In press: In: Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M - NTNU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. Background An important characteristic of language is that it imposes structure on the ‘reality’ it represents (Jackendoff 1996, Talmy 1985, 2000) by selecting for expression only specific concepts and features. As a consequence, the linguistic expression of spatial scenes, including motion, is constrained by a schema consisting of a closed class of elements like Motion, Path, Figure and Ground. Motion-event typology focuses on how these elements are encoded crosslinguistically. One of the most widely applied formats recently is Talmy’s (1985, 2000), which approaches motion encoding in language from two perspectives, that of linguistic form, and that of semantic content. In terms of linguistic form, the verb is viewed as the main lexical item encoding the motion event. Languages differ as to what elements of the motion situation they choose to bundle into their most frequently occurring basic motion verbs. According to these preferences, languages can be divided into several types, the most common being path-type languages and manner-type languages. From the perspective of semantic content and its interface with syntax, languages can be divided into two types, according to how they express the path of motion. In the so-called verb-framed languages (e.g. Spanish, Turkish, and Japanese), path is encoded in the verb in the main clause (enter, exit, ascend, etc.), while manner is specified most commonly in a subordinate clause. In satellite-framed languages path is encoded in ‘satellites’ (e.g. adpositions in Germanic languages and verb prefixes in Slavic languages) which accompany the verb. Manner in such languages is encoded in the main verb of the clause, and typically those languages have a large number of commonly occurring manner of motion verbs. Although Talmy’s classification is useful and captures important insights in motion encoding, the rigidity of the system has engendered much debate. Many recent studies (e.g. Strömqvist & Verhoeven 2004, Ameka & Essegbey 2000) have demonstrated that the data are more complex. Slobin (2004) argues that the preferential encoding of path vs. manner in verb roots is not a matter of belonging to one of two poles, but rather a cline along which manner salience can vary. Furthermore, there appears to be at least one more distinct type of language, where manner and path are expressed by equivalent semantic forms (e.g. verbs in serial-verb languages, cf. Ameka & Essegbey 2000, Zlatev & Yangklang 2004, among others). Typological research and Language Acquisition research (cf. Slobin 2001) indicate that the most frequent verbs of motion cross-linguistically and the ones that tend to be acquired early on in the process of language acquisition are generalized items denoting default motion scenes (e.g. scenes which are underspecified for global or local path shape, or parameters, 2
such as figure orientation). Commonly these are the equivalents of come, go, move across languages. In adult language use general motion verbs continue to be the most frequently used to denote motion scenes generally, and are supplanted by more specific manner verbs only in cases where the manner of motion itself is at issue (Strömqvist & Verhoeven 2004). Quite often manner of motion verbs have been treated as pure manner verbs, and not as motion verbs per se. This line of reasoning has followed the assumption that such verbs denote an activity which usually accompanies motion, but do not encode motion as such. This claim, however, cannot be universally substantiated by the data. Thus, cross-linguistically we find “manner” verbs (e.g. Bulgarian katerja se, Norwegian klatre – ‘climb/clamber’, German kletteren, Bulgarian turkaljam se, Italian rotollare – ‘roll’) which uncontroversially include both a Manner and a Path element (cf. also Weisgerber, this volume for a similar proposal). In addition, recent research in cognitive interfaces and the cross-linguistic encoding of motion (cf. Nikanne & van der Zee 2005, this volume, Dimitrova-Vulchanova 2004a, 2004b) has demonstrated that both Path and Manner are too crude to account for the linguistic evidence, and, as such, lead to controversial representations and accounts. The notion of Path, for instance, subsumes parameters as diverse as spatial grids and frames of reference, Regions and Grounds (van der Zee and Nikanne 2000, van der Zee and Slack 2003). Also, the encoding of path in languages has been shown to vary in the way a motion event is segmented, and different path elements may be related to Grounds/ Landmarks and the regions defined by them (Slobin 2004). Path shape has also been shown to be an important factor which can be encoded cross-linguistically with different degrees of granularity (Nikanne 2004, Nikanne & van der Zee 2005). In the proposal in van der Zee (2000), and Nikanne & van der Zee (this volume), a verb like zig-zag encodes a local path shape specification, as each path segment of the zig-zag scene involves a change in figure orientation and thereby path orientation at a certain (sharp) angle. Observe that quite often these verbs have been labelled ‘manner’ verbs, while specifying exclusively features of the path. In a similar fashion, the notion of Manner can be felicitously decomposed into a number of independent parameters pertaining to various aspects of the motion scene, e.g. (change in) figure orientation or curvature (wriggle, shake), rate of displacement (speed) (e.g. the contrast between run and sprint), psychological state of the figure (e.g. English strut, the Luganda verb gubagguba – ‘trudge for a long distance with a sad event ahead’, Ndiwalana 2003). Thus, neither Path nor Manner can be viewed as primitives in the theory. At best, they are useful ‘short-hands’ for a range of independent and well-defined features. 3
Page 1: In press: In: Dimitrova-Vulchanova,
Page 5 and 6: left-to-right vs. right-to-left) wi
Page 7 and 8: With respect to terrestrial biologi
Page 9 and 10: than not, the aspectual prefix is a
Page 11 and 12: 3.3 Verbs of walking The most centr
Page 13 and 14: 3.6 Features in the representation
Page 15 and 16: change of location, and whether the
Page 17 and 18: translation vs. non-translation (re
Page 19 and 20: Fig. 2 Overall frequencies of the t
Page 21 and 22: has demonstrated that infants as yo
Page 23 and 24: verbs only in Norwegian. In Bulgari
Page 25 and 26: Tversky 1977), and are specifically
Page 27 and 28: and respectively the verbs naming t
Page 29 and 30: across species at particular Froude
Page 31 and 32: independently, there is sufficient
Page 33 and 34: 5.2.6 The salience of path shape an
Page 35 and 36: motion scenes that we had selected
Page 37 and 38: Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. 1999. Incr
Page 39 and 40: Papafragou, A. et al. 2002. Shake,
Page 41 and 42: Appendix 1 This appendix contains s
Page 43 and 44: 13 Long-legged bird walking 14 Croc
Page 45 and 46: 25 Snake crawling 26 Snake sidewind
Page 47 and 48: Fig. 1b. Multiset tree for Bulgaria
Page 49 and 50: Fig. 2b. Multiset tree for English
Page 51 and 52: Fig. 3b. Multiset tree for Norwegia

In press: In: Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M - NTNU

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?