Article published In: Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp.163–171
More refined typology and design in linguistic relativity
The case of motion event encoding
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 11 April 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.15019.ber
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.15019.ber
Abstract
Linguistic relativity is the influence of language on other
realms of cognition. For instance, the way movement is expressed in a person’s
native language may influence how they perceive movement. Motion event encoding
(MEE) is usually framed as a typological dichotomy.
Path-in-verb languages tend to encode path information
within the verb (e.g., ‘leave’), whereas manner-in-verb
languages encode manner (e.g., ‘jump’). The results of MEE-based linguistic
relativity experiments range from no effect to effects on verbal and nonverbal
cognition. Seeking a more definitive conclusion, we propose linguistic and
experimental enhancements. First, we examine state-of-the-art typology,
suggesting how a recent MEE classification across twenty languages (Verkerk, A. (2014). The evolutionary dynamics of motion event encoding. Enschede: Ipskamp Drukkers. [URL]) may enable more powerful
analyses. Second, we review procedural challenges such as the influence of
verbal thought and second-guessing in experiments. To tackle these challenges,
we propose distinguishing verbal and nonverbal subgroups, and having enough
filler items. Finally we exemplify this in an experimental design.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Motion event encoding
- 3.Linguistic relativity
- 4.A novel experimental approach
- 4.1Methods
- 4.1.1Participants
- 4.1.2Materials
- 4.1.3Procedure
- 4.1.4Analysis and hypotheses
- 4.1Methods
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
References
References (15)
Bohnemeyer, J., Eisenbeiss, S., Narasimhan, B. (2006). Ways to go: Methodological considerations in Whorfian studies in motion events. Colchester: Dept. of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22.
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lucy, J. A. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Montero-Melis, G., Eisenbeiss, S., Narasimhan, B., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Kita, S., Kopecka, A., Lüpke, F., Nikitina, T., Tragel, I., Jaeger, T. F., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2017). Satellite- vs. verb-framing underpredicts nonverbal motion categorization: Insights from a large language sample and simulations. Cognitive Semantics, 3(1), 36–61.
Naigles, L., Eisenberg, A., Kako, E., Highter, M., & McGraw, N. (1998). Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(5), 521–549.
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in thought and language. Cognition, 84(2), 189–219.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2014). Lexical, syntactic, and semantic-geometric factors in the acquisition of motion predicates. Developmental Psychology, 50(7), 1985–1998.
Slobin, D. I. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 435–445). Berkeley University of California.
(1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thomspon (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
(2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann, & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 59–81). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 480–519). Berkeley University of California.
Trueswell, J., & Papafragou, A. (2010). Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(1), 64–82.
Verkerk, A. (2014). The evolutionary dynamics of motion event encoding. Enschede: Ipskamp Drukkers. [URL]
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Savvateeva, Irina Anatolevna
Zaychenko, Katharina
2022. Grammatical and cognitive factors shaping the conceptualization of motion events. Languages in Contrast 22:1 ► pp. 136 ff.
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.