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. 68–107

French motion verbs

Insights into the status of locative PPs

| 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.
Keywords: motion verbs, argument structure, goal bias, syntax-semantic interface
Published online: 29 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.66.02sar
References

References

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.Google Scholar
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.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.
(2011) How motion verbs are spatial: the spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 34(1), 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Mugimenduzko joskera batzuen oinarri semantikoez: frantsesaren adibidea. Gogoa, 14, 27–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bally, C.
(1932) [1965] Linguistique générale et linguistique française . Paris, Librairie Ernest Leroux. (2ème édition: 1965, Berne. Francke)Google Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W.
(2010) The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46, 331–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beliën, M.
(2008) Constructions, constraints and construal: adpositions in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations.Google Scholar
Bergh, L.
(1948) Moyens d’exprimer en français l’idée de direction. Göteborg: Rundqvists Boktryckeri.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bonami, O.
(1999) Les constructions du verbe : le cas des groupes prépositionnels argumentaux. Analyse syntaxique, sémantique et lexicale. PhD Dissertation, Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
Boons, J.-P.
(1987) La notion sémantique de déplacement dans une classification syntaxique des verbes locatifs. Langue Française, 76, 5–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borillo, A.
(1998) L’espace et son expression en français. Paris : Ophrys.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Forthc). Spatial Location in French: optional arguments and obligatory adjuncts.
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V. & Taoka, C.
(2010) Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In H. C. Boas (Ed.) Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 201–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D.
(1991) Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch.
(1986) Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphor, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1986), 95–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. & Kay, P.
(1995) Construction Grammar. ms. distributed by CSLI Publications, Stanford.
Google Scholar
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,.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. & Ackerman F.
(2001) The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language, 77(4), 798–814. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goyens, M., Lamiroy, B. & Melis, L.
(2002), Movement and Repositioning of the Preposition a in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 25(2), 275–310.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle 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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Ross, J.
(1976) Is deep structure necessary? In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, 7 (pp. 159–164).Google Scholar
Lakusta, L. & Landau, B.
(2005) Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. & Lemoine, K.
(2005) Definite null objects in (spoken) French: A Construction-Grammar account. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 13–55). John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle 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. Université Toulouse 2.Google Scholar
(1993) La relation entre le verbe et la préposition dans la sémantique du déplacement. Langages, 110, 47–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G.
(1994) L’actance. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(1996) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge Ms: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(2019) Lexicalization Patterns. In R. Truswell, (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Event Structure, (pp. 395–425), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Melis, L.
(1983) Etude sur la classification et la systématique des compléments circonstanciels en français moderne. Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Moline, E. & Stosic, D.
(2016) L’expression de la manière en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Nichols, J.
(1986) Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62, 56–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Regier, T., & Zheng, M.
(2007) Attention to endpoints: a cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31, 705–719. 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 Toulouse 2.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.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, 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 (pp. 71–91). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009a) La notion de « manière » dans la sémantique de l’espace. Langages, 175, 103–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Comparaison du sens spatial des prépositions à travers en français et kroz en serbe, Langages, 173, 15–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1972) Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(2000a) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tenny, C.
(1995) How Motion Verbs are Special. The interaction of linguistic and pragmatic information in aspectual verb meanings. Pragmatics and Cognition, 3(1), 31–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, L.
(1959)  Eléments de syntaxe structurale . Paris, Klincksieck. [Translation: Elements of structural syntax . Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company 2015].Google Scholar
Vailati, E.
(2014) Leibniz and Clarke: A Study of Their Correspondence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C.
(1987) La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation. Langue française, 76, 77–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J-P., & Darbelnet, J.
(1958) Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier, Montréal: Beauchemin.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar