In:Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Description: Deixis, asymmetries, constructions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Benjamin Fagard
[Human Cognitive Processing 72] 2022
► pp. 173–185
Chapter 8Source–Goal asymmetry in German
A corpus study comparing intentional and non-intentional motion events
Published online: 7 July 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.08gus
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.08gus
Abstract
Following years of intensive research in the field of motion event representation and its encoding in language, it can be concluded that goal paths are predominantly privileged over source paths across many languages and different event types (e.g., Ikegami 1987, Lakusta and Landau 2005, Stefanowitsch and Rohde 2004, Song, this volume). This chapter has two aims: first, to cover the aspect of the granularity of lexicalization patterns encoding goal and source paths in the German language based on qualitative analysis and second, to show that in language, the factors animacy and volition are not mapped onto syntactic structures and do not directly influence the frequency of encoding goal paths. The quantitative corpus study reveals verb-specific preferences for encoding different path elements.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The granularity of lexicalization patterns in German
- 2.1The granularity of German motion verbs
- 2.2The granularity of German adpositions
- 2.3Granularity of German complex verbs
- 3.Present study: Frequency of encoding source, route and goal paths
- 3.1Research questions
- 3.2Hypotheses and operationalization
- 3.3Design
- 3.4Results and discussion
- 4.Conclusion
Acknowledgements References
References (30)
Aurnague, M. This volume. Implicit landmarks and opposite polarities in French motion predicates.
Bowerman, M. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (385–436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. 2003. Space under construction: Language-specific categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind (387–427). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dirven, R., & Vespoor, M. 2004. Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Second revised edition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Garai, K., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2002. From X to Y: The ‘complete path’ construction in Basque. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication, 23, 289–311.
Gruber, J. S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT. Cambridge: Mass.
Ihara, H., & Fujita, I. 2000. A cognitive approach to errors in case marking in Japanese agrammatism: The priority of the goal -ni over the source -kara. In A. Foolen & F. Van der Leek (Eds.), Construction in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (123–140). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ikegami, Y. 1987. ‘Source’ vs. ‘goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of case (122–146). Tübingen: Narr.
Kopecka, A. 2012. Semantic granularity of placement and removal expressions in Polish. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective (327–346). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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, 152–175.
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. 2005. Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1–33.
Lakusta, L., Muentener, P., Petrillo, L., Mullanaphy, N., & Muniz, L. 2017. Does making something move matter? Representations of goals and sources in motion events with causal sources. Cognitive Science, 41(3), 814–826.
Lester, N. A. 2015. Linguistic input overrides conceptual biases: When goals don’t matter. Cognitive Science, 1308–1313.
Nikitina, T. 2009. Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the source/goal ambiguity. Linguistics, 47, 1113–1141.
Papafragou, A. 2010. Source-goal asymmetries in motion event representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 34, 1064–1092.
Regier, Z., & Zheng, M. 2007. Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31, 705–719.
Slobin, D. I. 2005. Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified? In C. Maeder, O. Fischer & W. Herlofsky (Eds.), Outside-in, inside out: Iconicity in language and literature (307–322). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Song, J. This volume. Source-Goal asymmetry in Standard Chinese. A comparative study of spontaneous and caused motion events.
Stathi, K. 2017. Granularity effects in event descriptions: A cross-linguistic study. Poster presented at the workshop ‘Event Representations in Brain, Language, and Development’, Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 29 October 2017.
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). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1996. The windowing of attention in language. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions (235–287). New York: Clarendon Press.
Tutton, M. 2013. Granularity, space, and motion-framed location. In M. Vulchanova & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Motion encoding in language and space (149–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wnuk, E. 2016. Semantic specificity of perception verbs in Maniq. Ph. D. Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.