Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 3:2 (2016) ► pp.259–276
Cross-linguistic categorization of throwing events
A behavioral approach
Published online: 3 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.2.04wan
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.2.04wan
Research on cross-linguistic categorization reveals that there were universal principles constraining the categorization of motion events across languages, and variations only distributed in a limited range. However, this finding has not been widely verified across languages and semantic domains. In this paper, we will address whether the universal constraints exist in the cross-linguistic categorization of throwing events, with the data collected with a behavioral approach. We asked 79 adult native speakers of English(12 male, 17 female), Chinese(15 male, 15 female), and German(18 male, 12 female) to perform actions denoted by near-synonymous ‘throw’ verbs in their native languages. Then we coded the features of their actions and compared them across individuals and languages. The results support the finding of previous studies that event categorization is constrained across languages. In addition, the top-down approach we adopted in this study allowed us to capture the focal and extensional semantic range of each verb involved, which advanced our knowledge of event categories and different semantic representations of a class of near-synonyms.
References (29)
Aveledo, F., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2015). Second language influence on first language motion event encoding and categorization in Spanish-speaking children learning L2 English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(4), 403–420.
Beavers, J. (2011). An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics, 28(1), 1–54.
Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N.J., Essegbey, J., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Kita, S., Lüpke, F., & Ameka, F.K. (2007). Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language, 83(3), 495–532.
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(2), 225–251.
Davies, M. (2011). The corpus of contemporary American English. Retrieved from [URL]
Fifer, F.C. (1987). The adoption of bipedalism by the hominids: A new hypothesis. Human Evolution, 2(2), 135–147.
Gao, H. (2001). The physical foundation of the patterning of physical action verbs: A study of Chinese verbs. Lund, Sweden: Lund University.
Gao, H.H., Wang, H., & Nicoladis, E. (2016). The delineation of ‘throw’ verbs in Chinese: A behavioral and perceptual approach. Journal of Cognitive Science. 17(1), 95–131.
Hanson, C., & Hanson, S.J. (2005). Categorization in neuroscience: brain response to objects and events. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 119–140). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Hohenstein, J.M. (2005). Language-related motion event similarities in English-and Spanish-speaking children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6(3), 403–425.
Hovav, M.R., & Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167.
Institute for German Language. (2012). Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus [The Mannheim German Reference Corpus]. Retrieved from [URL].
Jessen, M. (2013). Semantic categories in the domain of motion verbs by adult speakers of Danish, German, and Turkish. Linguistik Online, 61(4), 57–78.
Kopecka, A. (2010). Motion events in Polish. In V. Hasko & R. Perelmutter (Eds.), New approaches to Slavic verbs of motion (pp. 225–246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Majid, A., Gullberg, M., Staden, M.V., & Bowerman, M. (2007). How similar are semantic categories in closely related languages? A comparison of cutting and breaking in four Germanic languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 179–194.
Majid, A., Boster, J.S., & Bowerman, M. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 109(2), 235–250.
Malt, B.C., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Tsuda, N., & Majid, A. (2008). Talking about walking biomechanics and the language of locomotion. Psychological Science, 19(3), 232–240.
Malt, B.C., Ameel, E., Imai, M., Gennari, S.P., Saji, N., & Majid, A. (2014). Human locomotion in languages: Constraints on moving and meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 741, 107–123.
Naigles, L.R., Eisenberg, A.R., Kako, E.T., Highter, M., & McGraw, N. (1998). Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(5), 521–549.
National Committee of Chinese Language. (2008). Lexicon of Common Words in Contemporary Chinese. Beijing: Commercial Press.
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle,‘n’roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84(2), 189–219.
. (2006). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98(3), B75–B87.
Papafragou, A., & Selimis, S. (2010). Lexical and structural biases in the acquisition of motion verbs. Language Learning and Development, 6(2), 87–115.
Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108(1), 155–184.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 31, 57–149.
. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Nicoladis, Elena & Helena Hong Gao
Gao, Helena Hong
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.