Cover not available
Part of
Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Description: Deixis, asymmetries, constructions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Benjamin Fagard
[Human Cognitive Processing 72] 2022
► pp. 1–21

Chapter 1
Introduction: The description of motion events

On deixis, asymmetries and constructions

ORCID logo | L, National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) | École Normale Supérieure – PSL | Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
ORCID logo | L, National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) | École Normale Supérieure – PSL | Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Motion and deixis
  • 3.Motion and asymmetries
  • 4.Motion and constructions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.01sar
References (94)
References
Anderson, J. M. 1971. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. & Keenan, E. L. 1985. Deixis. 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. 2011. How motion verbs are spatial: the spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 34(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. About 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. 2010. The Typology of Motion Expression Revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46(3), 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdin, P. 1997. On 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
2005. The marking of directional deixis in Somali. Studies in African linguistic typology, 64, 13–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. 1996. Learning 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. 2004. Put 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. 2008. Time in the Mind: Using Space to Think about Time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corballis, M. C. 2010. Mirror neurons and the evolution of language. Brain and language, 112(1), 25–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. 1999. Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2007. English 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. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Lexical 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
2010. Relativity, 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. 2010. Revising 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. 1978. Locating 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
1985. Was 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. 1999. Demonstratives. Form, function and grammaticlization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Buehler’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
Fillmore, C. 1971. Santa Cruz Deixis Lectures. [[URL]].
1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fortis, J.-M. 2010. De l’hypothèse de Sapir-Whorf au prototype : sources et genèse de la théorie d’Eleanor Rosch. Corela, 8(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Sapir’s form-feeling and its aesthetic background, History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences. [URL].
Givón, T. 1980. The 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
2003b. Whorf meets Wierzbicka: Variation and universals in language and thinking. Language Sciences, 25(4), 393–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., Levinson, S. C. 1996. Rethinking Linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1997. From space to time. Temporal adverbials in the world’s languages. (LINCOM studies in theoretical linguistics 3). München/Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M. 2010. Linguistic relativity in first language acquisition. Language Acquisition across Linguistic and Cognitive Systems. Amsterdam, 125–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. H. & Mannheim, B. 1992. Language and World View. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 381–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. 1996. Demonstratives 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. 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
Ihara, H. & Fujita, I. 2000. A 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. 2009. Spatial 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. [URL]
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A. & Ishibashi, M. 2011. L’(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). 2021. Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages – Special issue of Studies in Language, 45(1).Google Scholar
Kryk-Kastovsky, B. 1996. The 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. 1982. Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg, H. Buske.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought, New York, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. 2005. Starting 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. 2007. Conceptual 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. 2012. Language 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. 2013. Lexicalized 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
2019. Lexicalization Patterns. In R. Truswell (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Event Structure (395–425). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, C. 2006. From 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. 2003. Typologies 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. 1843. Philosophie der Grammatik: Kasuslehre der lateinischen Sprache. Berlin: T. Trautwein.Google Scholar
Nam, S. 2004. Goal and source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Event Structure, Leipzig, Germany, March 2004.
Ozga, J. 1996. Prosodic 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. 2006. Death of a Demonstrative: Person and Time – The Case of Estonian too. Linguistica Uralica, 4, 241–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. 2010. Source-goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive science, 34(6), 1064–1092. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pottier, B. 1992. Sémantique générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google 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 (21–38). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rauh, G. (Ed.). 2003. Essays on Deixis. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Regier, T., & Xu, Y. 2017. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and inference under uncertainty. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(6), e1440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier, T., & Zheng, M. 2007. Attention to endpoints: a cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricca, D. 1993. I verbi deittici di movimento in Europa: una ricerca interlinguistica. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Sarda, L. 2019. French 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. 2000. Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung. A study of event categorisation in an Australian language. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Senft, G. (Ed.). 1997. Referring to space. Studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1994. The 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
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: 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. [URL]
2008. From S-language and V-language to PIN and PIV. Paper presented at the workshop Human Locomotion across Languages, Nijmegen, 06 June 2008.
2017. Typologies 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. 2018. The goal bias revisited: A collostructional approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6(1), 143–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Rodhe, A. 2004. The 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. 2009. La notion de manière dans la sémantique de l’espace. Langages, 175, 103–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Manner 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. 2005. Benjamin Lee Whorf’s theory of language, culture, and consciousness: A critique of western science. Language & Communication, 25, 149–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization 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
2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
2016. Properties of Main Verbs. Cognitive Semantics, 2(2), 133–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Past, 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. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. 1986. L’espace en français. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., Dirven, R. & Radden, G. 1997. Putting 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. 1982. Here and There: Crosslinguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. L. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. 1991. The semantics, pragmatics and diachronic development of ‘associated motion’ in Mparntwe Arrernte. Buffalo papers in linguistics, 1, 207–257.Google 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: Typological and contextual perspectives (159–190). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar