Cover not available
Part of
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. 1–28

Recent advances in the study of motion in French

A survey

| CLLE-ERSS, Université de Toulouse, CNRS & UT2J, France
| CLLE-ERSS, Université de Toulouse, CNRS & UT2J, France
Article outline
  • 1.Dynamic space in language and cognition
  • 2.Analyzing dynamic space in French: A longstanding line of research
  • 3.Scope of the book
    • 3.1Arguments, modifiers, asymmetry of motion
    • 3.2Manner of motion and fictive motion
    • 3.3Psycholinguistic issues
    • 3.4Formal and computational aspects of motion-based narrations
  • 4.New perspectives for the study of dynamic space in language and cognition
    • 4.1Searching for the semantic components of motion events
    • 4.2Path and localization
    • 4.3Interacting with manner
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.66.intro
References (112)
References
Asher, N., & Sablayrolles, P. (1995). A typology and discourse semantics for motion verbs and spatial PPs in French. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 163–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A close look. In K. Hall, M. Meacham, & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 1–14). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M. (2004). Les structures de l’espace linguistique: Regards croisés sur quelques constructions spatiales du basque et du français. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
(2009). A cet endroit vs. dans un tel endroit: Ce que à nous dit d’endroit et vice-versa. Langages, 173, 34–53.Google Scholar
(2011). How motion verbs are spatial: The spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 34(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M., Hickmann, M., & Vieu, L. (Eds.). (2007). The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Bally, C. (1932/1965). Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.). (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. (2014). Actual and non-actual motion: Why experimentalist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 395–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Kita, S., Lüpke, F., & Ameka, F. K. (2007). Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language, 83(3), 495–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boons, J.-P. (1985). Préliminaire à la classification des verbes locatifs: Les compléments de lieu, leurs critères, leurs valeurs aspectuelles. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 9(2), 195–267.Google Scholar
(1987). La notion sémantique de déplacement dans une classification syntaxique des verbes locatifs. Langue Française, 76, 5–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boons, J.-P., Guillet A., & Leclère C. (1976). La structure des phrases simples en français: Constructions intransitives. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Borillo, A. (1998). L’espace et son expression en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Borillo, M., & Sablayrolles, P. (1993). The semantics of motion verbs in French. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Expert Systems and Natural Language Processing (vol. 3), Avignon’93 (pp. 189–199). Avignon, 24–28 May 1993.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
Bowerman, M., de León, L., & Choi, S. (1995). Verbs, particles, and spatial semantics: Learning to talk about spatial actions in typologically different languages. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 101–110). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2008). Language and landscape: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences, 30(2–3), 135–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buscaldi, D., & Rosso, P. (2008). A conceptual density-based approach for the disambiguation of toponyms. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(3), 301–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cablitz, G. H. (2008). When “what” is “where”: A linguistic analysis of landscape terms, place names and body part terms in Marquesan (Oceanic, French Polynesia). Language Sciences, 30(2–3), 200–226. DOI logoGoogle 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
Cooper, G. S. (1968). A semantic analysis of English locative prepositions (Bolt, Beranek & Newman report 1587). Springfield, VA: Clearing House for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cusic, D. (1981). Verbal plurality and aspect. PhD dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fibigerova, K., Guidetti, M., & Šulová, L. (2012). Verbal and gestural expression of motion in French and Czech. In L. Filipović, & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time across languages and cultures II: Language, culture and cognition (pp. 251–268). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grinevald, C. (1994). Jacaltec directionals: Their meaning and their function. Languages of the World, 7, 23–36.Google Scholar
(2006). The expression of static location in a typological perspective. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 29–58). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hasko, V., & Perelmutter, R. (Eds.). (2010). New approaches to Slavic verbs of motion. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1982). Space and the prepositions in English: Regularities and irregularities in a complex domain. PhD dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
(1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. (2006). The relativity of motion in first language acquisition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 281–308). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, D. (1996). Distinguishing the notion “place” in an Oceanic language. In M. Pütz, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 307–328). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, C., & Fagard, B. (2011). A diachronic approach to variation and change in the typology of motion event expression. A case study: From Latin to Romance, Faits de Langues. Les Cahiers, 3, 151–171.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantic and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1996). The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 1–30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, A., & Melinger, A. (Eds.). (2001). Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics: Annual report 2001. Nijmegen: MPI für Psycholinguistik.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A. (2006). The semantic structures of motion verbs in French. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. (1995). Telicity in movement. In P. Amsili, M. Borillo, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Time, Space and Movement: Meaning and knowledge in the sensible world, Working Notes of the 5th International Workshop (pp. 63–75 Part A). Toulouse: LRC.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Ross, J. (1976). Is deep structure necessary? In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 7, 159–164.Google Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2005). Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamiroy, B. (1983). Les verbes de mouvement en français et en espagnol. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1986). Abstract motion. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 455–471). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
(1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Virtual reality. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 29, 77–103.Google Scholar
(2010). Reflections on the functional characterization of spatial prepositions. CORELA, HS-7, [URL]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
(1993). La relation entre le verbe et la préposition dans la sémantique du déplacement. Langages, 110, 47–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G. (1994). L’actance. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1969). Towards a semantic description of English. London: Longman.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1998). Morphology and lexical semantics. In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Handbook of morphology (pp. 248–271). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. (Eds.). (2006). Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mani, I., & Pustejovsky, J. (2012). Interpreting motion: Grounded representations for spatial language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moline, E., & Stosic, D. (2016). L’expression de la manière en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Moncla, L., & Gaio, M. (2015). A Multi-layer markup language for geospatial semantic annotations. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval, GIR’15 (pp. 5:1–5:10), Paris: ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. (1974). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In R. Thomason (Ed.), Selected papers of Richard Montague (pp. 247–270). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Muller, P., & Sarda, L. (1998). Représentation de la sémantique des verbes de déplacement transitifs directs du français. TAL, 39(2), 127–147.Google Scholar
Nespoulous, J.-L. (1990). Linguistique, neurolinguistique et neuropsycholinguistique. In J.-L. Nespoulous, & M. Leclercq (Eds.), Linguistique et neuropsycholinguistique: Tendances actuelles (pp. 1–4). Paris: Société de Neuropsychologie de Langue Française.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62, 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikanne, U., & van der Zee, E. (2012). The lexical representation of path-curvature in motion expression: A three-way path curvature distinction In M. Vulchanova, & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Motion encoding in language and space (pp. 187–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Purves, R. S., & Derungs, C. (2015). From space to place: Place-based explorations of text. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 9(1), 74–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Retoré, C. (2014). The Montagovian generative lexicon ΛTyn : A type-theoretical framework for natural language semantics. In R. Matthes & A. Schubert (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2013) (pp. 202–229). Dagstuhl: Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.Google 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
Šarić, L. (Ed.). (2013). Space in South Slavic. Oslo Studies in Language, 5(1).Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(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
Slobin, D. I., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Kopecka, A., & Majid, A. (2014). Manners of human gait: A crosslinguistic event-naming study. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 701–741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. (2003). Modes of discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soroli, E., & Hickmann, M. (2011). Language and spatial representations in French and in English: Evidence from eye movements. In G. Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini, & F. Rovai (Eds.), Space in language (pp. 581–597). Pisa: Editrice Testi Scientifici.Google 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 (pp. 249–268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stolova, N. I. (2015). Cognitive linguistics and lexical change: Motion verbs from Latin to Romance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stosic, D. (2001). Par et l’expression des relations spatiales en français. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 9/10, 75–102.Google Scholar
(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 (pp. 71–91). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). La notion de « manière » dans la sémantique de l’espace. Langages, 175, 103–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stosic, D., & Amiot, D. (2011). Quand la morphologie fait des manières: Les verbes évaluatifs et l’expression de la manière en français. In D. Amiot, W. De Mulder, E. Moline, & D. Stosic (Eds.), Ars Grammatica. Hommages à Nelly Flaux (pp. 403–430). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (1993). How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Linguistics, 29, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick, & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation. DOI logoGoogle 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. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (vol. I & II). Cambridge, MA: 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.Google Scholar
Tenny, C., & Pustejowsky, J. (Eds.). (1999). Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1959). Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development – Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 219–250). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J., & Papafragou, A. (2010). Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 64–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, B. (1996). Spatial perspective in descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 463–491). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Eijck, J., & Kamp, H. (1997). Representing discourse in context. In J. van Benthem, & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 179–237). Amsterdam & Cambridge: Elsevier/MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, C. (1984). Description of space in French. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Duisburg: LAUTD.Google Scholar
(1986). L’espace en français: Sémantique des prépositions spatiales. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
(1987). La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation. Langue Française, 76, 77–111.Google 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
(2006). Are there spatial prepositions? In M. Hickmann, & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 139–154). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vieu, L. (1991). Sémantique des relations spatiales et inférences spatio-temporelles: Une contribution à l’étude des structures formelles de l’espace en langage naturel. PhD dissertation. Toulouse: Université Paul Sabatier.Google Scholar
Vieu, L., & Aurnague, M. (2007). Part-of relations, functionality and dependence. In M. Aurnague, M. Hickmann, & L. Vieu (Eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (pp. 307–336). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vulchanova, M., & Martinez, L. (2013). A basic level for the encoding of biological motion. In C. Paradis, J. Hudson, & U. Magnusson (Eds.), The construal of spatial meaning: Windows into conceptual space (pp. 144–168). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vulchanova, M., & van der Zee, E. (2012). Motion encoding in language and space. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winston, M., Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, D. (Ed.). (2008). Space in languages of China: Cross-linguistic, synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. (1997). Situated embodiment: Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Stockholm: Gotab.Google Scholar