Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 10:1 (2018) ► pp.61–97

A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry

Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek

| University of Liège |
This paper investigates the asymmetrical behavior of Sources and Goals of motion in Homeric and Classical Greek within the frame semantics paradigm. In particular, based on a corpus of 26 works covering four text types, it is shown that (a) regardless of their semantic class, motion verbs display preference for Goal paths compared to Source ones; (b) the frame that a verb belongs to affects the type of path chosen only to a certain degree that does not change the Source-Goal imbalance; (c) semantically incongruent motion verb – path combinations are naturally less frequent than congruent combinations, but within the category of incongruent combinations the tokens are distributed in a way that reflects the prevalence of Goals; (d) the number of markers for the encoding of Goal is higher than that of Source; and (e) Source and Goal markers interact with Place ones in an asymmetrical way: Goal markers come to encode Place and, similarly, Place markers come to express Goal. Conversely, the interaction of markers exhibiting Source-Place polysemy is unidirectional, in the sense that none of these markers was originally used to encode Place alone. Theoretical implications of the study are discussed and directions for future research are suggested.
Keywords: Source-Goal asymmetry, Ancient Greek, frame semantics, motion verbs, language of space
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Expression of Source and Goal in Ancient Greek
  • 3.Methodology: Data and corpus
  • 4.Corpus analysis
    • 4.1Corpus analysis I: Neutral verbs with respect to directionality
      • 4.1.1Classification
      • 4.1.2Hypothesis and analysis
    • 4.2Corpus analysis II: Manner verbs
      • 4.2.1Classification
      • 4.2.2Hypothesis and analysis
    • 4.3Corpus analysis III: Directional verbs
      • 4.3.1Classification
      • 4.3.2Hypotheses and analysis
    • 4.4The Ancient Greek motion events frequency continuum
  • 5.Asymmetries in the inventories for the denotation of Goals and Sources
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00011.geo
References (81)
References
Atkins, S., Fillmore, J. C., & Johnson, R. C. (2003). Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from corpus evidence. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 251–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, W. S. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Linguistics, 461, 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, C. H. (2001). Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie & S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001 (pp. 64–73). U.K: Lancaster.Google Scholar
Bortone, P. (2010). Greek prepositions. From antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M., Gullberg, M., Majid, A., & Narasimhan, B. (2004). Put project: The cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field manual, Vol. 91 (pp. 10–18). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Chantraine, P. (1968). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
(1984). Morphologie historique du grec (2nd ed.). Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. (2006). Encoding the distinction between location and destination: A typological study. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 19–28). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipović, L. (2007). Talking about motion: A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, J. C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–254.Google Scholar
(1997). Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Wooters, C., & Baker, F. C. (2001). Building a large lexical databank which provides deep semantics. Proceedings of the Pacific Asian Conference on Language, Information and Computation. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Fillmore, J. C., & Petruck, M. R. L. (2003). Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, J. C., & Baker, C. (2009). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortis, J. -M., & Vittrant, A. (2011). L’organisation syntaxique de l’expression de la trajectoire: vers une typologie des constructions. Faits de Langues: Les Cahiers, 31, 71–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2007). Introducing cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, T. (2011). Gnosiaki proseggisi tis simasiologikis allagis ton protheseon tis Ellinikis: I periptosi tis eis [A cognitive approach to semantic change in Greek prepositions: The case of eis]. (Doctoral dissertation). National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, T., & Sioupi, A. (2015). Framing the difference between Sources and Goals in change of possession events: A corpus-based study in German and Modern Greek. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 31, 105–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, T., & Karatsareas, P. (2017). A diachronic take on the Source–Goal asymmetry: evidence from inner Asia Minor Greek. In S. Luraghi, T. Nikitina, & C. Zanchi (Eds.), Space in diachrony (pp. 179–206). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, T., Lincke, E. -S., Nikiforidou, K., & Piata, A. (submitted). On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic: Why lexical constructions are important.
Gehrke, B. (2008). Ps in motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events. (Doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Goschler, J., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Introduction. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hajnal, I. (2004). Die Tmesis bei Homer und auf den mykenischen Linear B Tafeln– ein chronologisches Paradox?. In J. H. W. Penney (Ed.), Indo-European perspectives: Studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davie (pp. 146–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haug, D. (2011). Tmesis in the epic tradition. In Ø. Andersen & D. Haug (Eds.), Relative chronology in early Greek epic poetry (pp. 96–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, G., & Stavrou, M. (2007). Grammaticalized aspect and spatio-temporal culmination. Lingua, 1171, 605–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, C., Corona, L., De Pasquale, N., & Buoniconto, A. (2017). How should a “classical” satellite-framed language behave?: Path encoding asymmetries in Ancient Greek and Latin. In S. Luraghi, T. Nikitina, & C. Zanchi (Eds.), Space in diachrony (pp. 95–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Y. (1987). ‘Source’ vs. ‘goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of case (pp. 122–146). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, M. (2010). The (a)symmetry of source and goal in motion events in Japanese: Evidence from narrative data. In G. Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini, & F. Rovai (Eds.), Space in language: Proceedings of the Pisa International Conference (pp. 514–531). Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. C., Fillmore, J. C., Wood, J. E., Ruppenhofer, J., Urban, M., Petruck, M. R. L., & Baker, F. C. (2001). The FrameNet project: Tools for lexicon building. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Kabata, K. (2013). Goal–source asymmetry and crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns: a cognitive-typological approach. Language Sciences, 361, 78–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A. (2012). Semantic granularity of placement and removal in Polish. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 327–347). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B. (Eds.). (2012). Events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2005). Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Language and memory for motion events: Origins of the asymmetry between source and goal paths. Cognitive Science, 36(3), 517–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Carey, S. (2014). Twelve-month-old infants’ encoding of goal and source paths in agentive and non-agentive motion events. Language Learning and Development, 11(2), 152–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, B., & Zukowski, A. (2003). Objects, motions and paths: Spatial language in children with Williams Syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology, 231, 107–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lejeune, M. (1939). Les adverbes grecs en -θεν. Bordeaux: Éditions Delmas.Google Scholar
Lestrade, S. (2010). The space of case. Nijmegen: Radboud UniversiteitGoogle Scholar
Létoublon, F. (1985). Il allait, pareil a la nuit: Les verbes de mouvement en grec: suppletisme et aspect verbal. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S. (2003). On the meaning of prepositions and cases. The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S., Nikitina, T., & Zanchi, C. (Eds.). (2017). Space in diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. (1978). Ablative-locative transfers and their relevance for the theory of case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 141, 129–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandler, M. J., & Pagan Canovas, C. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 61, 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nam, S. (2004). Goal and source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation . Leipzig, Germany. Paper retrieved from [URL]
Napoli, M. (2006). Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek: A contrastive analysis. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Nikitina, T. (2009). Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the source/goal ambiguity. Linguistics, 47(5), 1113–1141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Lexical splits in the encoding of motion events from Archaic to Classical Greek. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 185–202). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Ablative and allative marking of static locations: A historical perspective. In S. Luraghi, T. Nikitina, & C. Zanchi (Eds.), Space in diachrony (pp. 67–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, T., & Maslov, B. (2013). Redefining constructio praegnans: On the variation between allative and locative expressions in Ancient Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 13(1), 105–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, T., & Spano, M. (2014). ‘Behind’ and ‘in front’ in Ancient Greek: A case study in orientation asymmetry. In S. Kutscher & D. Werning (Eds.), On Ancient grammars of space (pp. 67–82). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M. (2008). Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages. In J. Barðdal & S. Cheliah (Eds.), The role of semantics and pragmatics in the development of case (pp. 261–281). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçalıskan, S., & Slobin, D. I. (2000). Climb up vs. ascend climbing: Lexicalization choices in expressing motion events with manner and path components. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 241 (Vol. II1), 558–570. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, M. (2010). The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics, 48(5), 1043–1081. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. (2010). Source-Goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 341, 1064–1092. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petersen, J. H. (2012). How to put and take in Kalasha. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 349–366). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pourcel, S., & Kopecka, A. (2006). Motion events in French: Typological intricacies. Unpublished manuscript, University of Sussex and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Brighton, UK, and Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Regier, T., & Zheng, M. (2007). Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, S., & Kabata, K. (2007). Crosslinguistic grammaticalisation patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology, 11(3), 451–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risch, E. (1974). Wortbildung der Homerischen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, E., & Debrunner, A. (1939). Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik, Erster band1: Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. München: CH. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2011). WordSmith tools version 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S. (2002). Lokale Konstruktionen im Griechischen: Sprachwandel in funktionaler Sicht (Doctoral dissertation). University of Erfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
(2008a). Grammaticalization and sets of form-function pairs: Encoding spatial concepts in Greek. In E. Verhoeven, S. Skopeteas, Y. -M. Shin, Y. Nishina, & J. Helmbrecht (Eds.), Studies on grammaticalization (pp. 25–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b). Encoding spatial relations: Language typology and diachronic change in Greek. Language Typology and Universals, 61(1), 54–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, I. D. (1997). Mind, code, and text. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 437–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Rohde, A. (2004). The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K. -U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 249–268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stolz, T. (1992). Simple vs. complex local relators. In T. Müller-Bardey & D. Werner (Eds.), Aspekte der Lokalisation (pp. 201–220). Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Stolz, T., Lestrade, S., & Stolz, C. (2014). The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, T., Levkovych, N., Urdze, A., & Nintemann, J. (2017). Spatial interrogatives in Europe and beyond. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svorou, S. (1994). The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Lexical typologies. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 66–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. J. (1995). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory (Rev. edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verkerk, A. (2014). The evolutionary dynamics of motion event encoding (Doctoral dissertation). Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wälchli, B. (2006). Lexicalization patterns in motion events revisited. Unpublished manuscript, University of Konstanz, Germany.Google Scholar
Yates, A. (2014). Homeric ΒΗ Δ’ ΙΕΝΑΙ: A Serial Verb Construction in Greek?. Paper presented at the 145th Annual Meetings of the American Philological Association . Chicago, IL. Paper retrieved from [URL]
Zanchi, C. (2017). New evidence for the Source–Goal asymmetry: Ancient Greek preverbs. In S. Luraghi, T. Nikitina, & C. Zanchi (Eds.), Space in diachrony (pp. 147–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, J. (2010). A hierarchy of locations: evidence from the encoding of direction in adpositions and cases. Linguistics, 481, 983–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Taremaa, Piia & Anetta Kopecka
2023. Speed and space: semantic asymmetries in motion descriptions in Estonian. Cognitive Linguistics 34:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
De Pasquale, Noemi
2021. ‘Invisible’ spatial meaning: a text-based study of covert Path encoding in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 485 ff. DOI logo
De Pasquale, Noemi
2021. ‘Invisible’ spatial meaning: a text-based study of covert Path encoding in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 485 ff. DOI logo
Fagard, Benjamin & Anetta Kopecka
2021. Source/Goal (a)symmetry. Studies in Language 45:1 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Kopecka, Anetta & Marine Vuillermet
2021. Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages. Studies in Language 45:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Panova, Anastasia & Tatiana Philippova
2021. When a cross-linguistic tendency marries incomplete acquisition: Preposition drop in Russian spoken in Daghestan. International Journal of Bilingualism 25:3 ► pp. 640 ff. DOI logo
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo & Chiara Zanchi
2020. Reciprocal constructions in Homeric Greek: A typological and corpus-based approach. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Law, James
2019. Diachronic frame analysis. Constructions and Frames 11:1 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Law, James
2023. Constructional change and frameelement selection. Constructions and Frames 15:1 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.