Article published in:
Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages
Edited by Anetta Kopecka and Marine Vuillermet
[Studies in Language 45:1] 2021
► pp. 109–129

Source-Goal (a)symmetry in Romanian

| Babeș-Bolyai University
According to Talmy (2000), a motion event has four conceptual components: Figure, Motion, Path and one or more Grounds. Path can be further decomposed into Source, Medium and Goal (or: departure, passing and arrival). In many languages, intuitive pairs of motion events such as come/go seem to indicate that Source and Goal are equally able to build the image of the Path. However, numerous studies have pointed to an asymmetry in favor of Goal in motion descriptions. Using the corpus elicited during the Trajectoire project, this paper explores Source-Goal asymmetries in Romanian; this concerns adposition inventories (which are symmetrical for Source and Goal), adposition-verb combinations, and the attention payed by speakers to Source viz. Goal-oriented motion. The paper postulates possible semantic causes of Source-Goal asymmetry not identified in previous literature, such as the bounded nature of the Ground, and motion being associated with a particular human activity.
Keywords: Source-Goal asymmetry, Romanian, motion, boundary crossing, adposition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus and method
  • 3.The language
  • 4.Morphological and semantical (a)symmetries in Romanian prepositions
  • 5.Asymmetrical combinatorics of verbs with Source and Goal expressions
  • 6.Asymmetries in complex path descriptions
  • 7.Asymmetry in attention
  • 8.Discussion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 21 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19084.pap
References
Arias Oliveira, Roberto Carlos
2012 Boundary-crossing: Eine Untersuchung zum Deutschen, Französischen und Spanischen. München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Aurnague, Michel
2011 How motion verbs are spatial: The spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes 34(1). 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas J. Enfield, James Scobey, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Sotaro Kita, Friederike Lüpke & Felix K. Ameka
2007 Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language 83(3). 495–532. CrossrefGoogle 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
Creissels, Denis
2006 Encoding the distinction between location, source, and destination: A typological study. In Maya Hickmann & Robert, Stéphane (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 19–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1971/75 Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1972 How to know whether you’re coming or going. In Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen (ed.) Linguistik 1971: Referate des 6. Linguistischen Kolloquiums 11.–14. August 1971 in Kopenhagen, 369–379. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.Google Scholar
Hamp, Paul
1967 [1888] Die zusammengesetzten Präpositionen im Lateinischen. Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik V1. 321–367.Google Scholar
Hottenroth, Priska-Monika
1993 Prepositions and object concepts: A contribution to cognitive semantics. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.). The Semantics of prepositions. From mental processing to natural language processing, 179–219. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, Claudio, Luisa Corona, Noemi De Pasquale & Alfonsina Buoniconto
2017 How should a “classical” satellite-framed language behave? Path encoding asymmetries in Ancient Greek and Latin. In Silvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.). Space in diachrony, 95–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko
1987 Source vs. Goal: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In René Dirven & Günter Radden (eds.). Concepts of case, 122–146. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Ilinski, Kirill
2003 La préposition et son régime. Étude des cas atypiques. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki, Anetta Kopecka & Marine Vuillermet
2006 Trajectoire: Matériel visuel pour élicitation des données linguistiques. Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage (CNRS / Université Lyon 2) – Fédération de Recherche en Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques, CNRS, France.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1983 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta
2009 L’expression du déplacement en français: l’interaction des facteurs sémantiques, aspectuels et pragmatiques dans la construction du sens spatial. Langages 1731. 54–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau
2005 Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 961. 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Naigles, Letitia, Ann R. Eisenberg, Edward T. Kako, Melissa Highter & Nancy McGraw
1998 Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes 13(5). 521–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1992 Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Loretta
2012 Take it up, down, and away: Encoding placement and removal in Lowland Chontal. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.). Events of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’: A crosslinguistic perspective, 297–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Özçalișkan, Șeyda
2013 Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Applied Psycholinguistics 36(2). 1–24.Google Scholar
Papahagi, Cristiana
2015 Les prépositions de la trajectoire en français et en roumain. Cluj: Casa Cărții de Știință.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba
1998 Early spatial case markers in Hungarian children. In Karen Emmorey, Judy S. Reilly & Eve V. Clark (ed.). Proceedings of the twenty-ninth Annual Child Language Research Forum, 211–219. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sinha, Chris & Tania Kuteva
1995 Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 181. 167–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan
1997 Mind, code, and text. In Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Essays on language function and language type, 437–467. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan. & Nini Hoiting
1994 Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. In Richard Rhodes, Susanne Gahl, Chris Johnson & Andy Dolbey. Proceedings of the twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 487–505. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde
2004 The Goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.). Studies in linguistic motivation, 249–267. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2000 Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 11. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008 Lexical typologies. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 66–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid
1996 An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude
1987 La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation. Langue française 761. 77–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, René Dirven & Günter Radden
1999 Putting concepts together: Syntax. In René Dirven & Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics, 79–105. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Fernando Zúñiga
2006 Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. STUF – Language Typology and Universals. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59(3). 284–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar