Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 10:1 (2018) ► pp.61–97
A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry
Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek
Published online: 30 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00011.geo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00011.geo
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 paths compared to Source ones; (b) the frame that a verb
belongs to affects the type of path chosen only to a certain degree that does not change the Source-Goal imbalance; (c)
semantically incongruent motion verb – path 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Expression of Source and Goal in Ancient Greek
- 3.Methodology: Data and corpus
- 4.Corpus analysis
- 4.1Corpus analysis I: Neutral verbs with respect to directionality
- 4.1.1Classification
- 4.1.2Hypothesis and analysis
- 4.2Corpus analysis II: Manner verbs
- 4.2.1Classification
- 4.2.2Hypothesis and analysis
- 4.3Corpus analysis III: Directional verbs
- 4.3.1Classification
- 4.3.2Hypotheses and analysis
- 4.4The Ancient Greek motion events frequency continuum
- 4.1Corpus analysis I: Neutral verbs with respect to directionality
- 5.Asymmetries in the inventories for the denotation of Goals and Sources
- 6.Discussion and conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (81)
Atkins, S., Fillmore, J. C., & Johnson, R. C. (2003). Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from corpus evidence. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 251–280.
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, W. S. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Linguistics, 461, 331–377.
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.
Bortone, P. (2010). Greek prepositions. From antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. 91 (pp. 10–18). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
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.
Filipović, L. (2007). Talking about motion: A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, J. C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–254.
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.
Fillmore, J. C., & Petruck, M. R. L. (2003). Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250.
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.
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, 31, 71–98.
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.
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.
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, 31, 105–122.
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).
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.
Gehrke, B. (2008). Ps in motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events. (Doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
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.
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.
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.
Horrocks, G., & Stavrou, M. (2007). Grammaticalized aspect and spatio-temporal culmination. Lingua, 1171, 605–644.
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.
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.
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.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
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.
Kabata, K. (2013). Goal–source asymmetry and crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns: a cognitive-typological approach. Language Sciences, 361, 78–89.
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.
Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B. (Eds.). (2012). Events of putting and taking. A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2005). Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96(1), 1–33.
(2012). Language and memory for motion events: Origins of the asymmetry between source and goal paths. Cognitive Science, 36(3), 517–544.
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.
Landau, B., & Zukowski, A. (2003). Objects, motions and paths: Spatial language in children with Williams Syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology, 231, 107–139.
Létoublon, F. (1985). Il allait, pareil a la nuit: Les verbes de mouvement en grec: suppletisme et aspect verbal. Paris: Klincksieck.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.
Luraghi, S. (2003). On the meaning of prepositions and cases. The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Luraghi, S., Nikitina, T., & Zanchi, C. (Eds.). (2017). Space in diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mackenzie, J. L. (1978). Ablative-locative transfers and their relevance for the theory of case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 141, 129–375.
Mandler, M. J., & Pagan Canovas, C. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 61, 510–532.
Nam, S. (2004). Goal and source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation
. Leipzig, Germany. Paper retrieved from [URL]
Napoli, M. (2006). Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek: A contrastive analysis. Milan: Franco Angeli.
Nikitina, T. (2009). Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the source/goal ambiguity. Linguistics, 47(5), 1113–1141.
(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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 241 (Vol. II1), 558–570. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Pantcheva, M. (2010). The syntactic structure of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics, 48(5), 1043–1081.
Papafragou, A. (2010). Source-Goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 341, 1064–1092.
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.
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.
Regier, T., & Zheng, M. (2007). Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 705–719.
Rice, S., & Kabata, K. (2007). Crosslinguistic grammaticalisation patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology, 11(3), 451–514.
Schwyzer, E., & Debrunner, A. (1939). Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik, Erster band1: Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. München: CH. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Skopeteas, S. (2002). Lokale Konstruktionen im Griechischen: Sprachwandel in funktionaler Sicht (Doctoral dissertation). University of Erfurt, Germany.
(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.
(2008b). Encoding spatial relations: Language typology and diachronic change in Greek. Language Typology and Universals, 61(1), 54–66.
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.
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.
Stolz, T. (1992). Simple vs. complex local relators. In T. Müller-Bardey & D. Werner (Eds.), Aspekte der Lokalisation (pp. 201–220). Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Stolz, T., Lestrade, S., & Stolz, C. (2014). The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Stolz, T., Levkovych, N., Urdze, A., & Nintemann, J. (2017). Spatial interrogatives in Europe and beyond. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Svorou, S. (1994). The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(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.
Taylor, R. J. (1995). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory (Rev. edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verkerk, A. (2014). The evolutionary dynamics of motion event encoding (Doctoral dissertation). Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wälchli, B. (2006). Lexicalization patterns in motion events revisited. Unpublished manuscript, University of Konstanz, Germany.
Yates, A. (2014). Homeric ΒΗ Δ’ ΙΕΝΑΙ: A Serial Verb Construction in Greek?. Paper presented at the 145th Annual Meetings of the American Philological Association
. Chicago, IL. Paper retrieved from [URL]
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.
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
Koenig, Ekkehard
Taremaa, Piia & Anetta Kopecka
De Pasquale, Noemi
De Pasquale, Noemi
Fagard, Benjamin & Anetta Kopecka
Kopecka, Anetta & Marine Vuillermet
Panova, Anastasia & Tatiana Philippova
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1 ► pp. 27 ff.
Inglese, Guglielmo & Chiara Zanchi
Law, James
Law, James
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
