, Number 40. New Haven:
Yale University Press for the Department of Anthropology, Yale
University.
Kaufman, Terrence. 1964. Materiales lingpiisticos para el estudio de las

relaciones internas y externas de la familia de idiomas mayanos, In
Desarrollo Cultural de los Mayas, E. Vogt, ed., pp. 81-136. Mexico:
Seminario de Cultural Maya.
Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian

Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Washington:
Government Printing Office.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
Mead, Margaret. 1956. New

Manus. 1928-1953. New York: William Morrow and Co.
Miller, Wick R. 1967. Uto-Aztecan Cognate Sets. Berkeley and Los

Angeles: University of California Press.
Paton, W.F. 1973. Ambrym (Lonwolwol) Dictionary. Canberra, Australia:

Department of Linguistics. The Australian National University.
Redfield, Robert. 1930. Tepoztlan: A Mexican Village. A Study of Folk

Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rowe, John Howland. 1946. Inca culture at the time of the Spanish
conquest. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143, Vol. 2,
pp. 183-330. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Schapera, Isaac. 1930. The Khoisan Peoples of South Africa: Bushmen

and Hottentots. London: George Routledge and Sons.
Springer, James W. and Stanley R. Witkowski. 1980. A reassessment of

southeastern linguistics and archaeology. Bulletin of the South-
eastern Archaeological Conference 22:56-7.
Taylor, E.G.R. 1957. The Haven-finding Art: A History of Navigation

from Odysseus to Captain Cook. New York: Abelard-Schuman Ltd.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception,

Attitudes, and Values. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Waterman, T.T. 1920. Yurok geography. University of California

Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 16:182-200.
Witkowski, Stanley R. and Cecil H. Brown. 1977. An explanation of color

nomenclature universals. American Anthropologist 79:50-7.
1978. Mesoamerica: a proposed language phylum. American

Anthropologist 80:942-44.
1983a. Culture, environment, and polysemy. Unpublished

manuscript. Northern Illinois University.
1983b. Marking reversals and cultural importance. Language

59:569-82.
, Cecil H. Brown, and Paul K. Chase. 1981. Where do tree

terms come from? Man (n.s.) 16:1-14.
Zipf, G.K. 1935. The Psycho-Biology of Language. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.
1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort.

Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
NOTES
*A number of scholars were kind enough to read an earlier draft of

this paper and to provide helpful comments and, in some instances, data on
cardinal orientation of which I was unaware. For services rendered I am
very grateful to Raimo Anttila, Joan L. Bybee, Michael Carr, Ross Clark
William Cowan, Richard E. Dahlberg, Samuel H. Elbert, Suzette Haden Elg
Richard Feinberg, Raymond Firth, Donn V. Hart, Albert Heinrich, Patricia
Henry, Carleton T. Hodge, Mary Ritchie Key, Katharine Luomala, John Lyon
Stephen Murray, Harriet Ottenheimer, Martin Ottenheimer, Kenneth L. Pik
Don A. Sears, Margaret Seguin, Guy Stresser-Pean, Pierre Ventur, Ralph
Gardner White, William H. Wilson, and Stanley R. Witkowski.
1. Discussion of historical developments in Polynesian languages is

based on a comparative study undertaken by the author. Sources for
Polynesian lexical materials are the same as those consulted in an earlier
comparative investigation of zoological terms (see Appendix, Brown 1981).
2. I cannot state with confidence that there are any certain

instances in which a four cardinal point system has arisen independently
of contact with Western culture. Research undertaken for this paper was
not organized with regard to this particular issue. However, my
impression is that independent invention has not been uncommon. This is
suggested by numerous non-Western cultures such as those of the Maya, the
Balinese, and various Amerindian groups of the U.S. Southwest in which
cardinal directions are especially well-integrated into cosmology,
religion, superstition, and so on. The importance of cardinal points in
such cultures, of course, may indicate some antiquity for them.
On the other side of the coin is the question to what extent have
languages borrowed concepts of cardinal orientation from Western languages?
This too is an issue not addressed by research for this paper. Future
comparative studies of cardinal point terminology could make important
contributions to an understanding of change processes inherent in culture
contact situations by investigating not only the extent of Western influence
in the development of such words, but also the precise nature of this
influence, for example, the possibility that cardinal direction terms of
some non-Western languages were invented by European missionaries for
translation purposes.
3. Zipf (1935, 1949) has demonstrated an inverse correlation

between one index of salience, i.e. word frequency of use, and complexity
of form. More frequently used words tend to be shorter and less complex
and less frequently used words tend to be longer and more complex. Thus,
as the referent of a label increases in importance and the label itself
becomes more frequently used, there is a tendency for the label to become
less complex.
4. Since dictionary sources were used, I have no information

concerning the everyday use of cardinal direction terms in most lan-
guages surveyed. For example, it is not known if these words are used
simply to translate from European languages or, on the hand, if their
use in fact extends to a broad range of contexts. In addition, informa-
tion is lacking with regard to the degree to which directions indicated

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
by cardinal orientation terms of non-Western languages correlate with

the exact European points. It is possible, for example, that such terms
in most cases do not refer to actual points at all, but rather to parts
(e.g., approximate quarters) of the horizon or sky. Taylor (1957:6-7)
notes that the latter usage was dominant in maritime cultures of the
Western world before invention of the magnetic needle.
5. Actually the worldwide frequency of this nomenclatural associa-

tion is almost certainly somewhat greater than 45 percent since literal
translations perhaps attesting to it in additional languages were not
given for cardinal point labels in some dictionary sources consulted.
In addition, it is likely that many now opaque labels for east and west
found in dictionaries in fact have had derivational histories involving
reference to the rising/setting sun.
6. It should be noted that Egyptian has terms for north and south
which are distinct from those for to go north/to go downstreamn and to go
south/to go upstream (Carleton T. Hodge, personal communication).
7. The reader is also referred to Be'dthy's (1967) detailed compara-

tive study of cardinal direction terms in Finno-Ugric languages. This
work, which was brought to my attention by Raimo Anttila (personal
communication) after completion of the first draft of this paper, presents
conclusions involving development of cardinal direction nomenclature which
closely match those presented in this work based on cross-language data.
For example, Finno-Ugric languages have regularly drawn on the same four
lexical source areas outlined here in innovating terms for cardinal points.
8. Two Polynesian terms for east and west derived through reference
to the rising/setting sun deserve some comment. These relate to ancestral
forms reconstructing as *sasake and *sisifo. Biggs (1979) proposes that
the former labeled east in Proto-Polynesian and the latter west. This
proposal apparently is based on the observation that contemporary reflexes
of these forms which refer to east and west, respectively, are found in
languages of the two major branches of Polynesian, Tongic and Nuclear
Polynesian. Reflexes of *sasake denoting east occur in one Tongic
language, Tongan, and in two Nuclear Polynesian languages, East Uvean and
Samoan. Reflexes of *sisifo designating west are limited to the same
three languages. As I have noted elsewhere (Brown 1982b), the two Tongic
languages, Tongan and Niuean, and East Uvean, Samoan and East Futunan
commonly share forms and meanings that occur in no other Polynesian
languages. Such forms and meanings are almost always diffused. Diffusion,
then, almost certainly explains shared use of reflexes of *sasake and
*sisifo for east and west, respectively, in Tongan, East Uvean, and Samoan.
Consequently, it is highly unlikely that these reconstructed items
pertained to Proto-Polynesian.
It is more likely that the two forms in question have been derived
through partial reduplication of terms meaning to go up and to go down,
respectively, undoubtedly referring to the rise and descent of the sun.
For example, the Tongan reflex of *sasake takes the form hahake which is
obviously related to Niuean hake to go up. Similarly, the East Uvean
reflex of *sisifo is hihifo which is related to East Uvean hifo to go down.

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
In addition, Niuean hake and East Uvean hifo are respective reflexes of
Proto-Polynesian *hake upwards, go up and *hifo downwards, go down.
9. Biggs (1979) proposes that Proto-Polynesian *tokelau denoted north

in addition to north wind. However, distribution of reflexes across
Polynesian languages suggests this to be an unlikely semantic reconstruc-
tion. Of the five languages in which a reflex designates north, three,
Niuean, Tongan, and East Futunan, are members of the diffusion group
mentioned in note 4 above. In addition, the one language combining a
*tokelau reflex with a modifier in an overt marking construction for
north, i.e. East Uvean, is also a member of the diffusion group. Thus
diffusion probably accounts for the occurrence of this feature in the two
major branches of Polynesian, i.e. Tongic and Nuclear Polynesian.
10. Most of the languages of the diffusion group mentioned in

note 4 use reflexes of *tonga in reference to south. This suggests the
likelihood that this feature has diffused from languages of the Tongic
grouping to languages of the Nuclear Polynesian grouping or vice versa.
Thus the fact that *tonga reflexes refer to south in both major branches
of Polynesian is not strong evidence of a possible application of *tonga
to south in addition to south wind in Proto-Polynesian (cf. Biggs 1979).
11. The reader may have noted that four different terms have been
identified as Maori labels for north. Synonyms for cardinal directions
are common in Polynesian languages and, indeed, in most of the world's
languages. In the Maori case, multiple terms for north can in part be
traced to regional variation in usage (cf. Best 1924:210).
12. Sources consulted for 18 languages failed to provide terms for

any of the four cardinal points. These languages are Mayo (31),
Tarahumara (33), Ixcatec (37), Sayula (43), Nukuoro (61), Eddystone (63),
Muyuw (65), Tsou (69), Awa (76), Tifal (78), Gidabal (80), Tiwi (83),
Chrau (84), Katu (85), Nung (87), Mocha (116), Sango (118), and Congo
(119). Other languages lacking one or more terms for cardinal directions
are listed here with indication of combinations of cardinal direction
labels present in their vocabularies:
east: Puget Salish (3), Mataca (54).
south: Mopan (46).
north: Kamchadal (93).
east + west: Mazahua (36), Mixtec (38), Zoque (44), Cayapa (50),
Colorado (51), Ocaina (53), Chayahuita (56), Quechua (57), Bontok
Igorot (71), Manobo (73), Kapauku (77), Kotia-Oriya (100).
east + north: Inupiat Eskimo (1).
south + north: Movima (59), Yareba (79).
east + west + south: Totonac (49), Tacana (55), Aguaruna (58),
Armenian (113), Efik (123).
east + west + north: Maidu (19), Tzeltal (47).
east + south + north: Kwakiutl (2).
west + south + north: Trique (39).
13. In modern Egyptian terms for east and west also designate left
(hand) and right (hand), respectively. On the other hand, words for

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC
north and south do not suggest canonical posture. These terms apparently
are connected with names for plants typical of Upper Egypt and the Delta
(Carleton T. Hodge, personal communication).
14. For an excellent discussion of where, when, and under what

circumstances cardinal directionality developed in our own Western
tradition, the reader is directed to Taylor (1957:6-7, 14-16, 53-55, 84-85,
98-100, 104-106). According to Taylor, before the invention of the
compass atmospheric features served as the principal lexical source area
for development of cardinal direction nomenclature in many Western lan-
guages, especially in those of peoples of maritime cultures. Specifically,
names for winds were pressed into service as terms for cardinal directions.
Details of the development of our English cardinal point terms are far
from clear. A.K. Brown (1978:239) offers the following tentative assess-
ment: "West and east were apparently originally 'evening' and 'morning';
south may be 'noon' or else 'righthand', as in Celtic; north may have been
'down', as in Finnish."

195.220.106.16 on Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC

This Content Downloaded From 195.220.106.16 On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Content Downloaded From 195.220.106.16 On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:14:15 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Where Do Cardinal Direction Terms Come From?

Author(s): Cecil H. Brown

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30027665

This content downloaded from

Abstract. This paper compiles data from 127 globally distributed

Where do cardinal direction terms come from? Recent studies

Polynesian language shows a similar development and resulting

This content downloaded from

etc., becomes increasingly useful. Such mobility, of course,

Polyseamy and overt marking. In this study literal trans-

This content downloaded from

expression denoting south only. When this occurs, there is a

This content downloaded from

nomenclaturally related to cardinal points through either

The data. The present study surveys cardinal direction

This content downloaded from

only four lexical source areas. These are (1) celestial

This content downloaded from

Formosan Austronesian: Tsou (69).

Celestial bodies and events. Identifying east and west

This content downloaded from

8. Tunica (12): east, lit. where she emerges

This content downloaded from

Table 3. Languages Surveyed Nomenclaturally

This content downloaded from

51. Welsh (109): set + sun = west

This content downloaded from

Table 4. Languages Surveyed Nomenclaturally Relating South

Table 5. Languages Surveyed Nomenclaturally Relating North

This content downloaded from

southern sky. This fact constitutes the basis for innovation

Atmospheric features. Words for celestial bodies and

This content downloaded from

13. Bikol (70): north/north wind; north/north wind + UE = north wind

Table 7. Languages Surveyed Nomenclaturally

This content downloaded from

6. Wappo (22): south, UE + south = summer

Other more general directions. In languages lacking

This content downloaded from

Table 9. Languages Surveyed Nomenclaturally Relating Cardinal

This content downloaded from

Another regularity apparent in Table 9 involves east and

This content downloaded from

The presence of rivers and streams is sometimes a strong

This content downloaded from

Environment-specific features. A fourth and final

Origins of Polynesian cardinal direction terms. Compara-

This content downloaded from

Polynesian languages have only rarely drawn on celestial

This content downloaded from

south in several languages is almost certainly due to diffu-

This content downloaded from

east trade wind, Hawaiian name of a gentle breeze, Tahitian the

Reflexes of Proto-Polynesian *lunga up, above, over denote

This content downloaded from

in overt marking constructions for cardinal points: East

Salience and the encoding of cardinal points. In several

This content downloaded from

seem to reconstruct for languages of the remote past suggest

This content downloaded from

Table 13. Occurring Combinations of Cardinal Direction Terms

This content downloaded from

the other hand, of the 14 languages having north and/or south,