Much of our understanding of language comes from written records or speech data — even when recorded in natural environments — typically produced in stationary settings (Dash & Arulmozi 2018; Conzett & De Smedt 2022). Yet, mobile communication is likely to differ significantly: Walking involves dynamic affordances, complex motor activity, and continuous sensory input, all of which can shape linguistic behavior (e.g., Evans & Green 2006; Barsalou 2020). Despite this, how speakers respond linguistically to this fleeting, mobile interaction remains underexplored. One domain likely affected is spatial reference, as interlocutors navigate shifting environments, leaving referents behind and encountering new ones. Hence, in this work we ask: How does the moving speech situation impact the linguistic expression of spatial reference?  
We explore this question by analyzing locating constructions uttered during walking across three unrelated languages spoken by traditionally mobile Indigenous communities: Dâw (Naduhup, Amazonia), Northern Alta (Austronesian, Philippines), and Wik-Mungkan (Paman, Australia). The study draws on in situ recordings made with chest-worn action cameras, capturing interactions during active walking. We examine the types of locating constructions used, the overt expression of spatial constituents, and the use of deixis to express Figure and Ground, and compare this dataset to our existing first-hand data from static speech situations. 
Our results show that across our sample, active walking is associated with a lower proportion of canonical locative constructions and less frequent overt expression of locative predicates. This reveals that movement status, i.e., being in motion or not, can systematically reshape the linguistic solutions speakers deploy for locating referents across all three languages — though not uniformly. We suggest that this variation is not driven by mobility as a single undifferentiated condition, but by a cluster of interacting perceptual, bodily, and interactional factors that jointly shift when interlocutors move together through an environment. These contrasting spatial-reference profiles, observed in static versus mobile interaction, suggest that a profile established in one configuration may not generalize to others. 
This perspective extends current understandings of spatial language (e.g., Levinson 2003; Levinson & Wilkins 2006 and work therein) by foregrounding the role of self-motion as a mediating factor between perception, interaction, and linguistic form. This mobile arena not only reveals novel patterns of linguistic economy and interactional adaptation but also opens up new pathways for theorizing how the external world — through movement, interaction, and shifting perceptual fields — may shape linguistic form. Ultimately, understanding the full extent of linguistic richness and typological diversity requires specifying the conditions and parameters that shape it, with mobility emerging as one such factor (cf. Evans 2016). 

References 
Barsalou, L. W. 2020. Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition 3. 1– 24. 
Conzett, P. & K. De Smedt, 2022. Guidance for Citing Linguistic Data. In A. L. Berez-Kroeker, B. McDonnell, E. Koller, L. B. Collister (eds.), The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management, 143-155. Massachusetts: MIT Press 
Dash, N. S. & S. Arulmozi. 2018. History, Features, and Typology of Language Corpora. New Jersey: Springer. 
Evans, N. 2016. Typology and coevolutionary linguistics. Linguistic Typology 20(3), 505-520. 
Evans, V. & M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
Levinson, S.C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
Levinson, S.C. & D. Wilkins. 2006. Grammars of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

LU Zoom meeting: https://lu-se.zoom.us/j/67006790336?pwd=rRaKDZBnYM3MruCGUuQCZCSJIvgzLJ.1