Chapter published in:
Broader Perspectives on Motion Event Descriptions
Edited by Yo Matsumoto and Kazuhiro Kawachi
[Human Cognitive Processing 69] 2020
► pp. 235–280

Looking into visual motion expressions in Dutch, English, and French

How languages stick to well-trodden typological paths

| University of Lille
This study investigates visual motion expressions in Dutch, English, and French. As a translation corpus, I use Roald Dahl’s children’s book The Witches, which abounds in staring and peeping events, and its Dutch and French translations. Based on the hypothesis that languages’ constructional repertoires for physical motion are exploited for visual motion, one can predict, correctly, that Dutch uses its syntactically wide variety of path complement types in the domain of visual motion. It is tempting to assume that French, lacking looking verbs expressing path, would lose its generally verb-framed nature in visual motion descriptions. However, French appears to preserve some of its typological identity, by using causative path verbs such as lever ‘raise’ combined with an object meaning ‘one’s eyes/gaze’. In keeping with its verb-framed nature, French uses fewer visual path complements than Dutch and English, but it does have, and frequently uses, manner-of-vision expressions.
Keywords: manner, path, satellite-framed, translation, verb-framed
Published online: 11 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.69.08cap
References

References

Ameka, F., & Essegbey, J.
2013 Serialising languages: Satellite-framed, verb-framed or neither. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 2(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A.
2005 Translating phrasal combinations across the typological divide. In M. Bertuccelli Papi (Ed.), Studies in the semantics of lexical combinatory patterns (487–519). Pisa: Pisa University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L.
1978 Introduction to Generative-Transformational Syntax. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W.
2010 The typology of motion verbs revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 331–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beliën, M.
2008 Construction, constraints, and construal: Adpositions in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. I.
1994 Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic and developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Berthele, R.
2013 Disentangling manner from path: Evidence from varieties of German and Romance. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (55–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J.
2014 Motion in language and experience: Actual and non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
2015 The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 657–696. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Non-actual motion in language and experience. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (205–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J.
2014 Actual and nonactual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13, 395–418. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C.
2003 The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R.
2017 Metaphorical motion constructions across specialized genres. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (229–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B.
2005 Particle patterns in English: A comprehensive coverage. Ph.D. dissertation, K.U. Leuven.Google Scholar
2012 English is less rich in manner-of-motion verbs when translated from French. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(2), 173–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Raised Grounds in Dutch and English: Common underlying semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop Space, Time and Existence: Typological, cognitive and philosophical viewpoints, 46th annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE 2011), Split, Croatia, 18–21 September 2013.
2015 Achterzetsels: de spraakkunst uit ermee! [Postpositions: out of the grammar with them!] Over Taal, 54(1), 14–17.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., & Loock, R.
2017 Typological differences shining through: The case of phrasal verbs in translated English. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions (235–264). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelli, F.
2013 Etude de mouvement fictif à travers un corpus d’exemples du français: Perspective sémantique du lexique au discours. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Toulouse 2.Google Scholar
Cifuentes-Férez, P.
2014 A closer look at Paths of vision, Manner of vision and their translation from English into Spanish. Languages in Contrast, 14(2), 214–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cifuentes-Férez, P., & Rojo, A.
2015 Thinking for translating: A think-aloud protocol on the translation of manner-of-motion verbs. Target, 27(2), 273–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C.
2010 Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex events. In H. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive construction grammar (201–235). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, S.
1996 Movement and direction in French and English. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 15(1), 31–54.Google Scholar
Egan, Th
2015 Manner and path: Evidence from a multilingual corpus. CogniTextes, 12, 1–32. http://​cognitextes​.revues​.org​/788. Crossref
Egan, Th., & Rawoens, G.
2013 Moving over in(to) English and French: A translation-based study of ‘overness’. Languages in Contrast, 13(2), 193–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N.
2010 The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
1991 It can’t go up the chimney down: Paths and the English resultative. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society: General Session and Parasession on The Grammar of Event Structure (368–378). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J.
1979 On the semantic nature of see . Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 347–352.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S.
1967 Look and see. Language, 43(4), 937–947. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M., Engemann, H., Soroli, E., Hendriks, H., & Vincent, C.
2017 Expressing and categorizing motion in French and English. In Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (61–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoelbeek, T.
2017 The evolution of complex spatial expressions within the Romance family: A corpus-based study of French and Italian. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
2001 An overview of Basque Locational cases: Old descriptions, new approaches. Technical report. International Computer Science Institute. No 01-006. (Available at https://​www​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/icsi​/node​/2926).
2003 What translation tells us about motion: a contrastive study of typologically different languages. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 151–176.Google Scholar
2004 Motion events in Basque narratives. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (89–111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2009 Path Salience in Motion Events. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & Ş. Özçalışkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (403–414). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
2015 Going beyond motion events typology: The case of Basque as a verb-framed language. Folia Linguistica, 49(2), 307–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017a Motion and semantic typology: A hot old topic with exciting caveats. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (13–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) 2017b Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., & Filipović, L.
2013 Lexicalisation patterns and translation. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (251–281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1983 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A.
2004 Étude typologique de l’expression de l’espace: Localisation et déplacement en français et en polonais. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Laffut, A.
1998 The locative alternation: A contrastive study of Dutch vs. English. Languages in Contrast, 1(2), 127–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Ross, J. R.
1966 Criterion for verb phrase constituency. Technical Report NSF-17, Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1986 Abstract motion. In V. Nikiforidou, M. VanClay, M. Niepokuj, & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (455–471). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Virtual reality. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 29, 77–103.Google Scholar
2005 Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The Imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking (164–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Ameel, E., Imai, M., Gennari, S. P., Saji, N., & Majid, A.
2014 Human locomotion in languages: Constraints on moving and meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 107–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T.
2004a Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & R. Dirven (Eds.), Motivation in Grammar (221–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010 Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language & Cognition, 2(2), 243–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T., & Bergman, T.
2015 Fictive motion. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Mouton Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (546–562). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
1996a Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996b How abstract is subjective motion? A comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (359–373). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2001 Lexicalization patterns and caused and fictive motion: The case of typological split. Handout for a lecture at SUNY Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
2017 Eigo ni okeru idoo-zisyoo-hyoogen no taipu to keiro no hyoogen. [Types of motion-event expressions and expressions of path in English]. In Y. Matsumoto (Ed.), Idoo-hyoogen no ruikeiron [The typology of motion expressions]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y., Akita, K., Bordilovskaya, A., Eguchi, K., Koga, H., Mano, M., Matsuse, I., Morita, T., Takahashi, K., Takahashi, R., & Yoshinari, Y.
2017 Linguistic representations of the path of vision: a crosslinguistic experimental study. Paper presented at the international workshop “NAMED: Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Descriptions”, Paris, 19–20 May 2017.
Mauranen, A., & Kujamäki, P.
(Eds.) 2004 Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molés-Cases, T.
2018 Some advances in the study of the translation of manner of motion events: Integrating key concepts of Descriptive Translation Studies and ‘Thinking for Translating’. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 152–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oxford Dictionaries
n.d. penetrate. Oxford Dictionaries. Available online: https://​en​.oxforddictionaries​.com​/definition​/penetrate. Last accessed: 29 September 2018.
n.d. stare. Oxford Dictionaries. Available online: https://​en​.oxforddictionaries​.com​/definition​/stare. Last accessed: 29 September 2018.
Özçalışkan, Ş.
2004 Encoding the manner, path and ground components of a metaphorical motion event. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 73–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Metaphor meets typology: Ways of moving metaphorically in English and Turkish. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 207–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş., Stites, L. J., & Emerson, S. N.
2017  Crossing the road or crossing the mind: How differently do we move across physical and metaphorical spaces in speech and in gesture? In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (257–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Volynsky, M.
2015 Motion encoding in Russian and English: Moving beyond Talmy’s typology. The Modern Language Journal, 99(S1), 32–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A.
1988 Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rojo, A., & Valenzuela, J.
2003 Fictive motion in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 123–149.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
1987 Thinking for speaking. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis, & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (435–445). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1996 From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004 The many ways to search for a frog. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (219–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2005 Relating narrative events in translation. In D. D. Ravid & H. B.-Z. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman (115–129). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (59–81). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Relations between Paths of motion and Paths of vision: A crosslinguistic and developmental exploration. In V. C. M. Gathercole (Ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (197–222). New York & London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Soroli, E.
2011 Language and spatial cognition in French and in English: Crosslinguistic perspectives on aphasia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paris 8.Google Scholar
Soroli, E., Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H.
2019 Casting an eye on motion events: eye tracking and its implications for typology. In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The semantics of dynamic space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression (250–288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Soroli, E. & Verkerk, A.
2017 Motion events in Greek. Cognitextes, 15(1), 1–54.Google Scholar
Stosic, D., Fagard, B., Sarda, L., & Colin, C.
2015 Does the road go up the mountain? Fictive motion between linguistic conventions and cognitive motivations. Cognitive Processing, 16(S1), 221–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1983 How language structures space. In H. L. Pick, Jr. & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (225–282). New York: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic descriptions, Vol. 3. Grammatical categories and the lexicon (36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society: General Session and Parasession on The Grammar of Event Structure (480–519). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1996 Fictive motion in language and ‘ception”. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (211–276). Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a cognitive semantics (2 Volumes). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2017a Foreword: Past, present and future of motion research. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (1–12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017b The targeting system of language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2018 Ten lectures on cognitive semantics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waliński, J. T.
2018 Verbs in Fictive Motion. Łódz: Łódz University Press.Google Scholar
Yasuhara, M.
2013a One eventuality per subevent: An event-based account of argument structure. Language Sciences, 40, 251–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b Further specification analysis of the Unique Path Constraint effect: From the perspective of spatial extension. English Linguistics Research, 2(2), 141–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P.
2004 A third way to travel: The place of Thai in motion event typology. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (159–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar