Cover not available
Article published In:
Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages
Edited by Anetta Kopecka and Marine Vuillermet
[Studies in Language 45:1] 2021
► pp. 36–74

Expression of spontaneous motion events in Stieng

An exploration of Source-Goal (a)symmetries

ORCID logo | Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage
This study investigates the expression of Source and Goal in spontaneous motion events in Stieng (Cambodia, Vietnam). The analysis is based on data collected in Cambodia, using the Trajectoire video kit (Ishibashi et al. 2006). Regardless the type of Ground, Stieng data includes a wide range of constructions in describing motion events, combining lexical and grammatical tools (verbs and adnominals). While morphosyntactic resources available to express Source and Goal are formally similar, Stieng data shows that the Goal tends to be privileged compared to the Source, at the semantic, morphosyntactic, and syntactic levels. However, Source and Goal tend to be symmetrical with respect to the semantic distinctions of the verbs, and potential (a)symmetries with respect to the discourse level remain to be clarified. Instances of asymmetries in favor of the Goal tend to support previous studies that postulated a tendency for languages to privilege the Goal in the linguistic expression.
Keywords: Stieng, Austroasiatic, Cambodia, video stimuli, motion events, verb serialization, adnominals, Source/Goal, Manner/Path/Deixis, discourse, overt/covert, semantic granularity, morphosyntactic combinations, syntactic complexity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language context, data set and method
    • 2.1Stieng: Affiliation, localization, population, vitality, and description
    • 2.2Data set and method
  • 3.Main typological and areal features of Stieng, a typical language of Southeast Asia
  • 4.The expression of spontaneous motion events in Stieng: An overview
    • 4.1Lexical and grammatical tools
      • 4.1.1Different semantic classes of verbs
      • 4.1.2Prepositions (prep)
      • 4.1.3Relator nouns (rn)
    • 4.2Basic syntax and diversity of construction types
    • 4.3Distribution of Path information
  • 5.Contrasts in the expression of Source vs. Goal in spontaneous motion events in Stieng
    • 5.1Discourse: Source and Goal equally expressed
      • 5.1.1Omission of the Goal
      • 5.1.2Omission of the Source
      • 5.1.3Overview of narrative texts
    • 5.2Semantics: Symmetrical distinctions
      • 5.2.1Prepositions and relator nouns distinctions
      • 5.2.2Path verb distinctions
    • 5.3Morphosyntax: Greater diversity of information distribution with Goal than with Source
    • 5.4Syntax: Constructions more diverse with Goal and more complex with Source
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 January 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18030.bon
References (45)
References
Bisang, Walter. 1995. Verb serialization and converbs-differences and similarities. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds, 137–188. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bon, Noëllie. 2014. Une grammaire de la langue stieng : langue en danger du Cambodge et du Vietnam. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Borillo, Andrée. 1998. L’espace et son expression en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe. 1997. On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In Palek, Bohumil (ed.), Proceedings of LP ‘96: Typology: prototypes, item orderings and universals, proceedings of the conference held in Prague, August 20–22, 1996, 185–216. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa, Marianne Gullberg, Asifa Majid & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2004. Put project: The cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In Asifa Majid (ed.), Field Manual, vol 91, 10–24. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Stephen C. Levinson. 2001. Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, David. 2007a. Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia. In Osahito Miyaoka, Osamu Sakiyama & Michael E. Krauss (eds.), The vanishing languages of the Pacific rim. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007b. Language endangerment in China and Mainland Southeast Asia. In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language diversity endangered (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 181), 278–302. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas. 2012. The linguistic encoding of placement and removal events in Jahai. In Anetta Kopecka, & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 21–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1975. Eliciting narratives through a film: Pear Stories. [URL] (Last access: 10 April 2020)
. 1980. The Pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood: ABLEX publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale une introduction typologique 2: la phrase. Hermes Science Publications.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2005. Adpositions as a non-universal category. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David S. Rood (eds), Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories, 185–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
General Statistics Office of Viet Nam. 2009. National census of Vietnam. [URL] (Last access: 28 March 2020).
Fortis, Jean-Michel, Colette Grinevald, Anetta Kopecka & Alice Vittrant. 2011. L’expression de la trajectoire : perspectives typologiques. Faits de Langues 31. (Les Cahiers). 33–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortis, Jean-Michel & Alice Vittrant. 2011. L’organisation morpho-syntaxique de l’expression de la trajectoire : vers une typologie des constructions. Faits de Langues 31. (Les Cahiers). 71–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grinevald, Colette. 2011. On constructing a working typology of the expression of path. Faits de Langues 31. (Les Cahiers). 43–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. & Stephen C. Levinson. 1996. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1987. Source vs. Goal: a case of linguistic dissymetry. In René Dirven & Günter Radden (eds.), Concepts of case, 122–146. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Imbert, Caroline. 2008. Dynamique des systèmes et motivations fonctionnelles dans l’encodage de la Trajectoire. Description typologique du grec homérique et du vieil-anglais. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki. 2010. The (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. Pisa: PDE.Google Scholar
. 2012. The expression of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ events in Japanese: The asymmetry of Source and Goal revisited. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.), Events of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’: A crosslinguistic perspective, 253–272. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki, Anetta Kopecka & Marine Vuillermet. 2006. Trajectoire: matériel visuel pour élicitation des données linguistiques. Paris: Fédération de Recherche en Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques.Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta & Miyuki Ishibashi. 2011. L’(a)symétrie dans l’expression de la Source et du But: perspective translinguistique. Faits de Langues 31. (Les Cahiers). 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau. 2005. Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 961. 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N., et Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and Topic: a new Typology of Language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York. Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1974. Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or prepositions? Journal of Chinese Linguistics 21. 257–278.Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning. 2007. General Population Census of Cambodia, 2008: enumerator manual. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. [URL] (Last access: 28 March 2020).
Papahagi, Cristina. 2011. Pour une typologie des systèmes d’adnominaux de la trajectoire. Faits de Langues 31. (Les Cahiers). 117–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier, Terry & Mingyu Zheng. 2007. Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science 311. 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidwell, Paul. 2009. Classifying the Austroasiatic languages: history and state of the art. München: Lincom Europa Publishers.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2004. The 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, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates – Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Stathis Selimis, 2002, Motion verbs + manner, linguist list issue 13.899, [URL] (last access: 11/12/2020)Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1985. Relator Nouns as a Source of Case Inflection. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 201. 111–133.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde. 2004. The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Güter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 249–267. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria. 1986. On the evolutionary paths of locative expressions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 121. 515–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. The grammar of space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard A. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy 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. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 1996. An Introduction to cognitive linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1986. L’espace en français : sémantiques des prépositions spatiales. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan, Peerapat Yangklang, Sven Stromqvist & Ludo Verhoeven. 2004. A third way to travel: The place of Thai (and other serial verb languages) in motion event typology. In Sven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, 159–190. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates – Psychology Press.Google Scholar