1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 10, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper investigates the asymmetrical behavior of Sources and Goals of motion in Homeric and Classical Greek within the frame semantics paradigm. In particular, based on a corpus of 26 works covering four text types, it is shown that (a) regardless of their semantic class, motion verbs display preference for Goal compared to Source ones; (b) the frame that a verb belongs to affects the type of chosen only to a certain degree that does not change the Source-Goal imbalance; (c) semantically incongruent motion verb – combinations are naturally less frequent than congruent combinations, but within the category of incongruent combinations the tokens are distributed in a way that reflects the prevalence of Goals; (d) the number of markers for the encoding of Goal is higher than that of Source; and (e) Source and Goal markers interact with Place ones in an asymmetrical way: Goal markers come to encode Place and, similarly, Place markers come to express Goal. Conversely, the interaction of markers exhibiting Source-Place polysemy is unidirectional, in the sense that none of these markers was originally used to encode Place alone. Theoretical implications of the study are discussed and directions for future research are suggested.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00011.geo
2018-08-30
2024-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.00011.geo
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkins, S. , Fillmore, J. C. , & Johnson, R. C.
    (2003) Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from corpus evidence. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 251–280. doi: 10.1093/ijl/16.3.251
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.251 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beavers, J. , Levin, B. , & Tham, W. S.
    (2010) The typology of motion expressions revisited. Linguistics, 46, 331–377. doi: 10.1017/S0022226709990272
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990272 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, C. H.
    (2001) Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In P. Rayson , A. Wilson , T. McEnery , A. Hardie & S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001 (pp.64–73). U.K: Lancaster.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bortone, P.
    (2010) Greek prepositions. From antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556854.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556854.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowerman, M. , Gullberg, M. , Majid, A. , & Narasimhan, B.
    (2004) Put project: The cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field manual, Vol.9 (pp. 10–18). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chantraine, P.
    (1968) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (1984) Morphologie historique du grec (2nd ed.). Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Creissels, D.
    (2006) Encoding the distinction between location and destination: A typological study. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp.19–28). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.66.03cre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.03cre [Google Scholar]
  9. Filipović, L.
    (2007) Talking about motion: A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.91
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.91 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, J. C.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (1997) Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, C. J. , Wooters, C. , & Baker, F. C.
    (2001) Building a large lexical databank which provides deep semantics. Proceedings of the Pacific Asian Conference on Language, Information and Computation. Hong Kong.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, J. C. , & Petruck, M. R. L.
    (2003) Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. doi: 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, J. C. , & Baker, C.
    (2009) A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp.313–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fortis, J. -M. , & Vittrant, A.
    (2011) L’organisation syntaxique de l’expression de la trajectoire: vers une typologie des constructions. Faits de Langues: Les Cahiers, 3, 71–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Geeraerts, D. , & Cuyckens, H.
    (2007) Introducing cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Georgakopoulos, T.
    (2011) Gnosiaki proseggisi tis simasiologikis allagis ton protheseon tis Ellinikis: I periptosi tis eis [A cognitive approach to semantic change in Greek prepositions: The case of eis]. (Doctoral dissertation). National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Georgakopoulos, T. , & Sioupi, A.
    (2015) Framing 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, 3, 105–122. doi: 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0007 [Google Scholar]
  19. Georgakopoulos, T. , & Karatsareas, P.
    (2017) A diachronic take on the Source–Goal asymmetry: evidence from inner Asia Minor Greek. In S. Luraghi , T. Nikitina , & C. Zanchi (Eds.), Space in diachrony (pp.179–206). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series). doi: 10.1075/slcs.188.07geo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.07geo [Google Scholar]
  20. Georgakopoulos, T. , Lincke, E. -S. , Nikiforidou, K. , & Piata, A.
    (submitted). On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic: Why lexical constructions are important.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gehrke, B.
    (2008) Ps in motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events. (Doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Goschler, J. , & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2013) Introduction. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp.1–14). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.41.00gos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.41.00gos [Google Scholar]
  23. Hajnal, I.
    (2004) Die Tmesis bei Homer und auf den mykenischen Linear B Tafeln– ein chronologisches Paradox?. In J. H. W. Penney (Ed.), Indo-European perspectives: Studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davie (pp.146–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Haug, D.
    (2011) Tmesis in the epic tradition. In Ø. Andersen & D. Haug (Eds.), Relative chronology in early Greek epic poetry (pp.96–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921728.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921728.007 [Google Scholar]
  25. Horrocks, G. , & Stavrou, M.
    (2007) Grammaticalized aspect and spatio-temporal culmination. Lingua, 117, 605–644.10.1016/j.lingua.2006.03.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Iacobini, C. , Corona, L. , De Pasquale, N. , & Buoniconto, A.
    (2017) How should a “classical” satellite-framed language behave?: Path encoding asymmetries in Ancient Greek and Latin. In S. Luraghi , T. Nikitina , & C. Zanchi (Eds.), Space in diachrony (pp.95–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.188.04iac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.04iac [Google Scholar]
  27. Ikegami, Y.
    (1987) ‘Source’ vs. ‘goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of case (pp.122–146). Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ishibashi, M.
    (2010) The (a)symmetry of source and goal in motion events in Japanese: Evidence from narrative data. In G. Marotta , A. Lenci , L. Meini , & F. Rovai (Eds.), Space in language: Proceedings of the Pisa International Conference (pp.514–531). Pisa: Edizioni ETS.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson, R. C. , Fillmore, J. C. , Wood, J. E. , Ruppenhofer, J. , Urban, M. , Petruck, M. R. L. , & Baker, F. C.
    (2001) The FrameNet project: Tools for lexicon building. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kabata, K.
    (2013) Goal–source asymmetry and crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns: a cognitive-typological approach. Language Sciences, 36, 78–89. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.021
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.021 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kopecka, A.
    (2012) Semantic granularity of placement and removal in Polish. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 327–347). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.100.20kop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100.20kop [Google Scholar]
  33. Kopecka, A. , & Narasimhan, B.
    (Eds.) (2012) Events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.100
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lakusta, L. , & Landau, B.
    (2005) Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96(1), 1–33. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2012) Language and memory for motion events: Origins of the asymmetry between source and goal paths. Cognitive Science, 36(3), 517–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2011.01220.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01220.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Lakusta, L. , & Carey, S.
    (2014) Twelve-month-old infants’ encoding of goal and source paths in agentive and non-agentive motion events. Language Learning and Development, 11(2), 152–175. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2014.896168
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2014.896168 [Google Scholar]
  38. Landau, B. , & Zukowski, A.
    (2003) Objects, motions and paths: Spatial language in children with Williams Syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology, 23, 107–139. doi: 10.1080/87565641.2003.9651889
     https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2003.9651889 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lejeune, M.
    (1939) Les adverbes grecs en -θεν. Bordeaux: Éditions Delmas.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lestrade, S.
    (2010) The space of case. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Létoublon, F.
    (1985) Il allait, pareil a la nuit: Les verbes de mouvement en grec: suppletisme et aspect verbal. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Luraghi, S.
    (2003) On the meaning of prepositions and cases. The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.67
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.67 [Google Scholar]
  44. Luraghi, S. , Nikitina, T. , & Zanchi, C.
    (Eds.) (2017) Space in diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.188
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mackenzie, J. L.
    (1978) Ablative-locative transfers and their relevance for the theory of case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 14, 129–375.10.1017/S0022226700005831
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700005831 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mandler, M. J. , & Pagan Canovas, C.
    (2014) On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6, 510–532. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2014.14
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.14 [Google Scholar]
  47. Nam, S.
    (2004) Goal and source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Paper presented atthe Workshop on Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation . Leipzig, Germany. Paper retrieved fromling.snu.ac.kr/nam/papers/goal-source-Leipzig.PDF
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Napoli, M.
    (2006) Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek: A contrastive analysis. Milan: Franco Angeli.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Nikitina, T.
    (2009) Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the source/goal ambiguity. Linguistics, 47(5), 1113–1141. doi: 10.1515/LING.2009.039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.039 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2013) Lexical splits in the encoding of motion events from Archaic to Classical Greek. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp.185–202). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.41.08nik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.41.08nik [Google Scholar]
  51. (2017) Ablative and allative marking of static locations: A historical perspective. In S. Luraghi , T. Nikitina , & C. Zanchi (Eds.), Space in diachrony (pp.67–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.188.03nik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.03nik [Google Scholar]
  52. Nikitina, T. , & Maslov, B.
    (2013) Redefining constructio praegnans: On the variation between allative and locative expressions in Ancient Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 13(1), 105–42. doi: 10.1163/15699846‑13130107
     https://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-13130107 [Google Scholar]
  53. Nikitina, T. , & Spano, M.
    (2014) ‘Behind’ and ‘in front’ in Ancient Greek: A case study in orientation asymmetry. In S. Kutscher & D. Werning (Eds.), On Ancient grammars of space (pp.67–82). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110311358.67
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110311358.67 [Google Scholar]
  54. Noonan, M.
    (2008) Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages. In J. Barðdal & S. Cheliah (Eds.), The role of semantics and pragmatics in the development of case (pp.261–281). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.108.15noo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.108.15noo [Google Scholar]
  55. Özçalıskan, S. , & Slobin, D. I.
    (2000) Climb up vs. ascend climbing: Lexicalization choices in expressing motion events with manner and path components. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 24 (Vol.II), 558–570. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Pantcheva, M.
    (2010) The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics, 48(5), 1043–1081. doi: 10.1515/ling.2010.034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.034 [Google Scholar]
  57. Papafragou, A.
    (2010) Source-Goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 34, 1064–1092. doi: 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01107.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01107.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Petersen, J. H.
    (2012) How to put and take in Kalasha. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective (pp.349–366). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.100.21pet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100.21pet [Google Scholar]
  59. Pourcel, S. , & Kopecka, A.
    (2006) Motion events in French: Typological intricacies. Unpublished manuscript, University of Sussex and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Brighton, UK, and Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Regier, T. , & Zheng, M.
    (2007) Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 705–719. doi: 10.1080/15326900701399954
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701399954 [Google Scholar]
  61. Rice, S. , & Kabata, K.
    (2007) Crosslinguistic grammaticalisation patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology, 11(3), 451–514. doi: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.031
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.031 [Google Scholar]
  62. Risch, E.
    (1974) Wortbildung der Homerischen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Schwyzer, E. , & Debrunner, A.
    (1939) Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik, Erster band: Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. München: CH. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Scott, M.
    (2011) WordSmith tools version 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Skopeteas, S.
    (2002) Lokale Konstruktionen im Griechischen: Sprachwandel in funktionaler Sicht (Doctoral dissertation). University of Erfurt, Germany.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. (2008a) Grammaticalization and sets of form-function pairs: Encoding spatial concepts in Greek. In E. Verhoeven , S. Skopeteas , Y. -M. Shin , Y. Nishina , & J. Helmbrecht (Eds.), Studies on grammaticalization (pp.25–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110211764.1.25
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211764.1.25 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2008b) Encoding spatial relations: Language typology and diachronic change in Greek. Language Typology and Universals, 61(1), 54–66. doi: 10.1524/stuf.2008.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2008.0006 [Google Scholar]
  68. Slobin, I. D.
    (1997) Mind, code, and text. In J. Bybee , J. Haiman , & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp.437–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.82.24slo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.24slo [Google Scholar]
  69. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Rohde, A.
    (2004) The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K. -U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.249–268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Stolz, T.
    (1992) Simple vs. complex local relators. In T. Müller-Bardey & D. Werner (Eds.), Aspekte der Lokalisation (pp.201–220). Bochum: Brockmeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Stolz, T. , Lestrade, S. , & Stolz, C.
    (2014) The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1524/9783050065304
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050065304 [Google Scholar]
  72. Stolz, T. , Levkovych, N. , Urdze, A. , & Nintemann, J.
    (2017) Spatial interrogatives in Europe and beyond. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110539516
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110539516 [Google Scholar]
  73. Svorou, S.
    (1994) The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.25 [Google Scholar]
  74. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. (2007) Lexical typologies. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp.66–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618437.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618437.002 [Google Scholar]
  76. Taylor, R. J.
    (1995) Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory (Rev. edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Verkerk, A.
    (2014) The evolutionary dynamics of motion event encoding (Doctoral dissertation). Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Wälchli, B.
    (2006) Lexicalization patterns in motion events revisited. Unpublished manuscript, University of Konstanz, Germany.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Yates, A.
    (2014) Homeric ΒΗ Δ’ ΙΕΝΑΙ: A Serial Verb Construction in Greek?. Paper presented atthe 145th Annual Meetings of the American Philological Association . Chicago, IL. Paper retrieved fromwww.pies.ucla.edu/resources/ady/talks/YATES-BEDIENAI-F.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Zanchi, C.
    (2017) New evidence for the Source–Goal asymmetry: Ancient Greek preverbs. In S. Luraghi , T. Nikitina , & C. Zanchi (Eds.), Space in diachrony (pp.147–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.188.06zan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.06zan [Google Scholar]
  81. Zwarts, J.
    (2010) A hierarchy of locations: evidence from the encoding of direction in adpositions and cases. Linguistics, 48, 983–1009. doi: 10.1515/ling.2010.032
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.032 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00011.geo
Loading
A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry
Constructions and Frames 10, 61 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00011.geo
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00011.geo
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00011.geo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Ancient Greek; frame semantics; language of space; motion verbs; Source-Goal asymmetry

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error