Chapter published in:
Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Description: Deixis, asymmetries, constructions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Benjamin Fagard
[Human Cognitive Processing 72] 2022
► pp. 121
References
Anderson, J. M.
1971The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. & Keenan, E. L.
1985Deixis. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (259–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M.
2011How motion verbs are spatial: the spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 34 (1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019About asymmetry of motion in French. In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression (32–65). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, J., B. Levin & S. W. Tham
2010The Typology of Motion Expression Revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46 (3), 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdin, P.
1997On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In Bohumil Palek (ed.) Proceedings of LP’96. Typology: Prototypes, Item Ordering and Universals, 185–218. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
2005The marking of directional deixis in Somali. Studies in African linguistic typology, 64 , 13–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M.
1996Learning how to structure space for language: a crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (385–436). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., Gullberg, M., Majid, A., & Narasimhan, B.
2004Put project: The cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (10–24). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Bühler, K.
1982 [1934]Sprachtheorie: die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. & Boroditsky, L.
2008Time in the Mind: Using Space to Think about Time. Cognition, 106 (2), 579–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corballis, M. C.
2010Mirror neurons and the evolution of language. Brain and language, 112 (1), 25–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F.
1999Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2007English Demonstratives: Discourse Deixis and Anaphora. A Discourse-Pragmatic Account. In R. A. Nilsen, N. Aba Appiah Amfo and K. Borthen (Eds.), Interpreting Utterances; Pragmatics and its Interfaces. Essays in Honour of Thorstein Fretheim, (pp. 147–166). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
2001Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010Relativity, linguistic variation and language universals. CogniTextes. Revue de l’Association française de linguistique cognitive, 4 . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V. & Taoka, C.
2010Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (201–235). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denny, J. P.
1978Locating the universals in lexical systems for spatial deixis. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen & K. W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon (71–84). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1985Was ist universal am raumdeiktischen Lexikon? In H. Schweizer (Ed.), Sprache und Raum (111–130). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
1999Demonstratives. Form, function and grammaticlization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012Buehler’s two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. In T. Breban, L. Brems, K. Davidse & T. Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and Language Change: New reflections, (35–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fortis, J.-M.
2010De l’hypothèse de Sapir-Whorf au prototype : sources et genèse de la théorie d’Eleanor Rosch. Corela, 8 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Sapir’s form-feeling and its aesthetic background, History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences. http://​hiphilangsci​.net​/2014​/10​/15​/sapirs​-form​-feeling​-and​-its​-aesthetic​-background​/#more​-1434.
Givón, T.
1980The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”, 4 (3), 333–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C.
2003a‘Thinking’ across languages and cultures: Six dimensions of variation. Cognitive Linguistics, 14 (2/3), 109–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003bWhorf meets Wierzbicka: Variation and universals in language and thinking. Language Sciences, 25 (4), 393–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., Levinson, S. C.
1996Rethinking Linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
1997From space to time. Temporal adverbials in the world’s languages. (LINCOM studies in theoretical linguistics 3). München/Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
2010Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86 (3), 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M.
2010Linguistic relativity in first language acquisition. Language Acquisition across Linguistic and Cognitive Systems. Amsterdam, 125–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. H. & Mannheim, B.
1992Language and World View. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21 , 381–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N.
1996Demonstratives in narrative discourse. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (205–254). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hjelmslev, L.
1935–1937 [1972]La catégorie des cas. Copenhagen: Universitetsforlager I Aarhus [reprinted in La catégorie des cas, München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag 1972].Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
2009Path 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
Ihara, H. & Fujita, I.
2000A cognitive approach to errors in case marking in Japanese agrammatism: The priority of goal-ni over the source-kara . In A. Foolen & F. Van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam 1997 (123–140). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Y.
1984‘Source’ vs ‘Goal’: a case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of Case (122–146). Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Imai, S.
2009Spatial deixis. How finely do languages divide space ? Berlin: Dr. Müller Verlag.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, M., Kopecka, A., & Vuillermet, M.
(2006) Trajectoire: Matériel visuel pour élicitation des données linguistiques. Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage, CNRS / Université Lyon 2. Projet de Fédération de recherche en Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques. http://​tulquest​.huma​-num​.fr​/fr​/node​/132
Jackendoff, R.
1983Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A. & Ishibashi, M.
2011L’(a)symétrie dans l’expression de la Source et du But : perspective translinguistique. Les Cahiers de Faits de Langues, 3 , 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A. & Vuillermet, M.
(eds) 2021Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages – Special issue of Studies in Language, 45(1).Google Scholar
Kryk-Kastovsky, B.
1996The linguistic, cognitive and cultural variables of the conceptualization of space. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (329–344). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laanest, A.
1982Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg, H. Buske.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1999Philosophy in the flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought, New York, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B.
2005Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96–1, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., Wagner, L., O’Hearn, K., & Landau, B.
2007Conceptual Foundations of Spatial Language: Evidence for a Goal Bias in Infants. Language Learning and Development, 3 , 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L. & Landau, B. L.
2012Language and Memory for Motion Events: Origins of the Asymmetry Between Source and Goal Paths. Cognitive Science 36, 517–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.
2013Lexicalized Meaning and Manner/Result Complementarity. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke & R. Marín (Eds.), Subatomic Semantics of Event Predicates (49–70). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019Lexicalization Patterns. In R. Truswell (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Event Structure (395–425). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, C.
2006From personal deixis to spatial deixis. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: linguistic systems and cognitive categories (103–120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
2003Typologies of lexicalization patterns and event integration: clarifications and reformulations. In S. Chiba et al. (Eds.), Empirical and theoretical investigations into language: a festschrift for Masaru Kajita (403–418). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Michelsen, C.
1843Philosophie der Grammatik: Kasuslehre der lateinischen Sprache. Berlin: T. Trautwein.Google Scholar
Nam, S.
2004Goal and source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Event Structure, Leipzig, Germany, March 2004.
Ozga, J.
1996Prosodic and paralinguistic signals of distance. In Martin Pütz & René Dirven (eds), The Construal of Space in Language and Thought, Berlin / New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 63–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pajusalu, R.
2006Death of a Demonstrative: Person and Time – The Case of Estonian too . Linguistica Uralica, 4 , 241–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A.
2010Source-goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive science, 34 (6), 1064–1092. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pottier, B.
1992Sémantique générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
2010Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity. In E. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure (21–38). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rauh, G.
(Ed.) 2003Essays on Deixis. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Regier, T., & Xu, Y.
2017The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and inference under uncertainty. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8 (6), e1440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier, T., & Zheng, M.
2007Attention to endpoints: a cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31 (4), 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricca, D.
1993I verbi deittici di movimento in Europa: una ricerca interlinguistica. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Sarda, L.
2019French motion verbs – Insights into the status of locative PPs. In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression (68–107). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, E.
2000Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung. A study of event categorisation in an Australian language. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Senft, G.
(Ed.) 1997Referring to space. Studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
1994The many ways to search for a frog, Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study (219–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1996From “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
2004The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narratives, vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (219–257). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. http://​ihd​.berkeley​.edu​/linguistictypologyofmotionevents​.pdf
2008From S-language and V-language to PIN and PIV. Paper presented at the workshop Human Locomotion across Languages , Nijmegen, 06 June 2008.
2017Typologies and language use. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and Space across Languages. Theory and Applications (419–446). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
2018The goal bias revisited: A collostructional approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6 (1), 143–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Rodhe, A.
2004The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation (249–267). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stosic, D.
2009La notion de manière dans la sémantique de l’espace. Langages, 175 , 103–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019Manner as a cluster concept: What does lexical coding of manner of motion tell us about manner? In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression (142–177). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Subbiondo, J. L.
2005Benjamin Lee Whorf’s theory of language, culture, and consciousness: A critique of western science. Language & Communication, 25 , 149–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1985Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (57–143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
2016Properties of Main Verbs. Cognitive Semantics, 2 (2), 133–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Past, present, and future of motion research. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and Space across Languages. Theory and Applications (1–12). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmidt, H.
1996An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C.
1986L’espace en français. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., Dirven, R. & Radden, G.
1997Putting concepts together: syntax. In R. Dirven & M. H. Verspoor (Eds.), Introduction to Language and Linguistics: A Cognitive Approach (89–116). Duisburg: Gerhard-Mercator-Universität/Gesamthochschule.Google Scholar
Wälchli, B.
(2001) A typology of displacement (with special reference to Latvian). Sprachtypologie Und Universalienforschung (STUF), 54 (3), 298–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weissenborn, J., & Klein, W.
1982Here and There: Crosslinguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. L.
1956Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P.
1991The semantics, pragmatics and diachronic development of ‘associated motion’ in Mparntwe Arrernte. Buffalo papers in linguistics, 1 , 207–257.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. & Yangklang, P.
2004A third way to travel: The place of Thai in Motion-Event typology. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (159–190). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar