Motion event and deictic motion verbs as path-conflating verbs

Cognitive Foundations of Language Structure and Use, 2007

Pragmatics & Cognition, 1995

This paper focuses on a distinction between two kinds of information in verb meanings: a highly structured, templatic part of the meaning, based on aspectual properties of the verb, and a part of the meaning which contributes to filling gaps in the templatic information. The two kinds of information d@er in the nature and degree of connections to encyclopedic world knowledge. This demarcation between the two kinds of information is related to the semantics/ pragmatics distinction, and may be clearly articulated using Krifka 's (1 992) formalization of a homomorphism from objects to events. Motion verbs, for which the concept of distance plays a crucial role in the gap-filling information, are shown to be special in a number of ways, due to the special properties of distance as encoded in the world knowledge of the speaker. The possible universality of these findings is also discussed.

The Construal of Spatial Meaning, 2013

Setting the scene-the cognitive semiotics of motion The present paper argues that the lexico-grammar of spatial Motion (as a supercategory for dynamic movement and static location, cf. Talmy 1985) cannot be understood except as an integral part of the semiotic triad of reality, mind, and language. M otion in language should thus be explained on the basis of the (Gestaltist) psychology of motion in perception, in that language 'structures' the mind's construction of motion in reality. Accordingly, the typology of motion verbs is based on an experientially founded typology of motional situations in mind. A mental motional situation is perceptual, or 'pictorial': Human beings perceive motional situations in reality by forming (concrete) 'pictures' of them with diverse figureground constellations-and recognize them as belonging to different categories (according to stored percepts). There are two kinds of picture, viz. static, or 'stable', and dynamic, or 'unstable', roughly according as the figure is static or dynamic. Furthermore, we seem to be able to construct only one situational picture at a time. A single situational picture is a simple mental Situation-a stable picture is a 'state', and an unstable picture an 'activity'. So far the notion of M otion has been Perceptual. Now, it goes without saying that the 'mentality' of Situations involves much more than simple perceptual Situations, in that situations may be conceived of as possibly integrated with one another into 'complex' Situations. A "snapshot" of what at first sight might seem to be only a state or an activity may thus show out to be the endpoint or the starting point "window", respectively, on an integrated, complex Situation involving an Activity and a State, what will be called an Action. In the first case, the State in focus would be preceded by a causal Activity; in the second case the Activity in focus would be succeeded by a resultant State, in the normal course of events. The connection between the two simple Situations in a complex actional Situation is a general relation of telicity, the causal Activity tending to actually eventuate in the resultant State. The state-focused Action will be termed an Event, whereas an activity-focused Action will be termed a Process. Illustrating this, we may conceive of a scenario where I am sitting alone in the drawing room, then leave for the kitchen and come back, and lo and behold, you are sitting there! This may be conceived of as a M otion Situation, viz. a M otion Event, where you are sitting here as a result of your, say, returning home from work, and I may second it by the utterance Nå, du er kommet hjem fra arbejde 'oh, you've come home from work'. In this case the motion for me was only conceptual, in that I didn't see, or otherwise witness it, but only inferred it. We may thus talk about Conceptual motion in such cases. When now turning to language (as a system) and the typology of motion verbs in the mental lexicon, we must add the Sign Vehicle, i.e. the phonological expression, as a representation of Percean Firstness. The linguistic Sign Object (Secondness) and Sign Interpretant (Thirdness) then recall the mental perceptual and conceptual structures, respectively, just mentioned. So the sign contents are twofold , the linguistic cognitive-semantic domain being bipartitioned into an (abstract) perception-based 'imaginal' representation (cf. Spatial Structure in Jackendoff 2002) and an (abstract) conception-based 'ideational' representation (cf. Conceptual Structure in Jackendoff 2002). 1. Background, aims, and scope 1.1 Lexicalization typology M otion event research has grown into a well-established and highly productive field. Its theoretical cornerstone are the classic studies by Talmy (1975, 1985; for further refinements, see 2000: 25ff.), supplemented by works primarily by Slobin (e.g. 1996a/b; 2004a/b), but also by others (for an overview, see M ora Gutiérrez 2001). Despite the overwhelming amount of specific works within motion event research and despite the seemingly growing awareness of the need for a more fine-grained, less schematic approach than the Talmy-Slobin framework, the core assumptions and variables of the framework nevertheless are still upheld. Talmy's basic assumption is that even though people's pre-linguistic conceptualization of e.g. a directed M otion Situation appears to be universal-involving the same fundamental components to be lexicalized (apart from Figure and Ground, Motion itself, Manner of M otion, or Cause, and Path (i.e. trajectory), the ways of linguistically lexicalizing it in different languages are not the same because not all the components are able to be colexicalized in the same (verbal) morpheme in a major lexicalization system (Talmy 1985: 76): apart from cases where only M otion is lexicalized in the verb, as in English move, either the M anner component co-lexicalizes with the M otion component in the verb, leaving the Path behind to be lexicalized in a so-called Satellite, as in M anner languages, or it is the Path component that is lexically 'incorporated' into the verb, in so-called verb-framed or Path languages, whereby the M anner component becomes secondary, left for optional expression in a con-verb or adverb. Thus, we have a nice binary typology of major lexicalization patterns, and derivatively of languages, in that it is assumed that at least most languages fit into one of these types:  Manner (or, satellite-framed) languages, like e.g., Danish, Swedish, English, German, Russian, and Chinese, where only the Manner of motion is lexicalized in the verb root together with M otion, while the direction or Path of motion is explicated elsewhere when

Pragmatics &# 38; Cognition, 1995

This paper focuses on a distinction between two kinds of information in verb meanings: a highly structured, templatic part of the meaning, based on aspectual properties of the verb, and a part of the meaning which contributes to filling gaps in the templatic information. The two kinds of information d@er in the nature and degree of connections to encyclopedic world knowledge. This demarcation between the two kinds of information is related to the semantics/ pragmatics distinction, and may be clearly articulated using Krifka 's (1 992) formalization of a homomorphism from objects to events. Motion verbs, for which the concept of distance plays a crucial role in the gap-filling information, are shown to be special in a number of ways, due to the special properties of distance as encoded in the world knowledge of the speaker. The possible universality of these findings is also discussed.

How do languages of the world refer to motion? According to one widely held view, languages draw on a pool of common 'building blocks' in representing motion events, such as figure and ground, path (or trajectory), manner, cause of motion, and so on (cf. Talmy, 1985). Nevertheless, individual languages differ both in the elements they select out of the available stock of motion 'primitives' and in the way they conflate them into specific lexical and clausal structures (Talmy, 1985; Slobin, 1996a; Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Jackendoff, 1990; and many others). The study of cross-linguistic similarities and differences in the encoding of motion events offers important insights into how pre-verbal messages are translated into language-specific configurations of syntactic and semantic information. However, an account of the cognitive processes that underlie production of verbal descriptions of motion also has to examine the contexts in which these descriptions are embedded. T...

Case Studies of Linguistic Representations of Motion, 2025

The present volume is an outcome of collaborative efforts of experiment-based, cross-linguistic research on the linguistic representations of motion events. The phenomenon of motion is ubiquitous in the world. Your family members walk around at home every day and run to work and school; you see cars passing by, dogs running about, and birds flying away. Such events are frequently seen in daily life and are of interest to people and are talked about by speakers. It is therefore no wonder that every language (to the best of our knowledge) has a specific set of morphological, lexical, and constructional forms to represent motion. Since motion is a multifaceted phenomenon involving several components, expression patterns used sometimes vary within a language, and languages manifest differences in the expressions they adopt. The linguistic descriptions of motion thus provide an interesting set of data that enable us to discuss commonalities and variations among and within languages. A motion event involves several entities. Consider what kinds of notions are involved in the motion event described in example (1).1 (1) Susan ran down the hill toward me. 1 Terms concerning the semantic components of motion in this volume generally follow those of Talmy (1985, 1991), but differ from them in several respects, especially the adoption of the terms "trajectory" and "means of causation".

Linguistics, 2009

Languages differ in the ways they divide the world. This study applies cluster analysis to understand how and why languages differ in the way they express motion events. It further lays out what the parameters of the structure of the semantic space of motion are, based on data collected from participants who were adult speakers of Danish, German, and Turkish. The participants described 37 video clips depicting a large variety of motion events. The results of the study show that the segmentation of the semantic space displays a great deal of variation across all three groups. Turkish differs from German and Danish with respect to the features used to segment the semantic space -namely by using vector orientation. German and Danish differ greatly with respect to (a) how fine-grained the distinctions made are, and (b) how motion verbs with a common Germanic root are distributed across the semantic space. Consequently, this study illustrates that the parameters applied for categorization by speakers are, to some degree, related to typological membership, in relation to Talmy's typological framework for the expression of motion events. Finally, the study shows that the features applied for categorization differ across languages and that typological membership is not necessarily a predictor of elaboration of the motion verb lexicon. Linguistik online 61, 4/13 ISSN 1615-3014 60

Verbs in Fictive Motion, Lodz University Press, e-BOOK, 2018

This book presents a corpus-based study of verbs used in expressions of fictive motion, which refers to the cognitive-linguistic phenomenon of describing material objects incapable of movement in terms of motion over their configuration in space. The study focuses specifically on the category of coextension paths, which are used to describe the form, orientation, or location of a spatially extended object in terms of a path over the object’s extent. The analysis, carried out using the British National Corpus, indicates that in English only a fraction of motion verbs are used consistently to express coextension paths, and that some of them are used for this purpose far more systematically than others. A holographic image of structuring coextension paths that emerges from the linguistic data indicates that whereas directional motion verbs tend to be used in fictive motion to express bounded paths, directions, and routes, verbs of motion manner are employed to specify shapes constituting subjective counterparts of spatial contours of actual motion. Moreover, depending on the particular use and the wider linguistic context, certain coextension path expressions can be interpreted as a result of conceptual blending, which fuses multiple facets of motion via a common communicative platform established dynamically in discourse. From the perspective of the analysis, these interpretations are not mutually irreconcilable. The evocation of a particular conceptualization triggered by the semantic attributes conflated in a verb and its satellites is likely to depend not only on individual comprehension strategies, but also on the degree of cultural-linguistic conventionalization of certain fictive motion patterns established through processes of language acquisition and social transfer.