Chapter published in:
The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression
Edited by Michel Aurnague and Dejan Stosic
[Human Cognitive Processing 66] 2019
► pp. 32–65

About asymmetry of motion in French

Some properties and a principle

| CLLE-ERSS, Université de Toulouse, CNRS & UT2J, France
This chapter addresses the issue of “goal bias” and asymmetry of motion in French. The semantics of verbs of strict autonomous motion is first captured through their spatio-temporal schemata defined in terms of change of basic locative relation and change of placement. The possibility, for the verbs, of appearing in implicit landmark constructions, their association with a spatial PP having an opposite “polarity” and the prepositions’ contribution to dynamic spatial descriptions are successively reviewed in order to identify the most important properties of asymmetry of motion in French. Several of these properties seem to ensue from the spatio-temporal structure of motion events. A pragmatic principle is also highlighted, which is likely to favor the emergence of goal bias in language.
Keywords: goal bias, strict motion verbs, implicit landmark, opposite polarities, prepositions, event structure
Published online: 29 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.66.01aur
References

References

Aurnague, M.
(1996) Les Noms de Localisation Interne: Tentative de caractérisation sémantique à partir de données du basque et du français. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 69, 159–192.Google Scholar
(2004) Les structures de l’espace linguistique: Regards croisés sur quelques constructions spatiales du basque et du français. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
(2011) How motion verbs are spatial: The spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 34(1), 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Motion verbs and spatial PPs in French: From spatio-temporal structure to asymmetry and goal bias. Carnets de Grammaire, 23. Toulouse: CLLE-ERSS report.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M., & Stosic, D.
(2002) La préposition par et l’expression du déplacement: Vers une caractérisation sémantique et cognitive de la notion de “trajet”. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 81, 113–139.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M., & Vieu, L.
(1993) A three level approach to the semantics of space. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to Natural Language processing (pp. 395–439). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boons, J.-P.
(1987) La notion sémantique de déplacement dans une classification syntaxique des verbes locatifs. Langue Française, 76, 5–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Classification sémantique des verbes locatifs. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Boons, J.-P., Guillet A., & Leclère, C.
(1976) La structure des phrases simples en français: Constructions intransitives. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Bourdin, P.
(1997) On goal-bias across languages: Modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In Proceedings of LP’96 “Typology: prototypes, item orderings and universals” (pp. 185–216). Prague, 20–22 August 1996.Google Scholar
Cappelli, F.
(2013) Etude du mouvement fictif à travers un corpus d’exemples du français: Perspective sémantique du lexique au discours. PhD dissertation. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.Google Scholar
Carlson, L., & van der Zee, E.
(Eds.) (2005) Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization, and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cornish, F.
(1999) Anaphora, discourse, and understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, D.
(2006) Encoding the distinction between location, source 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M.
(1975) Méthodes en syntaxe: Régime des constructions complétives. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Guillet, A., & Leclère, C.
(1992) La structure des phrases simples en français: Les constructions transitives locatives. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., &, Thompson S. A.
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. CrossrefGoogle 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: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U.
(1993) From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G.
(1994) Anaphores et pronoms. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A., & Ishibashi, M.
(2011) L’(a-)symétrie dans l’expression de la Source et du But: Perspective translinguistique. Faits de Langues– Les Cahiers, 3, 131–149.Google Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B.
(2005) Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lamiroy, B.
(1983) Les verbes de mouvement en français et en espagnol. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Laur, D.
(1991) Sémantique du déplacement et de la localisation en français: Une étude des verbes, des prépositions et de leurs relations dans la phrase simple. PhD dissertation. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(1992) The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity. In I. M. Roca (Ed.), The thematic structure: Its role in grammar (pp. 247–269). Berlin: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moens, M., & Steedman, M.
(1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–28.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, M.
(2010) The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals and Sources. Linguistics, 48(5), 1043–1081. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Regier, T.
(1996) The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Regier, T., & Zheng, M.
(2007) Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31, 705–719. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S.
(2004) Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sarda, L.
(1999) Contribution à l’étude de la sémantique de l’espace et du temps: Analyse des verbes de déplacement transitifs directs du français. PhD dissertation. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, R. M.
(1973) Information persistence in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100(1), 39–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
(2003) Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought (pp. 157–191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2004) The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota
(1991) The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Rohde, A.
(2004) The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in grammar (249–268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stosic, D.
(2002)  Par et à travers dans l’expression des relations spatiales: Comparaison entre le français et le serbo-croate. PhD dissertation. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.Google Scholar
(2007) The prepositions par and à travers and the categorization of spatial entities in French. In M. Aurnague, M. Hickmann, & L. Vieu (Eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (71–91). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (vol. 3): Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics (vol. I & II). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C.
(1987) La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation. Langue Française, 76, 77–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Les usages statiques de la préposition à . Cahiers de Lexicologie, 53, 119–148.Google Scholar
(1991) Spatial prepositions: A case study in French. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
(1957) Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, D. P., & Hill, D.
(1995) When GO means COME: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(2/3), 209–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar