In:Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Description: Deixis, asymmetries, constructions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Benjamin Fagard
[Human Cognitive Processing 72] 2022
► pp. 1–21
Chapter 1Introduction: The description of motion events
On deixis, asymmetries and constructions
Published online: 7 July 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.01sar
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.01sar
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Motion and deixis
- 3.Motion and asymmetries
- 4.Motion and constructions
Notes References
References (94)
Anderson, J. M. 1971. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, S. & Keenan, E. L. 1985. Deixis. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (259–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aurnague, M. 2011. How motion verbs are spatial: the spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 34(1), 1–34.
2019. About asymmetry of motion in French. In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression (32–65). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Beavers, J., B. Levin & S. W. Tham. 2010. The Typology of Motion Expression Revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46(3), 331–377.
Bourdin, P. 1997. On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In Bohumil Palek (ed.) Proceedings of LP’96. Typology: Prototypes, Item Ordering and Universals, 185–218. Prague: Charles University Press.
2005. The marking of directional deixis in Somali. Studies in African linguistic typology, 64, 13–41.
Bowerman, M. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: a crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (385–436). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT 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 Volume 9 (10–24). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Bühler, K. 1982 [1934]. Sprachtheorie: die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Casasanto, D. & Boroditsky, L. 2008. Time in the Mind: Using Space to Think about Time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593.
Corballis, M. C. 2010. Mirror neurons and the evolution of language. Brain and language, 112(1), 25–35.
Cornish, F. 1999. Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2007. English Demonstratives: Discourse Deixis and Anaphora. A Discourse-Pragmatic Account. In R. A. Nilsen, N. Aba Appiah Amfo and K. Borthen (Eds.), Interpreting Utterances; Pragmatics and its Interfaces. Essays in Honour of Thorstein Fretheim, (pp. 147–166). Oslo: Novus Press.
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2010. Relativity, linguistic variation and language universals. CogniTextes. Revue de l’Association française de linguistique cognitive, 4.
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V. & Taoka, C. 2010. Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (201–235). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Denny, J. P. 1978. Locating the universals in lexical systems for spatial deixis. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen & K. W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon (71–84). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
1985. Was ist universal am raumdeiktischen Lexikon? In H. Schweizer (Ed.), Sprache und Raum (111–130). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag.
Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives. Form, function and grammaticlization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2012. Buehler’s two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. In T. Breban, L. Brems, K. Davidse & T. Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and Language Change: New reflections, (35–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, C. 1971. Santa Cruz Deixis Lectures. [[URL]].
Fortis, J.-M. 2010. De l’hypothèse de Sapir-Whorf au prototype : sources et genèse de la théorie d’Eleanor Rosch. Corela, 8(2).
2014. Sapir’s form-feeling and its aesthetic background, History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences. [URL].
Givón, T. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”, 4(3), 333–377.
Goddard, C. 2003a. ‘Thinking’ across languages and cultures: Six dimensions of variation. Cognitive Linguistics, 14(2/3), 109–140.
2003b. Whorf meets Wierzbicka: Variation and universals in language and thinking. Language Sciences, 25(4), 393–432.
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J. J., Levinson, S. C. 1996. Rethinking Linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, M. 1997. From space to time. Temporal adverbials in the world’s languages. (LINCOM studies in theoretical linguistics 3). München/Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.
2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687.
Hickmann, M. 2010. Linguistic relativity in first language acquisition. Language Acquisition across Linguistic and Cognitive Systems. Amsterdam, 125–146.
Hill, J. H. & Mannheim, B. 1992. Language and World View. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 381–406.
Himmelmann, N. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (205–254). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hjelmslev, L. 1935–1937 [1972]. La catégorie des cas. Copenhagen: Universitetsforlager I Aarhus [reprinted in La catégorie des cas, München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1972].
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2009. Path salience in motion events. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura & Ş. Özçalışkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 403–414. New York: Psychology Press.
Ihara, H. & Fujita, I. 2000. A cognitive approach to errors in case marking in Japanese agrammatism: The priority of goal-ni over the source-kara. In A. Foolen & F. Van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997 (123–140). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ikegami, Y. 1984. ‘Source’ vs ‘Goal’: a case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of Case (122–146). Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.
Ishibashi, M., Kopecka, A., & Vuillermet, M. (2006). Trajectoire: Matériel visuel pour élicitation des données linguistiques. Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage, CNRS / Université Lyon 2. Projet de Fédération de recherche en Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques. [URL]
Kopecka, A. & Ishibashi, M. 2011. L’(a)symétrie dans l’expression de la Source et du But : perspective translinguistique. Les Cahiers de Faits de Langues, 3, 131–149.
Kopecka, A. & Vuillermet, M. (eds). 2021. Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages – Special issue of Studies in Language, 45(1).
Kryk-Kastovsky, B. 1996. The linguistic, cognitive and cultural variables of the conceptualization of space. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (329–344). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought, New York, Basic Books.
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. 2005. Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96–1, 1–33.
Lakusta, L., Wagner, L., O’Hearn, K., & Landau, B. 2007. Conceptual Foundations of Spatial Language: Evidence for a Goal Bias in Infants. Language Learning and Development, 3, 179–197.
Lakusta, L. & Landau, B. L. 2012. Language and Memory for Motion Events: Origins of the Asymmetry Between Source and Goal Paths. Cognitive Science 36, 517–544.
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. 2013. Lexicalized Meaning and Manner/Result Complementarity. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke & R. Marín (Eds.), Subatomic Semantics of Event Predicates (49–70). Dordrecht: Springer.
2019. Lexicalization Patterns. In R. Truswell (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Event Structure (395–425). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Marchello-Nizia, C. 2006. From personal deixis to spatial deixis. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: linguistic systems and cognitive categories (103–120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matsumoto, Y. 2003. Typologies of lexicalization patterns and event integration: clarifications and reformulations. In S. Chiba et al. (Eds.), Empirical and theoretical investigations into language: a festschrift for Masaru Kajita (403–418). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Michelsen, C. 1843. Philosophie der Grammatik: Kasuslehre der lateinischen Sprache. Berlin: T. Trautwein.
Nam, S. 2004. Goal and source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Event Structure, Leipzig, Germany, March 2004.
Ozga, J. 1996. Prosodic and paralinguistic signals of distance. In Martin Pütz & René Dirven (eds), The Construal of Space in Language and Thought, Berlin / New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 63–71.
Pajusalu, R. 2006. Death of a Demonstrative: Person and Time – The Case of Estonian too. Linguistica Uralica, 4, 241–253.
Papafragou, A. 2010. Source-goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive science, 34(6), 1064–1092.
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. 2010. Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity. In E. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure (21–38). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Regier, T., & Xu, Y. 2017. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and inference under uncertainty. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(6), e1440.
Regier, T., & Zheng, M. 2007. Attention to endpoints: a cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 705–719.
Ricca, D. 1993. I verbi deittici di movimento in Europa: una ricerca interlinguistica. Florence: La Nuova Italia.
Sarda, L. 2019. French motion verbs – Insights into the status of locative PPs. In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression (68–107). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schultze-Berndt, E. 2000. Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung. A study of event categorisation in an Australian language. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.
Senft, G. (Ed.). 1997. Referring to space. Studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Slobin, D. I. 1994. The many ways to search for a frog, Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study (219–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2004. The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narratives, vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (219–257). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. [URL]
2008. From S-language and V-language to PIN and PIV. Paper presented at the workshop Human Locomotion across Languages, Nijmegen, 06 June 2008.
2017. Typologies and language use. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and Space across Languages. Theory and Applications (419–446). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A. 2018. The goal bias revisited: A collostructional approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6(1), 143–166.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Rodhe, A. 2004. The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation (249–267). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2019. Manner as a cluster concept: What does lexical coding of manner of motion tell us about manner? In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression (142–177). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Subbiondo, J. L. 2005. Benjamin Lee Whorf’s theory of language, culture, and consciousness: A critique of western science. Language & Communication, 25, 149–159.
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (57–143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2017. Past, present, and future of motion research. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and Space across Languages. Theory and Applications (1–12). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ungerer, F., & Schmidt, H. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.
Verspoor, M. H., Dirven, R. & Radden, G. 1997. Putting concepts together: syntax. In R. Dirven & M. H. Verspoor (Eds.), Introduction to Language and Linguistics: A Cognitive Approach (89–116). Duisburg: Gerhard-Mercator-Universität/Gesamthochschule.
Wälchli, B. (2001). A typology of displacement (with special reference to Latvian). Sprachtypologie Und Universalienforschung (STUF), 54(3), 298–323.
Weissenborn, J., & Klein, W. 1982. Here and There: Crosslinguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.
