image of Source-Goal (a)symmetry in Romanian
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



According to , 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 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 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arias Oliveira, Roberto Carlos
    2012Boundary-crossing: Eine Untersuchung zum Deutschen, Französischen und Spanischen. München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aurnague, Michel
    2011 How motion verbs are spatial: The spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes34(1). 1–34. 10.1075/li.34.1.01aur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.34.1.01aur [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. Language83(3). 495–532. 10.1353/lan.2007.0116
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0116 [Google Scholar]
  4. Borillo, Andrée
    1998L’espace et son expression en français. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bourdin, Philippe
    1997 On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. InPalek, 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]
  6. Creissels, Denis
    2006 Encoding the distinction between location, source, and destination: A typological study. InMaya Hickmann & Robert, Stéphane (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 19–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.66.03cre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.03cre [Google Scholar]
  7. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1971/75Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 1972 How to know whether you’re coming or going. InKarl Hyldgaard-Jensen (ed.) Linguistik 1971: Referate des 6. Linguistischen Kolloquiums 11.–14. August 1971 in Kopenhagen, 369–379. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hamp, Paul
    1967 [1888] Die zusammengesetzten Präpositionen im Lateinischen. Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und GrammatikV. 321–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hottenroth, Priska-Monika
    1993 Prepositions and object concepts: A contribution to cognitive semantics. InCornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.). The Semantics of prepositions. From mental processing to natural language processing, 179–219. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872576.179
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.179 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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. InSilvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.). Space in diachrony, 95–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.188.04iac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.04iac [Google Scholar]
  12. Ikegami, Yoshihiko
    1987 Source vs. Goal: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. InRené Dirven & Günter Radden (eds.). Concepts of case, 122–146. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ilinski, Kirill
    2003La préposition et son régime. Étude des cas atypiques. Paris: H. Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Ishibashi, Miyuki
    2012 The expression of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ events in Japanese: The 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]
  16. Jackendoff, Ray
    1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kopecka, Anetta
    2009 L’expression du déplacement en français: l’interaction des facteurs sémantiques, aspectuels et pragmatiques dans la construction du sens spatial. Langages173. 54–75. 10.3917/lang.173.0054
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.173.0054 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1991Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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 Processes13(5). 521–549. 10.1080/016909698386429
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386429 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nichols, Johanna
    1992Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. O’Connor, Loretta
    2012 Take it up, down, and away: Encoding placement and removal in Lowland Chontal. InAnetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.). Events of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’: A crosslinguistic perspective, 297–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.100.19oco
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100.19oco [Google Scholar]
  24. Özçalișkan, Șeyda
    2013 Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Applied Psycholinguistics36(2). 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Papahagi, Cristiana
    2015Les prépositions de la trajectoire en français et en roumain. Cluj: Casa Cărții de Știință.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Pléh, Csaba
    1998 Early spatial case markers in Hungarian children. InKaren 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]
  27. Sinha, Chris & Tania Kuteva
    1995 Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics18. 167–199. 10.1017/S0332586500000159
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500000159 [Google Scholar]
  28. Slobin, Dan
    1997 Mind, code, and text. InJoan L. Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Essays on language function and language type, 437–467. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.82.24slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.24slo [Google Scholar]
  29. Slobin, Dan. & Nini Hoiting
    1994 Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. InRichard 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]
  30. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde
    2004 The Goal bias in the encoding of motion events. InGünter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.). Studies in linguistic motivation, 249–267. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Talmy, Leonard
    2000Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol.1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2008 Lexical typologies. InTimothy Shopen (ed.). Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 66–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid
    1996An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Vandeloise, Claude
    1987 La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation. Langue française76. 77–111. 10.3406/lfr.1987.4732
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1987.4732 [Google Scholar]
  35. Verspoor, Marjolijn, René Dirven & Günter Radden
    1999 Putting concepts together: Syntax. InRené Dirven & Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics, 79–105. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.1 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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 Universalienforschung59(3). 284–303. 10.1524/stuf.2006.59.3.284
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2006.59.3.284 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: boundary crossing; adposition; Source-Goal asymmetry; Romanian; motion
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