1887
Volume 45, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper compares the expression of Source and Goal in German and Polish, on the basis of descriptions elicited with a series of video clips. As satellite-framed languages (Talmy 19852000), both German and Polish mainly rely on grammatical morphemes to encode Path of motion with respect to Source and Goal. Nevertheless, despite this shared typological feature, these languages also display fine morphosyntactic and semantic differences. Our study reveals that the expression of Source and Goal is more asymmetrical in German than in Polish, both in types of linguistic resources and in semantic distinctions. We show that German speakers tend to combine Path satellites with Path verbs – including both deictic satellites and deictic verbs – more frequently in Source-oriented events, depicting them with finer semantic distinctions than Goal-oriented events. In the expression of the Ground, however, they tend to make finer distinctions in the expression of Goals as compared to Sources, by using a greater variety of prepositions. Polish speakers, by contrast, tend to express Source and Goal in a more symmetrical fashion. These cross-linguistic differences are discussed in the light of language-specific characteristics and their role in the expression – symmetrical or asymmetrical – of Source and Goal.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.00016.fag
2020-12-21
2021-05-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aurnague, Michel
    2011 ‘Quittant tout, nous partîmes’: ‘quitter’ et ‘partir’ à la lumière des changements de relation locative. Journal of French Language Studies21(3). 285–312. 10.1017/S0959269511000019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269511000019 [Google Scholar]
  2. Behrens, Heike
    2010 Direction and Perspective in German Child Language. In Jiansheng Guo , Elena Lieven , Nancy Budwig , Susan Ervin-Tripp , Keiko Nakamura & Seyda Ozcaliskan (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 55–67. Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bohnemeyer, Jürgen , Nicholas J. Enfield , James Essegbey , Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano , Sotaro Kita , Friederike Lüpke & Felix K. Ameka
    2007 Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language83(3), 495–532. 10.1353/lan.2007.0116
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0116 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourdin, Philippe
    1997 On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. Proceedings of LP ’96: Typology: prototypes, item orderings and universals, proceedings of the conference held in Prague, August 20–22, 1996, 185–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. De Knop, Sabine and Françoise Gallez
    2013 Manner of motion: A privileged dimension of German expressions. In Thomas Li (ed.), Compendium of cognitive linguistics research, 25–42. Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dewell, Robert B.
    2011The meaning of particle/prefix constructions in German. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.34
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.34 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2015The semantics of German verb prefixes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.49
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.49 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dirven, René & Marjolijn Verspoor
    (eds.) 1998Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Engelen, Bernhard
    1995 Hinunter versus darunter. Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zu den Direktionaladverbien. In Ludwig M. Eichinger & Hans-Werner Eroms (eds.), Dependenz und Valenz, 243–258. Hamburg: Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fagard, Benjamin , Jordan Zlatev , Anetta Kopecka , Masimo Cerruti & Johan Blomberg
    2013 The expression of motion events: A quantitative study of six typologically varied languages. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, 364–379. 10.3765/bls.v39i1.3893
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v39i1.3893 [Google Scholar]
  11. Georgakopoulos, Thanasis
    2018 A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry: Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek. Constructions and Frames10(1). 61–97. 10.1075/cf.00011.geo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00011.geo [Google Scholar]
  12. Ikegami, Yoshihiko
    1987 ‘Source’ vs. ‘Goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In René Dirven & Günter Radden (eds), Concept of case, 122–146. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Imbert, Caroline , Colette Grinevald & Anna Sörés
    2011 Pour une catégorie de “satellite” de Trajectoire dans une approche fonctionnelle-typologique. Faits de Langues – Les Cahiers38(2). 99–116. 10.1163/19589514‑038‑02‑900000007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-038-02-900000007 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ishibashi, Miyuki
    2012 The expression of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ events in Japanese: ‘Asymmetry of Source and Goal’ revisited. InAnetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds). Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective, 253–272. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.100.17ish
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100.17ish [Google Scholar]
  15. Ishibashi, Miyuki
    2015 A field method to describe spontaneous motion events in Japanese. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society41. 197–218. 10.20354/B4414110006
    https://doi.org/10.20354/B4414110006 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ishibashi, Miyuki , Anetta Kopecka & Marine Vuillermet
    2006Trajectoire: 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]
  17. Jackendoff, Ray
    1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kopecka, Anetta
    2010 Motion events in Polish: lexicalization patterns and semantic distribution of Manner. In Viktoria Hasko & Renee Perellmuter (eds), New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion, 225–246. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.115.14kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.115.14kop [Google Scholar]
  19. 2012 Semantic granularity in the expression of placement and removal events in Polish. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective, 327–347. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.100.20kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100.20kop [Google Scholar]
  20. Kopecka, Anetta & Miyuki Ishibashi
    2011 L’(a)symétrie dans l’expression de la Source et du But : perspective translinguistique. Les Cahiers de Faits de Langues3. 131–149. 10.1163/19589514‑038‑02‑900000009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-038-02-900000009 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kopecka, Anetta & Marine Vuillermet
    . This vol. Source-Goal (a)symmetry across languages: An Introduction. Studies in Language43(3).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau
    2005 Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition96. 1–33. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau
    2012 Language and memory for motion events: origins of the asymmetry between goal and source path. Cognitive Science36(3): 517–544. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2011.01220.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01220.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Lehman, Christian
    2002 Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Second revised edition. Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt Nr. 9.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lewandowski, Wojciech
    2014 The locative alternation in verb-framed vs. satellite-framed languages: A corpus study of Spanish and Polish. Studies in Language38(4). 864–895. 10.1075/sl.38.4.08lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.08lew [Google Scholar]
  26. 2018 A typological approach of the encoding of motion events. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction, 45–74. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.296.03lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.03lew [Google Scholar]
  27. Lewandowski, Wojciech & Jaume Mateu
    2016 Thinking for translating and intra-typological variation in satellite-framed languages. Review of Cognitive Linguistics141(1). 185–208. 10.1075/rcl.14.1.08lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.1.08lew [Google Scholar]
  28. Los, Bettelou , Corrien Blom , Geert Booij , Marion Elenbaas & Ans van Kemenenade
    2012Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511998447
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511998447 [Google Scholar]
  29. Łozińska, Joanna
    2018Path and manner saliency in Polish in contrast with Russian: A cognitive linguistic study. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004360358
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004360358 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lüdeling, Anke
    2001On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Narasimhan, Bhuvana , Anetta Kopecka , Melissa Bowerman , Marianne Gullberg & Asifa Majid
    2012 Putting and taking events: A cross-linguistic perspective, In Kopecka, Anetta and Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds), Events of putting and taking, 1–18. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.100.03nar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100.03nar [Google Scholar]
  32. Nikitina, Tatiana
    2008 Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals: The case of into vs. in. In Anna Asbury , Jakub Dotlačil , Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 175–195. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.120.09nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.120.09nik [Google Scholar]
  33. Pfeifer, Wolfgang
    (dir.) 1993Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. 2nd edn.Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Regier, Thierry & Mingyu Zheng
    2007 Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science31. 705–719. 10.1080/15326900701399954
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701399954 [Google Scholar]
  35. Slobin, Dan Isaac , Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano , Anetta Kopecka & Majid Asifa
    2014 Manners of human gait: A crosslinguistic event-naming study. Cognitive Linguistics25. 701–741. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0061
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0061 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    2018 The goal bias revised: A collostructional approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association6(1). 143–166. 10.1515/gcla‑2018‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0007 [Google Scholar]
  37. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rodhe
    2004 The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), Studies in linguistic motivation, 249–267. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Stevens, Christopher M.
    2011 Grammaticalization in spatial deixis: A case study. In Irmengard Rauch , Gerald F. Carr & Robert L. Kyes (eds), On Germanic linguistics: Issues and methods, 299–313. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Svorou, Soteria
    1994The grammar of space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.25 [Google Scholar]
  40. Talmy, Leonard
    1985 Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical form. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and semantic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 36–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2000Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid
    1996An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Verkerk, Annemarie
    2017 The goal-over-source principle in European languages: Preliminary results from a parallel corpus study. In Silvia Luraghi , Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (Eds), Space in diachrony, 1–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.188.01ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.01ver [Google Scholar]
  44. Vuillermet, Marine & Anetta Kopecka
    2019 Trajectoire: a methodological tool for eliciting Path of motion. Methodological tools for linguistic description and typology. Special issue of Language, Documentation and Conservation16. 97–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wunderlich, Dieter
    1983 On the Compositionality of German Prefix Verbs. In Rainer Bäuerle , Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 452–465. 10.1515/9783110852820.452
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.452 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.00016.fag
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.00016.fag
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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