Narrative Perspective Mediated by Manner of Motion Verbs

Anuario del seminario de Filología Vasca 'Julio de …

… in Turkish Linguistics. Istanbul: Bo˘ gaziçi, 2003

Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 2007

This paper addresses the issue of how to characterize manner-of-motion verbs cross-linguistically, and more specifically, in Italian (a topic more fully developed in Zubizarreta & Oh (2007)). It is informative to begin by looking at manner-of-motion verbs in a serial verb language like Korean. In Korean, manner-of-motion verbs are unambiguously activity-denoting verbs; they do not encode directed motion. Compare the examples in (1) with the ones in (2). The locative-ey can denote the goal of the motion in the context of the light verbs ka-"go" and o-"come", as illustrated in (1). On the other hand, the locative-ey cannot denote the goal of motion in the context of manner-ofmotion verbs such as run, walk, swim, fly, crawl, etc., as illustrated in (2). (1) a. John-i pang-ey tul-e-ka-ss-ta John-Nom room-Loc into-L go-Past-Decl "John went into the room" b. John-i pang-ey tul-e-o-ass-ta John-Nom room-Loc into-L come-Past-Decl "John came into the room." (2) a. *John-i kongwen-ey talli-ess-ta John-Nom park-Loc run-Past-Decl "John ran to the park." Cf. John-i kongwen-eyse talli-ess-ta John-Nom park-Loc run-Past-Decl "John ran at the park" * The material in this paper has been drawn from the book On the Syntactic Composition of Manner and Motion, MIT Press, 2007

Applied Psycholinguistics

This study examines how properties of path (the trajectory of motion) and manner (how an action is performed) components of motion events are reflected in linguistic and nonlinguistic motion event conceptualization in a path-focused language, Turkish. In two experiments, we investigated how path and manner differed in salience (i.e., prominence) and ease of expression (EoE, i.e., effort of describing), and how these factors were related to lexicalization and similarity judgments of motion events. In Experiment 1, participants rated motion events based on path and manner salience and EoE and expressed path and manner in a written format. Results indicated that manner was rated as more salient and path as easier to express. Path salience and EoE were related to both types (i.e., number of different expressions) and the total number of paths and manners used. However, manner EoE but not salience was associated with only types and the total number of manners used. In Experiment 2, parti...

2006

Languages differ considerably in the attention that they pay to manner as a dimension of motion events. One factor that seems to influence attention to manner is a language's lexicalization pattern. Following Talmy's well-known dichotomy of verb-framed and satellite-framed languages, the latter type provides more readily accessible constructions that include path and manner in compact form. In this chapter it is proposed that the dichotomy be expanded to included an "equipollent" type, in which both path and manner receive equal weight. Furthermore, other factors also contribute to the degree of "manner salience" of a particular language. In particular, language-specific morphosyntax, the availability of ideophones, and the availability of motion-related lexical categories (such as posture verbs) are three sorts of factors that interact with lexicalization patterns in influencing manner salience. It is proposed that linguistically-expressed manner salience can influence attention to details of experienced motion events as well as mental imagery formed on the basis of reception of motion event descriptions in speech or writing. 1 Thanks to Jelena Jovanović for her photograph of the original sign in the Wild Animal Park of the San Diego Zoo.

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

Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 2011

Two commonly-held assumptions in the literature on the Goal of Motion construction in English are, on the one hand, that there is a clear-cut distinction between verbs of inherently directed motion and manner-of-motion verbs regarding their semantics, in that the former include Path and the latter, Manner in their semantic make-up, and that affects the way in which they express motion to/towards a Goal (by combining with an obligatory/optional directional PP), and, on the other hand, that manner-of-motion verbs freely participate in the Goal of Motion construction. The present article challenges these assumptions and proposes that motion verbs in English form a continuum (a Directionality Squish) along which they range from those that always express directed motion to those that never do so.

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.