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. 125–148

Chapter 6
Implicit landmarks and opposite polarities in French motion predicates

ORCID logo | L, National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) | École Normale Supérieure – PSL | Université Sorbonne Nouvelle

This chapter tackles two important aspects of the association of French motion verbs and spatial PPs. The main notions used in order to characterize strict motion predicates are first recalled. The possibility, for the verbs, of appearing in constructions that do not express the landmark entity of the motion event is studied (implicit landmark constructions), and it is argued to depend on the spatio-temporal structure of the verbs and on various other factors. Then, the association of verbs and PPs with opposite polarities is examined which turns out to be in close correlation with the existence of an “implicit use”. The conclusion emphasizes the asymmetries/dissymmetries between initial and final motion events revealed by the constructions studied.

Keywords: asymmetry, initial and final motion events, lexical semantics, spatial PPs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Intransitive verbs of change of relation and placement: Spatio-temporal classification
  • 3.Categories of verbs and the implicit landmark construction
  • 4.Predicting implicit uses: Main conditions and beyond
  • 5.Verbs and PPs with opposite polarities: The role of implicitness
  • 6.Conclusion: Implicit landmarks, opposite polarities and asymmetry of motion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.06aur
References
Asher, N., Aurnague, M., Bras, M., Sablayrolles, P., & Vieu, L.
1995 De l’espace-temps dans l’analyse du discours. Sémiotiques, 9, 11–62.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M.
2000 Entrer par la petite porte, passer par des chemins de traverse: A propos de la préposition par et de la notion de “trajet”. Carnets de Grammaire, 7. Toulouse: ERSS report.Google Scholar
2004 Les structures de l’espace linguistique: Regards croisés sur quelques constructions spatiales du basque et du français. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
2011 How motion verbs are spatial: The spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 34(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 De l’espace à l’aspect: Les bases ontologiques des procès de déplacement. Corela, HS-12, [URL]. DOI logo
2015 Motion verbs and spatial PPs in French: From spatio-temporal structure to asymmetry and goal bias. Carnets de Grammaire, 23. Toulouse: CLLE-ERSS report.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M., & Stosic, D.
2002 La préposition par et l’expression du déplacement: Vers une caractérisation sémantique et cognitive de la notion de “trajet”. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 81, 113–139.Google Scholar
Boons, J.-P.
1987 La notion sémantique de déplacement dans une classification syntaxique des verbes locatifs. Langue Française, 76, 5–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Classification sémantique des verbes locatifs. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Boons, J.-P., Guillet, A., & Leclère, C.
1976 La structure des phrases simples en français: Constructions intransitives. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Bourmayan, A.
2014 Pourquoi certains verbes admettent-ils les objets implicites indéfinis ? Une réponse pragmatique. In F. Neveu, P. Blumenthal, L. Hribal, A. Gerstenberg, J. Meinschaefer & S. Prévost (Eds.). Actes du 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, CMLF 2014 (2213–2235, cd-rom). Paris & Les Ulis: ILF & EDP Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K.
1934/1990 Theory of language: The representational function of language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F.
1999 Anaphora, discourse, and understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2018 Anadeixis and the signalling of discourse structure. Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis Lingüístics, 23, 33–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1975 Santa Cruz lectures on deixis 1971. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gross, M.
1975 Méthodes en syntaxe : Régime des constructions complétives. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Guillet, A.
1990 Une classification des verbes transitifs locatifs. Thèse de Doctorat d’Etat, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Guillet, A., & Leclère, C.
1992 La structure des phrases simples en français: Les constructions transitives locatives. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M.
2003 Children’s discourse: Persons, space and time across languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Y.
1987 ‘Source’ vs. ‘Goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.). Concepts of case (122–146). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1983 Semantics 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 (1–30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U.
1993 From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G.
1994 Anaphores et pronoms. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.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.
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larjavaara, M.
2000 Présence ou absence de l’objet : Limites du possible en français contemporain. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.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, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.
Levin, B.
1993 English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
1992 The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity. In I. M. Roca (Ed.). Thematic structure: Its role in grammar (247–269). Berlin: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
1977 Semantics 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moens, M., & Steedman, M.
1988 Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–28.Google Scholar
Regier, T., & Zheng, M.
2007 Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31, 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricca, D.
1992 Le couple de verbes déictiques andare/venire en italien: Conditions d’emploi et variabilité individuelle. In M.-A. Morel & L. Danon-Boileau (Eds.). La deixis (277–286). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Sabio, F.
2008 Les pronoms clitiques et l’expression du lieu : L’usage de y et en dans le français contemporain. In M. Abecassis, L. Ayosso & E. Vialleton (Eds.). Le français parlé au XXIe siècle : Normes et variations dans les discours et en interaction (vol. 2) (87–105). Paris: L’Harmattan.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, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.
Slobin, D. I.
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 (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 (219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, C.
1991 The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stosic, D.
2002 Par et à travers dans l’expression des relations spatiales : Comparaison entre le français et le serbo-croate. PhD dissertation, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.
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 (71–91). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.). Language typology and syntactic description (vol. 3): Grammatical categories and the lexicon (57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a cognitive semantics (vol. I & II). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tanz, C.
1980 Studies in the acquisition of deictic terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C.
1987 La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation. Langue Française, 76, 77–111. DOI logoGoogle 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; trans. A. R. K. Bosch. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
1957 Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A.
1992 De la deixis à l’anaphore : Quelques jalons. In M.-A. Morel & L. Danon-Boileau (Eds.). La deixis (603–612). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar