Cover not available
Part of
Broader Perspectives on Motion Event Descriptions
Edited by Yo Matsumoto and Kazuhiro Kawachi
[Human Cognitive Processing 69] 2020
► pp. 63–104

Chapter 3
Patterns of path encoding in German

| KU Leuven
This chapter proposes a classification of path encoding in motion events in German. It expands the framework that I developed for analyzing motion events in a narrow sense (Meex 2004) to motion events from a broader perspective including deictic, causative, and fictive motion. The chapter aims to deepen our understanding of how the conceptual components at the core of German motion event descriptions, viz. motion, direction, source-path-goal, manner, and cause, correlate and interact with the conceptual categories of deixis, aspect, and case. The analysis reveals seven path coding types, viz. source, intended goal, path of incomplete traversal, path of complete traversal, boundary traversing path, achieved goal, and trajective, depending on the aspectual framing (i.e. summativity, plexity, boundedness, mutativity) of the motion event. Systematic patterns of co-occurrence of these aspectual elements in the motion scene are described and their combination with specific lexical (e.g. deictic expressions) and morphosyntactic (e.g. inflectional case marking on the noun) categories are examined to support the analysis. It will also be shown that apart from a few exceptions, self-motion, caused motion, and fictive motion are compatible with all seven path coding types discussed, showing that German uses event-type neutral path expressions.
Keywords: aspect, case, caused motion, deixis, fictive motion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Motion, path, and satellites
  • 3.Deictic viewpoint
  • 4.Aspectual viewpoint
    • 4.1Summativity
    • 4.2Plexity
    • 4.3Boundedness
    • 4.4Mutativity
    • 4.5A classification of path and aspectual properties
  • 5.Path classification and deixis
    • 5.1Source and intended goal: Orientational paths
    • 5.2Path of incomplete traversal
    • 5.3Path of complete traversal
    • 5.4Boundary traversing path
    • 5.5Achieved goal: Destination path
    • 5.6Trajective
    • 5.7A classification of deictic path
  • 6.Types of motion
    • 6.1Causative motion
    • 6.2Fictive motion
    • 6.3Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions and perspectives
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 11 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.69.03mee
References (40)
References
Bishop, N. 1992. A typology of causatives, pragmatically speaking. In Sh. Hwang & W. Merrifield (Eds.), Language in context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre (295–304). The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. 2014. Actual and non-actual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology & the Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 395–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. This volume. Looking into visual motion expressions in Dutch, English and French: How languages stick to well-trodden typological paths.
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 (201–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language, 57, 626–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewell, R. B. 1997. Construal transformations: Internal and external viewpoints in interpreting containment. In M. H. Verspoor, K. D. Lee, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (17–32). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The meaning of prefix / particle constructions in German. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Draye, L. 1992. Zum Trajektiv. Ein Kapitel aus der kognitiv orientierten niederländisch-deutschen Kontrastivgrammatik. Leuvense Bijdragen, 81, 163–203.Google Scholar
1996. The German dative. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The Dative. Vol 1: Descriptive studies (155–215). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Tyler, A. 2004. Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through. In H. Cuyckens, T. Mortelmans, & W. De Mulder (Eds.), Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18: Adpositions of Movement: Proceedings of the International Conference on Adpositions of Movement (Leuven 2002) (247–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goschler, J., & Stefanowitsch, A. 2010. Pfad und Bewegung im gesprochenen Deutsch: Ein kollostruktionaler Ansatz. In E. Ruigendijk, Th. Stolz, & J. Trabant (Eds.), Linguistik im Nordwesten (103–115). Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Hawkins, B. W. 1985. The semantics of English spatial prepositions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Reproduced by L.A.U.T., Series A, Paper No. 142.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2017. Motion and semantic typology: A hot old topic with exciting caveats. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and Space across Languages: Theory and applications [Human Cognitive Processing 59] (13–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, E. 2008. Concerning the role of consciousness in linguistics. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15(6), 15–33.Google Scholar
Jokinen, E. 2005. Ortswechsel, Orientierung und Origo. Eine Korpusanalyse ausgewählter deutscher Richtungsadverbien mit hin- und her- und ihrer finnischen Entsprechungen. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tampere. [[URL]]
Lewandowski, W. 2018. A typological approach to the encoding of motion events. In M. de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (Eds.), The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 296] (45–74). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leys, O. 1989. Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen. Deutsche Sprache, 17, 97–113.Google Scholar
1995. Dativ und Akkusativ in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leuvense Bijdragen, 84, 39–62.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. 2003. Typologies of lexicalization patterns and event integration: Clarifications and reformulations. In Sh. Chiba et al. (Eds.), Empirical and theoretical investigations into language: A festschrift for Masaru Kajita (403–418). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
(Ed.). 2017. Idoo-hyoogen no ruikeiron. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
2018. Motion event descriptions in Japanese: Typological perspectives. In P. Pardeshi & T. Kageyama (Eds.), Handbook of Japanese contrastive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meex, B. 2004. Motion, path and aspect: The case of the German path adpositions über and durch. In H. Cuyckens, T. Mortelmans, & W. De Mulder (Eds.), Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18: Adpositions of Movement: Proceedings of the International Conference on Adpositions of Movement (Leuven 2002), (299–322). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ochsenbauer, A.-K., & Hickmann, M. 2010. Children’s verbalizations of motion events in German. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rice, S. 1999. Aspects of prepositions and prepositional aspect. In L. de Stadler & C. Eyrich (Eds.), Issues in cognitive linguistics: 1993 Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (225–247). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schubert, C. 2009. Raumkonstitution durch Sprache: Blickführung, Bildschemata und Kohäsion in Blickführung, Bildschemata und Kohäsion in Deskriptionssequenzen englischer Texte. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1996. Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (195–219). Oxford: Oxford University 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 (219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, M. 1983. Verb-descriptivity in German and English: A contrastive study in semantic fields. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Takahashi, K. This volume. Syntactic and semantic structures of Thai motion expressions.
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3 (36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (480–519). Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2016. Properties of Main Verbs. Cognitive Semantics, 2, 133–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. 1993. Prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation. In C. Zelinski-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (151–175). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkerk, A. 2014. The evolutionary dynamics of motion event encoding. Ph.D dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Wienold, G. 1995. Lexical and conceptual structures in expressions for movement and space: With reference to Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Indonesian as compared to English and German. In U. Egli, P. Pause, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow, & G. Wienold (Eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organization of language, (301–340). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J., & David, C. 2010. Translocation, language and the categorization of experience. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Space in language and cognition: The state of the art and new directions (389–418). London: Equinox.Google Scholar