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. 173–185

Chapter 8
Source–Goal asymmetry in German

A corpus study comparing intentional and non-intentional motion events

ORCID logo | Universität Hildesheim
Following years of intensive research in the field of motion event representation and its encoding in language, it can be concluded that goal paths are predominantly privileged over source paths across many languages and different event types (e.g., Ikegami 1987, Lakusta and Landau 2005, Stefanowitsch and Rohde 2004, Song, this volume). This chapter has two aims: first, to cover the aspect of the granularity of lexicalization patterns encoding goal and source paths in the German language based on qualitative analysis and second, to show that in language, the factors animacy and volition are not mapped onto syntactic structures and do not directly influence the frequency of encoding goal paths. The quantitative corpus study reveals verb-specific preferences for encoding different path elements.
Keywords: corpus linguistics, frequency data, goal bias, granularity, lexicalization patterns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The granularity of lexicalization patterns in German
    • 2.1The granularity of German motion verbs
    • 2.2The granularity of German adpositions
    • 2.3Granularity of German complex verbs
  • 3.Present study: Frequency of encoding source, route and goal paths
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Hypotheses and operationalization
    • 3.3Design
    • 3.4Results and discussion
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 7 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.08gus
References (30)
References
Aurnague, M. This volume. Implicit landmarks and opposite polarities in French motion predicates.
Bowerman, M. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (385–436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. 2003. Space under construction: Language-specific categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind (387–427). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Vespoor, M. 2004. Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Second revised edition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garai, K., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2002. From X to Y: The ‘complete path’ construction in Basque. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication, 23, 289–311.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT. Cambridge: Mass.
Ihara, H., & Fujita, I. 2000. A cognitive approach to errors in case marking in Japanese agrammatism: The priority of the goal -ni over the source -kara. In A. Foolen & F. Van der Leek (Eds.), Construction in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (123–140). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 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: Narr.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A. 2012. Semantic granularity of placement and removal expressions in Polish. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective (327–346). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Carey, S. 2014. Twelve-month-old infants’ encoding of goal and source paths in agentive and non-agentive motion events. Language Learning and Development, 11, 152–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. 2005. Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., Muentener, P., Petrillo, L., Mullanaphy, N., & Muniz, L. 2017. Does making something move matter? Representations of goals and sources in motion events with causal sources. Cognitive Science, 41(3), 814–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lester, N. A. 2015. Linguistic input overrides conceptual biases: When goals don’t matter. Cognitive Science, 1308–1313.Google Scholar
Nikitina, T. 2009. Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the source/goal ambiguity. Linguistics, 47, 1113–1141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. 2010. Source-goal asymmetries in motion event representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 34, 1064–1092. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier, Z., & Zheng, M. 2007. Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31, 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2005. Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified? In C. Maeder, O. Fischer & W. Herlofsky (Eds.), Outside-in, inside out: Iconicity in language and literature (307–322). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, J. This volume. Source-Goal asymmetry in Standard Chinese. A comparative study of spontaneous and caused motion events.
Stathi, K. 2017. Granularity effects in event descriptions: A cross-linguistic study. Poster presented at the workshop ‘Event Representations in Brain, Language, and Development’, Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 29 October 2017.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Rohde, 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
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996. The windowing of attention in language. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions (235–287). New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2000. Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tutton, M. 2013. Granularity, space, and motion-framed location. In M. Vulchanova & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Motion encoding in language and space (149–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wnuk, E. 2016. Semantic specificity of perception verbs in Maniq. Ph. D. Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Wolff, P. 2003. Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zheng, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. 2002. Thought before language: How deaf and hearing children express motion events across cultures. Cognition, 85, 145–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar