Introduction published in:
Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages
Edited by Anetta Kopecka and Marine Vuillermet
[Studies in Language 45:1] 2021
► pp. 235
Ameka, Felix K. & Stephan C. Levinson
2007Introduction – The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals and other beasts. Linguistics 45(5). 847–872.Google Scholar
Aske, Jon
1989Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1–14.Google Scholar
Aurnague, Michel
2015Motion verbs and spatial PPs in French: from spatio-temporal structure to asymmetry and goal bias. Carnet de Grammaire, noº23. Rapports internes de CLLE-ERSS.Google Scholar
2019About asymmetry of motion in French: Some properties and a principle. In Michael Aurnague & Dejan Stosic (eds.), The semantics of dynamic space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression, 31–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Anthony E.
1981Japanese verbs for dress. Journal of Linguistics 171. 17–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
1977Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas J. Enfield, James Essegbey, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Sotaro Kita, Friederike Lüpke & Felix Ameka
2007Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language 83(3). 495–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borillo, Andrée
1998L’espace et son expression en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe
1997On Goal-bias across languages: Modal, configurational and orientation parameters. In Bohumil Palek, Osamu Fujimura & Jiří Václav Neustupný (eds.), Proceedings of LP’96. Typology, item orderings and universals. (Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague, August 20–22, 1996), 185–218. Prague: Karolinum.
Bowerman, Melissa, Marianne Gullberg, Asifa Majid & Bhuvana Narasimhan
2004Put project: The cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In Asifa Majid (ed.), Field manual, Vol. 91, 10–24. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, Trigant & Sudhibhushan Bhattacharya
1970The Pengo language: Grammar, texts, and vocabulary. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M.
1985The acquisition of Japanese. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1. The data; Vol. 2. Theoretical issues, 373–524. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1981Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2006Encoding the distinction between location, source and destination: a typological study. In Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 19–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David
2008A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th edn. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, John
1981Kobon. Lingua Descriptive Studies 31. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1981An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3). 626–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Grammaticalization and the gradience of categories: Relator nouns and postpositions in Tibetan and Burmese. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 59–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, René & Marjolijn Verspoor
(eds.) 1999Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dromi, Esther
1979More on the acquisition of locative prepositions: An analysis of Hebrew data. Journal of Child Language 61. 547–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fagard, Benjamin
2006Evolution sémantique des prépositions dans les langues romanes: Illustration ou contre-exemple de la primauté du spatiale. Paris: Université Paris 7. PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Fähnrich, Heinz
1993Kurze Grammatik der Georgian Sprache. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Langenscheidt Verlag Enzyklopedie.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1972How to know whether you’re coming or going. In Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen (ed.), Linguistik 1971, Referate des 6. Linguistischen Kolloquiums (11–14 August 1971, Kopenhagen), 369–379. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
1975Santa Cruz lectures on Deixis 1971. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1977The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations, 59–81. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortis, Jean-Michel & Alice Vittrant
2011L’organisation syntaxique de l’expression de la trajectoire : Vers une typologie des constructions. Faits de Langues – Les Cahiers 31. 71–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016On the morpho-syntax of path-expressing constructions: Toward a typology. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 69(3). 341–374.Google Scholar
Fortis, Jean-Michel, Colette Grinevald, Anetta Kopecka & Alice Vittrant
2011L’expression de la trajectoire: Perspectives typologiques. Faits de Langues – Les Cahiers 3(2). 33–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fowles, John
1969The French lieutenant’s woman. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
1981La mujer del teniente francés. Barcelona: Editorial Argos Vergara.Google Scholar
Freeman, Norman H., Sinha, Chris G. & Jacqueline A. Stedmon
1981The allative bias in three-year-olds is almost proof against task naturalness. Journal of Child Language 8(2). 283–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis
2018A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry: Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek. Constructions and Frames 10(1). 61–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Athina Sioupi
2015Framing the difference between Sources and Goals in Change of Possession events: A corpus-based study in German and Modern Greek. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 31. 105–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Petros Karatsareas
2017A diachronic take on the Source–Goal asymmetry: Evidence from inner Asia Minor Greek. In Sylvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.), Space in diachrony, 179–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Holden Härtl & Athina Sioupi
2019Goal realization: An empirically based comparison between English, German, and Greek. Languages in Contrast 19(2). 280–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grinevald, Colette
2011On constructing a working typology of the expression of path. Faits de Langues – Les Cahiers 3(2). 43–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey
1965Studies in lexical semantics. MIT Working Papers in LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, Claudio, Luisa Corona, Noemi de Pasquale & Alfonsina Buoniconto
2017How should a classical Satellite-Framed language behave? Path encoding asymmetries in Ancient Greek and Latin. In Sylvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds), Space in diachrony, 95–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko
1979‘Goal’ over ‘source’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. Hungarian Studies in English 121. 139–157.Google Scholar
1982Source vs. Goal: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In Robert N. St. Clair and Walburga von Raffler-Engel (eds.), Language and cognitive styles: Patterns of neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic development, 292–308. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
1987‘Source’ and ‘Goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In René Dirven & Günter Radden (eds.), Concept of case, 122–146. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki
2010The (a)symmetry of Source and Goal in Motion events in Japanese: Evidence from narrative data. In Giovanna Marotta, Alessandro Lenci, Linda Meini & Francesco Rovai (eds), Space in language, Proceedings of the Pisa International Conference, 515–531. Firenze: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
2012The expression of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ events in Japanese: The asymmetry of Source and Goal revisited. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.), Put and Take events: A crosslinguistic perspective, 253–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki, Anetta Kopecka & Marine Vuillermet
2006Trajectoire : 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 (last access 11 December 2020).
Jackendoff, Ray
1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johanson, Megan, Selemis Stathis & Anna Papafragou
2019The Source-Goal asymmetry in spatial language: Language-general vs. language-specific aspects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34 (7). 826–840. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Michael A.
1983Speculations on the expression of movement in French. Language Center Occasional Papers (University of Essex) 271. 165–194.Google Scholar
Kabata, Kaori
2013Goal-source asymmetry and crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns: A cognitive-typological approach. Language Sciences 361: 78–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Gail Mauner & Breton Bienvenue
2003Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89(2). 67–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kölver, Ulrike
1985Kasusrelationen im Birmanischen. In Frans Plank (ed.). Relational typology, 195–212. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta
2017Source-oriented and Goal-oriented events in Old and Modern French. In Sylvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.), Space in diachrony, 305–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta & Miyuki Ishibashi
2010Source-Goal (a)symétrie – Guide de travail. Projet Trajectoire, CNRS-TUL (unpublished ms.).Google Scholar
2011L’(a)symétrie dans l’expression de la Source et du But: Perspective translinguistique. Faits de Langues – Les Cahiers 3(2). 131–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta & Bhuvana Narasimhan
(eds.) 2012Events of Putting and Taking: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kutscher, Silvia
2010When ‘towards’ means ‘away from’: the case of directional-ablative syncretism in the Ardeşen variety of Laz (South-Caucasian). STUF – Language Typology and Universals 63(3). 252–271.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Georges
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau
2005Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 961. 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Language and memory for motion events: Origins of the asymmetry between goal and source path. Cognitive Science 36(3). 517–544. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, Laura & Susan Carey
2015Twelve-month-old infants’ encoding of goal and source paths in agentive and non-agentive motion events. Language Learning and Development 11(2). 152–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1996Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In Paul Bloom, Merrill F. Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Mary A. Peterson (eds.), Language and space, 109–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2003Space in language and cognition. Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
1999Hypotheses concerning basic locative constructions and the verbal elements within them. In David Wilkins (ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season, 55–56. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Penelope Brown
2012Put and Take in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective, 273–296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & David. P. Wilkins
2006The background to the study of the language of space. In Stephen C. Levinson & David P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, J. Lachlan
1978Ablative–locative transfers and their relevance for the theory of case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics 14(2). 129–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, Christiane
2002Prépositions françaises en diachronie: Une catégorie en question. Lingvisticae Investigationes 25(2). 205–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1978Notes on Japanese clothing verbs. In John Hinds & Irwin Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 68–78. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Miyajima, Tatsuo
1986Kaku shihai no ryou-teki sokumen. In Yotaka Miyaji (ed.), Ronshû nihongo kenkyû, Vol. 1: Gendai-hen, 41–58. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Nam, Seungho
2004Goal and Source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Seoul National University. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana
2009Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the Source/Goal ambiguity. Linguistics 47(5). 1113–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael
2008Case compounding in the Bodic languages. In Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations, Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, 127–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pajusalu, Renate, Neeme Kahusk, Heili Orav, Ann Veismann, Kadri Vider & Haldur Õim
2013The encoding of motion event in Estonian. In Mila Vulchanova & Emile van der Zee (eds.), Motion encoding in language and space, 44–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina
2010The syntactic structure of locations, goals and sources. Linguistics 48(5). 1043–1081. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, Anna
2010Source-Goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science 341: 1064–1092. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papahagi, Cristiana
2005Les prépositions de la trajectoire en français et en roumain: Étude synchronique et diachronique. Paris: Université Paris 3. PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba
1998Early spatial case markers in Hungarian children. In Eve V. Clark (ed.), The Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Child Language Research Forum, 211–219. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba, Zsuzsanna Vinkler & László Kálmán
1996Early morphology of spatial express-ions in Hungarian children: A childes study. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 401. 129–142.Google Scholar
Regier, Terry & Mingyu Zheng
2007Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science 311. 705–719. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ricca, Davide
1993I verbi deittici di movimento in Europa: Una ricerca interlinguistica. Firenze: La Nuova Italia Editrice.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata
2007Crosslingusitic grammaticalization patterns of the allative . Linguistic Typology 11(3). 451–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, John F.
1984On some though Source-Goal asymmetries. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference in Linguistics 11 (CESCOL Proceedings). 275–287.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward, Morris Swadesh & Alice Morris
1932The expression of the ending-point relation in English, French, and German. Language 8(1), Language Monograph 10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sarda, Laure
2019French motion verbs: Insights into the status of locative PPs. In Michel Aurnague & Dejan Stosic (eds.), The semantics of dynamic space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression, 68–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, Chris, Lis A. Thorseng, Mariko Hayashi & Kim Plunkett
1994Comparative spatial semantics and language acquisition: Evidence from Danish, English, and Japanese. Journal of Semantics 11(4). 253–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, I. Dan
1997Mind, code, and text. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays in language function and language type, 437–467. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Sven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative: Topological & contextual perspectives, 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers.Google Scholar
2005Relating narrative events in translation. In Dorit Diskin Ravid & Havat Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman, 115–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. & Nini Hoiting
1994Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, 487–505. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2018The goal bias revised: A collostructional approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 6(1).143–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rodhe
2004The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 249–267. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria
1994The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Len
1985Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical form. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and semantic description, vol.3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 36–149, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 480–519. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
2000Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2. Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taremaa, Piia
2013Fictive and actual motion in Estonian: Encoding space. SKY Journal of Linguistics 261. 151–183.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid
1996An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Verkerk, Annemarie
2017The goal-over-source principle in European languages: Preliminary results from a parallel corpus study. In Sylvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.), Space in diachrony, 1–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, René Dirven & Günter Radden
1999Putting concepts together: Syntax. In René Dirven & Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.), Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics, 79–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vittrant, Alice
2015Expressing motion: The contribution of Southeast Asian languages with reference to East Asian Languages. In Nick J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds), Southeast Asia: The state of arts, 586–632. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vuillermet, Marine & Anetta Kopecka
2019“Trajectoire”: A methodological tool for eliciting Path of motion. In Aimée Lahaussois & Marine Vuillermet (eds.), Methodological tools for linguistic description and typology, 97–124. Special issue of Language, Documentation and Conservation 161.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Fernando Zúñiga
2009Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 59(3). 284–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David P. & Deborah Hill
1995When go means come: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6(2/3). 209–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zanchi, Chiara
2017New evidence for the Source-Goal asymmetry. Ancient Greek preverbs. In Sylvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.). Space in diachrony, 147–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar