Ameka, F. K. and Essegbey, J.. 2013. Serialising languages: Satellite-framed, verb-framed or neither. Ghana Journal of Linguistics 2: 19–38.Google Scholar

Anderson, John M. 1973. An essay concerning aspect: Some considerations of a general character arising from the Abbe Darrigol’s analysis of the Basque verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Beavers, John, Levin, Beth and Tham, Shiao Wei. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46: 331–77.Google Scholar

Berman, R. A. and Slobin, D. I.. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Blomberg, Johan. 2014. Motion in language and experience: Actual and non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Lund: Travaux de l’Institut de linguistique de Lund 53.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2003. The unique vector constraint: The impact of direction changes on the linguistic segmentation of motion events. In van der Zee, E. and Slack, J. (eds.), Representing direction in language and space, pp. 86–110. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2010. The language-specificity of conceptual structure: Path, fictive motion, and time relations. In. Wolff, B. M. P. (ed.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience, pp. 111–37. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, J. and Caelen, M.. 2001. The ECOM clips: A stimulus for the linguistic coding of event complexity. In Levinson, S. C. and Enfield, N. J. (eds.), Manual for the field season 2001, pp. 169–76. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Eisenbeiss, Sonja and Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 2006. Ways to go: Methodological considerations in Whorfian studies on motion events. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 50: 1–20.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Enfield, Nicholas J., Essegbey, James, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide, Kita, Sotaro, Lüpke, Friederike and Ameka, Felix K.. 2007. Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language 83: 1–38.Google Scholar

Brandt, Line. 2009. Subjectivity in the act of representing: The case for subjective motion and change. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8: 573–601.Google Scholar

Cacciari, C., Bolognini, N., Senna, I., Pellicciari, M. C., Miniussi, C. and Papagno, C.. 2011. Literal, fictive and metaphorical motion sentences preserve the motion component of the verb: A TMS study. Brain and Language 119: 149–57.Google Scholar

Carroll, Mary. 2000. Representing path in language production in English and German. In Habel, C. and von Stutterheim, C. (eds.), Räumlich Konzepte und sprachlich Strukturen, pp. 97–118. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Chen, Jidong. 2012. ‘She from bookshelf take-descend-come the box’: Encoding and categorizing placement events in Mandarin. In Kopecka, and Narasimhan, (eds.), pp. 37–54.Google Scholar

Coulson, Seana and Oakley, Todd. 2005. Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1510–36.Google Scholar

Croft, William, Willem, Hollmann, Barddal, Johanna and Taoka, Chiaki. 2010. Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In Boas, H. (ed.), Contrastive studies in construction grammar, pp. 201–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 1989. Klamath stem structure in genetic and areal perspective. Paper presented at the Papers from the 1988 Hokan-Penutian languages workshop, University of Oregon.Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 2000. Argument structure of Klamath bipartite stems. In Simpson, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special session: Syntax and semantics of the indigenous languages of the Americas, pp. 15–25. Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 2009. Bipartite verbs in languages of western North America. In Filchenko, A. and Potanina, O. (eds.), Space and time in languages of various typology: Proceedings for the 25th International Conference ‘Dulson Readings’, Tomsk, 26–29 June 2008. Tomsk State Pedagogical University.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in language and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Feist, Michele I. 2010. Motion through syntactic frames. Cognition 115: 192–6.Google Scholar

Fortis, Jean-Michel and Vittrant, Alice. 2011. L’organisation syntaxique de l’expression de la trajectoire: vers une typologie des constructions. Faits de langues 3: 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaby, Alice. 2012. The Thaayorre lexicon of putting and taking. In Kopecka, and Narasimhan, (eds.), pp. 233–52.Google Scholar

Gärdenfors, Peter. 2000. Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gennari, Silvia P., Sloman, Steven A., Malt, Barbara C. and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition 83: 49–79.Google Scholar

Goddard, Cliff. 1997. The semantics of coming and going. Pragmatics 7: 147–62.Google Scholar

Goschler, Juliana and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2013. Beyond typology: The encoding of motion events across time and varieties. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Grinevald, Colette. 2011. On constructing a working typology of the expression of path. Faits de langues 3: 43–70.Google Scholar

Ibarretxe Antuñano, Iraide 2009. Path salience in motion events. In Jiansheng Guo, E. L., Budwig, Nancy, Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Nakamura, Kei and Őzçalişkan, Seyda (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, pp. 403–14. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Imbert, Caroline, Grinevald, Colette and Sörés, Anna. 2011. Pour une catégorie de satellite de Trajectoire dans une approche fonctionnelle-typologique. Faits de langues 3: 99–116.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41: 9–45.Google Scholar

Kopecka, Anetta. 2013. Describing motion events in Old and Modern French. In Goschler, J. and Stefanowitsch, A. (eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events, pp. 163–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kopecka, Anetta and Narasimhan, Bhuvana (eds.). 2012. Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. and Wilkins, David (eds.). 2006. Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Loucks, Jeff and Pederson, Eric. 2011. Linguistic and non-linguistic categorization of complex motion events. In Bohnemeyer, J. and Pederson, E. (eds.), Event representation in language, pp, 108–33. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matlock, Teenie. 2010. Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language and Cognition 2: 243–60.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 183–226.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Yo. 2003. Typologies of lexicalization patterns and event integration: Clarifications and reformulations. In Chiba, Shuji et al. (eds.), Empirical and theoretical investigations into language: A festschrift for Masaru Kajita, pp. 403–18. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Yo, Slobin, Dan I. and Akita, Kimi. 2012. A bibliography of linguistic expressions for motion events. Available online at: www.lit.kobe-u.ac.jp/~yomatsum/motionbiblio.html [Accessed May 2015].Google Scholar

Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar

Narasimhan, Bhuvana, Kopecka, Anetta, Bowerman, Melissa, Gullberg, Marianne and Majid, Asifa. 2012. Putting and taking events: A crosslinguistic perspective. In Kopecka, and Narasimhan, (eds.), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

O’Connor, Loretta. 2012. Take it up, down, and away: Encoding placement and removal in Lowland Chontal. In Kopecka, and Narasimhan, (eds.), pp. 297–326.Google Scholar

Oh, Kyung-Ju. 2009. Motion events in English and Korean fictional writings and translations. In Jiansheng Guo, E. L., Budwig, Nancy, Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Nakamura, Kei, Őzçalişkan, Seyda (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, pp. 253–62. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Özçalışkan, Şeyda and Slobin, Dan I.. 2003. Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in Turkish and English. In Özsoy, A. S., Akar, D., Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, M., Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. and Aksu-Koç, A. (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, pp. 259–70. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar

Özyürek, Asli, Kita, Sotaro, Allen, Shanley, Brown, Amanda, Furman, Reyhan and Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2008. Development of cross-linguistic variation in speech and gesture: Motion events in English and Turkish. Developmental Psychology 44: 1040–54.Google Scholar

Papahagi, Cristiana. 2011. Pour une typologie des systèmes d’adnominaux de la trajectoire. Faits de langues 3: 117–30.Google Scholar

Pederson, Eric. 2006. Tamil spatial language. In Levinson, S. and Wilkins, D. (eds.), The grammars of space, pp. 400–36. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Petersen, Jan Heegåard. 2012. How to put and take in Kalasha. In Kopecka, and Narasimhan, (eds.), pp. 349–66.Google Scholar

Piñón, Christopher J. 1993. Paths and their names. In Beals, Katharine, Cook, Gina, Kathman, David, Kita, Sotaro, Sotaro, , McCullough, Karl-Erik and Testen, David (eds.), Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 287–303. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Pourcel, Stèphanie. 2005. Relativism in the linguistic representation and cognitive conceptualisation of motion events across verb-framed and satellite-framed languages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Durham.Google Scholar

Pourcel, Stèphanie. 2010. Motion: A conceptual typology. In Evans, V. and Chilton, P. A. (eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions, pp. 419–50. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Rapold, Christian J. 2012. The encoding of placement and removal events in ǂAkhoe Haiǁom. In Kopecka, and Narasimhan, (eds.), pp. 79–98.Google Scholar

Sampaio, Wany, Sinha, Chris and Sinha, Vera Da Silva. 2009. Mixing and mapping: Motion, path, and manner in Amondawa. In Jiansheng Guo, E. L., Budwig, Nancy, Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Nakamura, Kei, Őzçalişkan, Seyda (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, pp. 427–39. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Saygin, Ayse Pinar, McCullough, Stephen, Alac, Morana and Emmorey, Karen. 2010. Modulation of BOLD response in motion-sensitive lateral temporal cortex by real and fictive motion sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22: 2480–90.Google Scholar

Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2000. Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung: A study of event categorization in an Australian language. Nijmegen: Katholieke UniversiteitGoogle Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, S. and Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol. II: Typological and contextual perspectives, pp. 219–57. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 2005. Relating narrative events in translation. In Shyldkrot, D. R. H. B. (ed.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman, pp. 115–29. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. VI: The grammar of causative constructions, pp. 43–115. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical form. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, pp. 57–149. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of human language, pp. 625–49. California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49–100.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1996. Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L. and Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and space, pp. 211–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 2007. Lexical typologies. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, pp. 66–168. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 2009. Main verb properties and equipollent framing. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K. and Özçalışkan, Ş. (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, pp. 389–402. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Timyam, Napasri and Bergen, B. K.. 2010. A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. In Boas, Hans C. (ed.), Contrastive studies in construction grammar. pp. 137–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar

Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy Ithaca. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Verkerk, Annemarie. 2014. Diachronic change in Indo-European motion event encoding. Journal of Historical Linguistics 4: 40–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verkuyl, Henk and Zwarts, Joost. 1992. Time and space in conceptual and logical semantics: the notion of path. Linguistics 30: 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Voorst, Jan. 1993. A Localist model for event semantics. Journal of Semantics 10: 65–111.Google Scholar

Wälchli, Bernhard. 2009. Motion events in parallel texts: A study in primary-data typology. Universität Bern Habilitationsschrift.Google Scholar

Wälchli, Bernhard and Sölling, Arnd. 2013. The encoding of motion events: Building typology bottom-up from text data in many languages. In Goschler, J. and Stefanowitsch, A. (eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events, pp. 77–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Warglien, Massimo, Gärdenfors, Peter and Westera, Matthijs. 2012. Event structure, conceptual spaces and the semantics of verbs. Theoretical Linguistics 38: 159–93.Google Scholar

Wilkins, David P. 2006. Towards an Arrente grammar of space. In Levinson, and Wilkins, (eds.), pp. 24–62.Google Scholar

Wilkins, David P. and Hill, Deborah. 1995. When ‘go’ means ‘come’: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6: 209–59.Google Scholar

Wunderlich, Dieter. 1991. How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics 29: 591–621.Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan, Blomberg, Johan and David, Caroline. 2010. Translocation, language and the categorization of experience. In Chilton, V. E. P. (ed.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions, pp. 389–418. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar

Zwarts, Joost. 2003. Vectors across spatial domains: from place to size, orientation, shape and parts. In van der Zee, E. and Slack, J. (eds.), Representing direction in language and space, pp. 39–68. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zwarts, Joost. 2010. Forceful prepositions. In Chilton, V. E. P. (ed.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions, pp. 193–214. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar

Zwarts, Joost. 2014. Directionele PP’s als predicaten (of niet). Nederlandse taalkunde 19(2): 255–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar