CogniTextes, Volume 15 | 2017

De Gruyter, 2021

This volume is the first book-length presentation of the relatively newly established grammatical category of Associated Motion. It provides a framework for understanding a grammatical phenomenon which, though present in many languages, has gone unrecognised until recently. Previously known mainly from languages of Australia and South America, grammatical AM marking has now been identified in languages from most parts of the world (except Europe) and is becoming an important topic of linguistic typology. The 22 chapters provide a thorough introduction to the subject, discussion of the relation between AM and related grammatical concepts, detailed descriptions of AM in a wide range of the world’s languages, and surveys of AM in particular language families and areas. All of the studies are richly illustrated by means of approximately 2000) example sentences.

Socjolingwistyka, 2021

The present paper analyzes English as a lingua franca (ELF) from the perspective of Talmy’s (2000b) typology, which divides languages into S- and V-types. S-languages express the path of motion in a verb particle and the manner of motion in a verb, while V-languages encode the path in a verb and manner in an adverbial. Talmy’s (2000b) typology has been felicitously applied in research on standard languages. However, studies on dialects (Berthele 2004) have shown that a division into S- and V-categories may not be sufficient in the case of contact languages. To test this hypothesis, we apply Talmy’s (2000b) typological distinction to English as a lingua franca. Based on the results of a qualitative pilot study among Polish users of English, we demonstrate that although Polish and English are both classified as S-languages according to Talmy’s (2000b) typology, ELF – a contact language between them – reveals characteristics not yet classified as belonging to either S- or V-types. We t...

Open Journal of Modern Linguistics

In this present study, we analyze the Persian Motion Events from Talmy's semantictypological standpoint which divide the world's Languages into two frames based on Path (main-event). It is encoded by the main verb or the satellite (a closed-class category that includes any constituent other than a nominal complement that is in a sister relation to the verb root). In this study, Persian will be compared with English and Japanese as representative examples of Satellite-framed languages and Verb-framed languages to understand which group Persian belongs to. The analysis of data from the short story "Christmas Carol" shows that in Persian, encoding path shows a two framed way (like English/Japanese). It has also been observed that Persian also is similar to satelliteframed languages for encoding path. However, in expressing manner, Persian is similar to verb-framed Languages.

Journal of Universal Language

This is a semantic study of causative movement verbs that have been organized into two main groups consisting of similar and contrasting features. This analysis contradicts Van Valin & LaPolla (1997) and other authors working within the Role and Reference Grammar theoretical framework such as Jolly (1991, 1993), who defends the view that causative movement verbs only respond to one Aktionsart type (that is, to one type of mode of action): causative accomplishment verbs. I demonstrate that there are also * This paper was funded through the research project ANGI2005/14 (CAR). I would like to acknowledge the merits of my colleague and friend Rubén Fernández Caro, "a man from the Middle Ages". He gave me the passion for medieval literature and languages and helped me discover the fascinating world found in Tolkien's stories and languages, and especially in Quenya. This paper could have never been written without such underlying motivation.

The present analysis is grounded in the belief that linguists, when describing a language, should aim for a full and comprehensive coverage. Talmy’s (1985, 2000) influential two-way typology, verb-framed vs. satellite-framed patterns, represents the preferred option here for the encoding of motion events cross-linguistically, but does not cover other peripheral uses that a language may show. This paper provides evidence for the growing assumption that languages may in fact show both encoding options (Beavers, 2008; Beavers et al., 2010; Filipovic, 2007; Iacobini and Masini, 2006, 2007; Fortis, 2010, Croft et al., 2010, inter alia). The analysis of a large corpus sample of satellite-framed constructions shows that in Spanish this pattern is not only available but indeed is preferred under some circumstances. Previous assertions that Romance languages have poor lexical manner inventories and lack resultatives can help explain low productivity, but they do not argue against the existence of a satellite-framed encoding choice per se. By analysing naturally occurring constructions in their contexts, I will outline the pragmatic conditions that compensate for lexical and aspectual limitations. When the resultative element (change of location) is a default inference, it can be lexicalized.

Languages differ in the ways they divide the world. This study applies cluster analysis to understand how and why languages differ in the way they express motion events. It further lays out what the parameters of the structure of the semantic space of motion are, based on data collected from participants who were adult speakers of Danish, German, and Turkish. The participants described 37 video clips depicting a large variety of motion events. The results of the study show that the segmentation of the semantic space displays a great deal of variation across all three groups. Turkish differs from German and Danish with respect to the features used to segment the semantic space -namely by using vector orientation. German and Danish differ greatly with respect to (a) how fine-grained the distinctions made are, and (b) how motion verbs with a common Germanic root are distributed across the semantic space. Consequently, this study illustrates that the parameters applied for categorization by speakers are, to some degree, related to typological membership, in relation to Talmy's typological framework for the expression of motion events. Finally, the study shows that the features applied for categorization differ across languages and that typological membership is not necessarily a predictor of elaboration of the motion verb lexicon. Linguistik online 61, 4/13 ISSN 1615-3014 60

The paper aims at further refining the theoretical tools and metalanguage available for comparing the lexicalisation of motion, and, in particular, the enterprise of moving (or being moved) from one place (Loc 1) to another (Loc 2), across languages, with special reference to the well-established distinction between Manner (and/or satellite-framed) and Path (and/or verb-framed) languages. Several authors have pointed out the need for a more consistent theoretical basis for (a) distinguishing so-called "motion events", "directed motion", etc. from motion in a wider sense, and (b) further specifying and differentiating the intuitively attractive, but vaguely defined parameters of Manner and Path. The presented approach addresses these issues in combination by suggesting a cross-linguistic situation and verb classification incorporating certain basic insights on pre-linguistic visual cognition involving delay-and-compare processing.

Journal of Linguistics, 2010

This paper provides a new perspective on the options available to languages for encoding directed motion events. introduces an influential two-way typology, proposing that languages adopt either verb-or satellite-framed encoding of motion events. This typology is augmented by Slobin (2004b) and with a third class of equipollently-framed languages. We propose that the observed options can instead be attributed to : (i) the motion-independent morphological, lexical, and syntactic resources languages make available for encoding manner and path of motion, (ii) the role of the verb as the single clause-obligatory lexical category that can encode either manner or path, and (iii) extra-grammatical factors that yield preferences for certain options. Our approach accommodates the growing recognition that most languages straddle more than one of the previously proposed typological categories : a language may show both verb-and satelliteframed patterns, or if it allows equipollent-framing, even all three patterns. We further show that even purported verb-framed languages may not only allow but actually prefer satellite-framed patterns when appropriate contextual support is available, a situation unexpected if a two-or three-way typology is assumed. Finally, we explain the appeal of previously proposed two-and three-way typologies : they capture the encoding options predicted to be preferred once certain external factors are recognized, including complexity of expression and biases in lexical inventories.

The Construal of Spatial Meaning, 2013

Setting the scene-the cognitive semiotics of motion The present paper argues that the lexico-grammar of spatial Motion (as a supercategory for dynamic movement and static location, cf. Talmy 1985) cannot be understood except as an integral part of the semiotic triad of reality, mind, and language. M otion in language should thus be explained on the basis of the (Gestaltist) psychology of motion in perception, in that language 'structures' the mind's construction of motion in reality. Accordingly, the typology of motion verbs is based on an experientially founded typology of motional situations in mind. A mental motional situation is perceptual, or 'pictorial': Human beings perceive motional situations in reality by forming (concrete) 'pictures' of them with diverse figureground constellations-and recognize them as belonging to different categories (according to stored percepts). There are two kinds of picture, viz. static, or 'stable', and dynamic, or 'unstable', roughly according as the figure is static or dynamic. Furthermore, we seem to be able to construct only one situational picture at a time. A single situational picture is a simple mental Situation-a stable picture is a 'state', and an unstable picture an 'activity'. So far the notion of M otion has been Perceptual. Now, it goes without saying that the 'mentality' of Situations involves much more than simple perceptual Situations, in that situations may be conceived of as possibly integrated with one another into 'complex' Situations. A "snapshot" of what at first sight might seem to be only a state or an activity may thus show out to be the endpoint or the starting point "window", respectively, on an integrated, complex Situation involving an Activity and a State, what will be called an Action. In the first case, the State in focus would be preceded by a causal Activity; in the second case the Activity in focus would be succeeded by a resultant State, in the normal course of events. The connection between the two simple Situations in a complex actional Situation is a general relation of telicity, the causal Activity tending to actually eventuate in the resultant State. The state-focused Action will be termed an Event, whereas an activity-focused Action will be termed a Process. Illustrating this, we may conceive of a scenario where I am sitting alone in the drawing room, then leave for the kitchen and come back, and lo and behold, you are sitting there! This may be conceived of as a M otion Situation, viz. a M otion Event, where you are sitting here as a result of your, say, returning home from work, and I may second it by the utterance Nå, du er kommet hjem fra arbejde 'oh, you've come home from work'. In this case the motion for me was only conceptual, in that I didn't see, or otherwise witness it, but only inferred it. We may thus talk about Conceptual motion in such cases. When now turning to language (as a system) and the typology of motion verbs in the mental lexicon, we must add the Sign Vehicle, i.e. the phonological expression, as a representation of Percean Firstness. The linguistic Sign Object (Secondness) and Sign Interpretant (Thirdness) then recall the mental perceptual and conceptual structures, respectively, just mentioned. So the sign contents are twofold , the linguistic cognitive-semantic domain being bipartitioned into an (abstract) perception-based 'imaginal' representation (cf. Spatial Structure in Jackendoff 2002) and an (abstract) conception-based 'ideational' representation (cf. Conceptual Structure in Jackendoff 2002). 1. Background, aims, and scope 1.1 Lexicalization typology M otion event research has grown into a well-established and highly productive field. Its theoretical cornerstone are the classic studies by Talmy (1975, 1985; for further refinements, see 2000: 25ff.), supplemented by works primarily by Slobin (e.g. 1996a/b; 2004a/b), but also by others (for an overview, see M ora Gutiérrez 2001). Despite the overwhelming amount of specific works within motion event research and despite the seemingly growing awareness of the need for a more fine-grained, less schematic approach than the Talmy-Slobin framework, the core assumptions and variables of the framework nevertheless are still upheld. Talmy's basic assumption is that even though people's pre-linguistic conceptualization of e.g. a directed M otion Situation appears to be universal-involving the same fundamental components to be lexicalized (apart from Figure and Ground, Motion itself, Manner of M otion, or Cause, and Path (i.e. trajectory), the ways of linguistically lexicalizing it in different languages are not the same because not all the components are able to be colexicalized in the same (verbal) morpheme in a major lexicalization system (Talmy 1985: 76): apart from cases where only M otion is lexicalized in the verb, as in English move, either the M anner component co-lexicalizes with the M otion component in the verb, leaving the Path behind to be lexicalized in a so-called Satellite, as in M anner languages, or it is the Path component that is lexically 'incorporated' into the verb, in so-called verb-framed or Path languages, whereby the M anner component becomes secondary, left for optional expression in a con-verb or adverb. Thus, we have a nice binary typology of major lexicalization patterns, and derivatively of languages, in that it is assumed that at least most languages fit into one of these types:  Manner (or, satellite-framed) languages, like e.g., Danish, Swedish, English, German, Russian, and Chinese, where only the Manner of motion is lexicalized in the verb root together with M otion, while the direction or Path of motion is explicated elsewhere when

Probus: International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics. 25(2): 1-39., 2013

We argue that the distinctions between satellite vs. verb-framed structures and between split vs. parallel systems may not be sufficient to identify the typological profile of variable systems like Russian. In particular, we focus on Manner-and-Path conflation in verb roots, which is not embraced by Talmy's framework (2000). I. Manner-and-Path conflation in Russian There are two different types of Manner-and-Path conflation in Russian and both of them serve to express upward motion. First, such a conflation occurs in morphologically complex verbs (zabrat'sja/zabirat'sja na [derevo] 'climb up [PF/IMP] [the tree]). Second, Manner-and-Path conflation occurs in (morphologically) simple verbs of motion that constitute a closed class of highly frequent Verbs of Motion (hereafter VoM).

Studies in Language, 2009