Laure Sarda | Lattice, CNRS, ENS & Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle, PSL & USPC, France
This chapter deals with the syntactic status of locative constituents combining with motion verbs in French. It aims at answering the following questions: are locative PPs arguments or adjuncts? To which extent does the semantic structure of motion verbs determine the obligatory or optional presence of locative constituent?
In the first part of the chapter, I discuss the general assumption that Manner and Path cannot be encoded in the same verb. This restriction intersects with the two-way typological division between Verb framed languages and Satellite framed languages. As an alternative view of motion description, I present the classification criteria, proposed by Aurnague (2011), which provides new tools to rethink motion beyond the classical opposition between Manner and Path. Relying on a corpus study, I systematically apply a series of syntactic tests to the main classes of motion verbs. I show that locative PPs are tied to the verb to several degrees and that the semantic structure of verbs strongly impacts their syntactic properties.
Asher, N., & Sablayrolles, P. (1996). A typology and discourse semantics for motion verbs and spatial PPs in French. In J. Pustejovsky & B. Boguraev (Eds.), Lexical semantics. The Problem of Polysemy (pp. 163–209). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: a closer look. In K. Hall, M. Meacham & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 1–14). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
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.
Aurnague, M. (2016). Mugimenduzko joskera batzuen oinarri semantikoez: frantsesaren adibidea. Gogoa, 14, 27–43.
Bally, C. (1932) [1965] Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Paris, Librairie Ernest Leroux. (2ème édition: 1965, Berne. Francke)
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46, 331–377.
Beliën, M. (2008). Constructions, constraints and construal: adpositions in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations.
Bergh, L. (1948). Moyens d’exprimer en français l’idée de direction. Göteborg: Rundqvists Boktryckeri.
Blinkenberg, A. (1960). Le problème de la transitivité en Français moderne. Essai syntactico-sémantique, Copenhague 1960, 1 vol. 366 p. [Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser udgivet af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Bind 38, nr 1] Munksgaard Publisher, Kövenhavn, Denmark.
Bonami, O. (1999). Les constructions du verbe : le cas des groupes prépositionnels argumentaux. Analyse syntaxique, sémantique et lexicale. PhD Dissertation, Université Paris 8.
Boons, J.-P. (1987). La notion sémantique de déplacement dans une classification syntaxique des verbes locatifs. Langue Française, 76, 5–40.
Borillo, A. (1998). L’espace et son expression en français. Paris : Ophrys.
Bourdin, P. (1997). On goal bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In B. Palek (Ed.), Proceedings of LP ‘96: Typology, prototypes, item orderings and universals (pp. 185–218). Prague, August 20–22, 1996.
Carlier, A. (2005). L’argument davidsonien : un critère de distinction entre les prédicats ‘stage level’ et les prédicats ‘individual level’?Travaux de linguistique, 50, 13–35.
Carlier, A. & Sarda, L. (2010). Le complément de la localisation spatiale: entre argument et adjoint. In F. Neveu, V. Muni Toke, T. Klingler, J. Durand, L. Mondada & S. Prévost (Eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française– CMLF 2010 (pp. 2057–2073). Paris, 2010, Institut de Linguistique Française.
Carlier, A. & Sarda, L. (Forthc). Spatial Location in French: optional arguments and obligatory adjuncts.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.
Fillmore, Ch. (1986). Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphor, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1986), 95–107.
Fillmore, Ch. & Kay, P. (1995). Construction Grammar. ms. distributed by CSLI Publications, Stanford.
Fong, V. & Poulain, C. (1998). Locating linguistic variation in semantic templates. In J. P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: bridging the gap (pp. 29–39). Stanford, CA: CSLI,.
Goldberg, A. & Ackerman F. (2001). The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language, 77(4), 798–814.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure, Coll. Cognitive theory of language and culture 1 vol. (XI–265 p.). Chicago; London: the University of Chicago Press, cop.
Goldberg, A. (2005). Constructions, Lexical Semantics, and the Correspondence Principle: Accounting for Generalizations and Subregularities in the Realization of Arguments. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Ed.), The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation (pp. 215–286). Oxford: University Press.
Goyens, M., Lamiroy, B. & Melis, L. (2002), Movement and Repositioning of the Preposition a in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 25(2), 275–310.
Huumo, T. (2014). Path Settings: How dynamic conceptualization permits the use of path expressions as setting adverbials. In L. Sarda, S. Carter-Thomas, B. Fagard, M. Charolles (Eds), Adverbials in Use: From predicative to discourse functions (pp. 73–100). Corpora and Language in Use. Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. & A. Hijazo-Gascón (Eds) (2015). New Horizons in the Study of Motion: Bringing Together Applied and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ikegami, Y. (1984). ‘Source’ vs ‘Goal’: a case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of Case (pp. 122–146). Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.
Kopecka, A. (2009). L’expression du déplacement en français: l’interaction des facteurs sémantiques, aspectuels et pragmatiques dans la construction du sens spatial. Langages, 173, 54–75.
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.
Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and Grammar (pp. 197–235). Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 70) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lakoff, G. & Ross, J. (1976). Is deep structure necessary? In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, 7 (pp. 159–164).
Lakusta, L. & Landau, B. (2005). Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1–33.
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. Université Toulouse 2.
Laur, D. (1993). La relation entre le verbe et la préposition dans la sémantique du déplacement. Langages, 110, 47–67.
Lazard, G. (1994). L’actance. Paris: PUF.
Legendre, G. & Sorace, A. (2003). Auxiliaires et intransitivité en français et dans les langues romanes. In D. Godard (Ed.), Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple (pp. 185–233). Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1996). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge Ms: MIT Press.
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2013). Lexicalized Meaning and Manner/Result Complementarity’. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke, & R. Marín, (Eds.), Subatomic Semantics of Event Predicates (pp. 49–70), Springer, Dordrecht.
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2019). Lexicalization Patterns. In R. Truswell, (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Event Structure, (pp. 395–425), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Melis, L. (1983). Etude sur la classification et la systématique des compléments circonstanciels en français moderne. Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Moline, E. & Stosic, D. (2016). L’expression de la manière en français. Paris: Ophrys.
Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62, 56–119.
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin B. (2010). Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity. In E. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Regier, T., & Zheng, M. (2007). Attention to endpoints: a cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31, 705–719.
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 Toulouse 2.
Sarda, L. (2001). Semantics of French Direct Transitive Motion Verbs. In T. Eniko Németh (Ed.), Cognition in Language Use (pp. 388–404), Selected Papers from the Seventh International Pragmatics Conference, Vol 1, International Pragmatics Association. Antwerp: Belgium.
Slobin D., (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 271–323). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, D. (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: Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives, (pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: typological considerations. In S. Gahl, A. Dolbey & C. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 487–505). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Stosic, D. (2002). Par et à travers dans l’expression des relations spatiales: comparaison entre le français et le serbo-croate. PhD dissertation, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.
Stosic, D. (2009a). La notion de « manière » dans la sémantique de l’espace. Langages, 175, 103–121.
Stosic, D. (2009b). Comparaison du sens spatial des prépositions à travers en français et kroz en serbe, Langages, 173, 15–33.
Talmy, L. (1972). Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley
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. 57–143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1. The MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2. The MIT Press.
Tesnière, L. (1959). Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris, Klincksieck. [Translation: Elements of structural syntax
. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2015].
Vailati, E. (2014). Leibniz and Clarke: A Study of Their Correspondence. Oxford University Press.
Vandeloise, C. (1987). La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation. Langue française, 76, 77–111.
Vinay, J-P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier, Montréal: Beauchemin.
Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J. & David, C. (2010). Translocation: language and the categorization of experience. In V. Evans (Ed.), Language, cognition, and space: the state of the art and new directions (pp. 389–418). London: Equinox.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Kou, Xinyan & Jill Hohenstein
2024. Manner, result, and intention: implications for event typology from a cognitive account of verb semantics based on fulfilment types. Language and Cognition► pp. 1 ff.
Lena, Ludovica
2024. Encoding indefinite human reference without indefinite pronouns: the case of Chinese presentationals. Folia Linguistica
2022. Conceptual Blending Across Ontological Domains—References to Time and Space in Motion Events by Tunisian Arabic Speakers of L2 German. Frontiers in Communication 7
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 september 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.