In:Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Description: Deixis, asymmetries, constructions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Benjamin Fagard
[Human Cognitive Processing 72] 2022
► pp. 95–121
Chapter 5On a few instances where deictic directionals confound expectations
Published online: 7 July 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.05bou
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.05bou
Abstract
Directional deixis (DD) is characterized by a set of properties that recur across languages, e.g. the feature of goal-orientedness and the built-in asymmetry between ventive direction and itive direction. These properties define a formal and semantic space that has a core and a periphery. DD systems that are outliers with respect to any given property or properties can be shown to support, rather than call into question, the validity of DD as a self-standing descriptive category. This requires articulating an explanatory framework that reconciles the complexity at the periphery with the simplicity of the overarching logic, i.e. the fundamental imbalance between the intrinsically conjunctive semantics of ventive markers and the disjunctive semantics of their itive counterparts.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Towards a working definition of directional deixis
- 3.Directional deixis as against other categories of deixis
- 3.1Directional deixis and positional deixis: The case of Tima
- 3.2Directional deixis and person deixis
- 4.Some design features of systems encoding directional deixis: Canonicity and exceptionality
- 4.1On the asymmetry of DD systems
- 4.2Obligatoriness and multiple exponence
- 4.3Associated motion and unrestricted applicability
- 4.4DD proper vs. endophoric anchoring
- 4.5DD and the internal temporal structure of the motion event: The case of Assiniboine
- 5.Exceptional targeting in Somali, Uduk and Gumuz
- 5.1The basics
- 5.2The challenge
- 5.3Towards an explanation: Canonical targeting vs. exceptional targeting
- 5.4An alternative explanation
- 6.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (68)
Ahland, C. A. 2012. A grammar of Northern and Southern Gumuz. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
2013. The status of Gumuz as a language isolate. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts. [URL]
Alamin, S., Schneider-Blum, G., & Dimmendaal, G. J. 2012. Finding your way in Tima. In A. Mietzner & U. Claudi (Eds.), Directionality in Grammar and Discourse: Case Studies from Africa (9–33) [Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 29]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Andersen, T. 2012. Verbal directionality and argument alternation in Dinka. In A. Mietzner & U. Claudi (Eds.), Directionality in Grammar and Discourse: Case Studies from Africa (35–53) [Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 29]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Aurnague, M. 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 Expressions (32–65) [Human Cognitive Processing 66]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Beam, M. S., & Cridland, A. E. 1970 [1956]. Uduk-English Dictionary. Khartoum: University of Khartoum (Sudan Research Unit, Faculty of Arts).
Belkadi, A. 2016. Associated motion constructions in African languages. Africana Linguistica, 22, 43–70.
Bender, L. 1997. The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay [LINCOM Handbooks in Linguistics 06]. Munich & Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
2000. Nilo-Saharan. In B. Heine & D. Nurse (Eds.), African Languages: An Introduction (43–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdin, Ph. 1997. On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In B. Palek (Ed.), Proceedings of LP’96. Typology: Prototypes, Item Ordering and Universals (Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague, Aug. 20–22, 1996) (185–218). Prague: Charles University Press.
. 1999. Deixis directionnelle et “acquis cinétique” : de ‘venir’ à ‘arriver’, à travers quelques langues. Travaux linguistiques du CerLiCO, 12, 183–203.
. 2003. On two distinct uses of go as a conjoined marker of evaluative modality. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in Contemporary English (103–127) [Topics in English Linguistics 44]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. 2006. The marking of directional deixis in Somali: How typologically idiosyncratic is it? In F. K. E. Vœltz (Ed.), Studies in African Linguistic Typology (13–41) [Typological Studies in Language 64]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2014. When come and go go necessive. In M. Devos & J. van der Wal (Eds.), ‘Come’ and ‘Go’ off the Beaten Grammaticalization Path (103–164) [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 272]. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, L-C. 1999. The grammaticalization of directed motion in Vietnamese. PhD dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Chadwick, N. 1975. A Descriptive Study of the Djingili Language. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Chelimo, A. K. 2015. Tone and tongue root [TR] as ventive morphemes in Endo-Marakwet. In A. Mietzner & A. Storch (Eds.), Nilo-Saharan – Models and Descriptions (245–254) [Nilo-Saharan 28]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Claudi, U. 2012. Who moves, and why? Somali deictic particles. In A. Mietzner & U. Claudi (Eds.), Directionality in Grammar and Discourse: Case Studies from Africa (77–89) [Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 29]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Crowley, T. 1982. The Paamese Language of Vanuatu. Canberra: Australian National University (Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies).
Cumberland, L. A. 2005. A grammar of Assiniboine: a Siouan language of the Northern Plains. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
Dimmendaal, G. J. 2003. Locatives as core constituents. In E. Shay & U. Seibert (Eds.), Motion, Direction and Location in Languages. In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier (91–109) [Typological Studies in Language 56]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2008. Language ecology and linguistic diversity on the African continent. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 840–858.
Dimmendaal, G. J., Ahland, C., Jakobi, A., & Kutsch Lojenga, C. 2019. Linguistic features and typologies in languages commonly referred to as ‘Nilo-Saharan’. In E. Wolff (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics (326–381) [Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics]. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Ch. 1975 [1971]. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Foley, W. A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea [Cambridge Language Surveys]. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Frajzyngier, Z. 1989. A Grammar of Pero [Sprache und Oralität in Afrika 4]. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
2001. A Grammar of Lele [Stanford Monographs in African Languages]. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Grinevald, C. 2011. On constructing a working typology of the expression of path. Faits de Langues, 38(2), 43–70.
Groves, T. R., Groves, G. W., & Jacobs, R. 1985. Kiribatese: An Outline Description. Canberra: Australian National University (Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies).
Guillaume, A. 2016. Associated motion in South America: typological and areal perspectives. Linguistic Typology, 20(1), 81–177.
Güldemann, T. 2018. Historical linguistics and genealogical language classification in Africa. In T. Güldemann (Ed.), The Languages and Linguistics of Africa (58–444) [The World of Linguistics 11]. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hammarström, H., Forkel, R., Haspelmath, M. & Bank, S. 2021. Glottolog 4.5. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Accessible online at [URL])
Haspelmath, M. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687.
Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D. 2010. Understanding Morphology (2nd ed.) [Understanding Language Series]. Abingdon (U.K.) & New York: Routledge.
Hayward, D. 1984. The Arbore Language: A First Investigation Including a Vocabulary [Kuschitische Sprachstudien 2]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoijer, H. 1946. Tonkawa. In C. Osgood (Ed.), Linguistic Structures of Native America (289–311) [Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6]. New York: Viking Fund.
Ikegami, Y. 1987. ‘Source’ vs. ‘goal’: A case of linguistic disymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of Case (122–146) [Studien zur englischen Grammatik 4]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Jacobsen, W. H. Jr. 1983. Typological and genetic notes on switch-reference systems in North American Indian languages. In J. Haiman & P. Munro (Eds.), Switch-Reference and Universal Grammar: Proceedings of a Symposium on Switch-Reference and Universal Grammar, Winnipeg, May 1981 (151–183) [Typological Studies in Language 2]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jungraithmayr, H. 2003. Altrilocality in Tangale and Tuareg: a common heritage feature? In E. Shay & U. Seibert (Eds.), Motion, Direction and Location in Languages. In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier (123–128) [Typological Studies in Language 56]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kabata, K. 2013. Goal-source asymmetry and crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns: a cognitive-typological approach. Language Sciences, 36, 78–89.
Kendall, M. 1975. The /-K/, /-M/ problem in Yavapai syntax. International Journal of American Linguistics, 41(1), 1–9.
Kießling, R. 2007. Space and reference in Datooga verbal morphosyntax. In D. Payne & M. Reh (Eds.), Advances in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics. Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, University of Hamburg, Aug. 22–25, 2001 (123–142) [Nilo-Saharan 22]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Killian, D. 2015. Topics in Uduk phonology and morphosyntax. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Kopecka, A., & Ishibashi, M. 2011. L’(a)symétrie dans l’expression de la Source et du But : perspective translinguistique. Faits de Langues, 38(2), 131–149.
Kutscher, S. 2011. On the expression of spatial relations in Ardeşen-Laz. Linguistic Discovery, 9(2), 49–77.
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. 2005. Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96(1), 1–33.
Lamarre, Ch. 2008. The linguistic categorization of deictic direction in Chinese – with reference to Japanese. In D. Xu (Ed.), Space in Languages of China: Cross-linguistic, Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (69–97). New York: Springer.
Lebaud, D. 1989. Veni, vidi… vici ? Éléments d’analyse en vue d’une caractérisation générale du marqueur venir. In J.-J. Franckel, A. Culioli, R. Iljic & D. Lebaud (Eds.), La Notion de prédicat (117–139). Paris: Université Paris 7 (Unité de formation et de recherches linguistiques).
Luraghi, S., Nikitina, T., & Zanchi, Ch. (Eds.), 2017. Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series 188]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Osam, E. K. A. 1994. Aspects of Akan grammar: a functional perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Otero, M. A. 2019. A historical reconstruction of the Koman language family. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Papafragou, A. 2010. Source-Goal asymmetries in motion representation: implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 34(6), 1064–1092.
Regier, T., & Zheng, M. 2007. Attention to endpoints: a cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 705–719.
Remijsen, B., Miller-Naudé, C. L., & Gilley, L. G. 2016. The morphology of Shilluk transitive verbs. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 37(2), 201–245.
Ribeiro, E. R. 2012. A grammar of Karajá. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
Ricca, D. 1993. I verbi deittici di movimento in Europa: una ricerca interlinguistica [Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Pavia 70]. Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice.
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 Expressions (68–107) [Human Cognitive Processing 66]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Septfonds, D. 1994. Le Dzadrâni : un parler pashto du Paktyâ (Afghanistan) [Travaux de l’Institut d’études iraniennes de l’Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle 15]. Leuven & Paris: Peeters.
Sophana, S. 1998. Prepositional vs. directional coverbs in Vietnamese. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal, 28, 63–83.
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 (249–267) [Cognitive Linguistics Research 28]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stolz, Th. 1992. Lokalkasussysteme: Aspekte einer strukturellen Dynamik [pro lingua 13]. Wilhelmsfeld (Germany): Gottfried Egert.
Talmy, L. 2007. Lexical typologies. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon (2nd ed.) (66–168). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tanz, Ch. 1980. Studies in the Acquisition of Deictic Terms [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 26]. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Topping, D. M. 1973. Chamorro Reference Grammar [PALI Language Texts – Micronesia]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Vogt, H. 1971. Grammaire de la langue géorgienne [Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning. Serie B: 57]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
