Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-zzw9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T18:01:53.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical constraints and verb-framed languages: The case of Italian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Filippo-Enrico Cardini
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the literature on motion events, a lot of previous research can be found on the contrast between the typology of expression favoured by so-called ‘verb-framed languages’ and that favoured by so-called ‘satellite-framed languages.’ Only some of this previous research, however, has focused its attention on the reasons that ultimately bring about such contrasting fashions of speaking. The present study explores this issue in some depth by trying to identify what specific grammatical constraints lead Italian speakers to be shy of the use of manner verbs in the expression of motion events (at least when compared with speakers of a typical satellite-framed language such as English). The outcome of an interpretation task and a grammatical judgement task conducted with some Italian native speakers suggests that this phenomenon ultimately originates from features exhibited by the Italian system of spatial prepositions, as well as from features exhibited by a certain kind of Italian manner verbs. The constraints caused by the verbs appear to be particularly significant.

Keywords

Italianmanner of motion verbsspatial prepositionssemanticspragmatics

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 167 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alonge, A. 1997. Semantica lessicale e proprietà sintattiche dei verbi di movimento italiani: Analisi dei dati acquisiti da dizionari di macchina e da un corpus testuale computerizzato. Atti del III Convegno della Società Internazionale di Linguistica di Filologia Italiana. 31–63.Google Scholar
Aske, J. 1989. Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 15. 1–14.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A. 2005. Translating phrasal combinations across the typological divide. In Bertuccelli, M. Papi (ed.), Studies in the semantics of lexical combinatory patterns, 487–519. Pisa: Pisa University Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B. & Tham, S. W.. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46. 331–377.Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1958. Words and things. Glencoe, IL.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cardini, F.-E. 2008. Manner of motion saliency: An inquiry into Italian. Cognitive Linguistics 19(4). 533–570.Google Scholar
Cardini, F.-E. 2009. Testing linguistic relativity: A comparison between English and Italian in the domain of manner of motion. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Cardini, F.-E. 2010. Evidence against Whorfian effects in motion conceptualisation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(5). 1442–1459.Google Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollman, W., Sotirova, V. & Taoka, C.. 2010. Revising Talmy's typological classification of complex event constructions. In Boas, H. C. (ed.), Contrastive studies in construction grammar, 201–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cummins, S. 1996. Movement and direction in French and English. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 31–54.Google Scholar
Dukhovny, E. & Kaushanskaya, M.. 1998. Russian verbs of motion. Unpublished paper. Berkeley: University of California, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A. 2007. The Exhaustive Lexicalisation Principle. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 34(2). 165–199.Google Scholar
Folli, R. & Ramchand, G.. 2005. Prepositions and results in Italian and English: An analysis from event decomposition. In Verkuyl, H., de Swart, H. & van Hout, A. (eds.), Perspectives on aspect, 81–105. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hottenroth, P.-M. 1985. Die italienischen Ortsadverbien. In Schwarze, C. (ed.), Bausteine für eine italienische Grammatik (Volume 2), 385–462. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Jovanović, J. & Kentfield, M.. 1998. Manifold manner: An exploratory analysis of French and English verbs of motion. Unpublished paper. Berkeley: University of California, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A. 2009. L'expresssion du déplacement en français: L'interaction des facteurs sémantiques, aspectuels et pragmatiques dans la construction du sens spatial. Langages 173. 54–77.Google Scholar
Levin, B., Beavers, J. & Tham, S. W.. 2009. Manner of motion roots across languages: Same or different?. Workshop on Roots. Universität Stuttgart. http://www.stanford.edu/~bclevin/stutt09mot.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2012).Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R., Eisenberg, A. R., Kako, E. T., Highter, M. & McGraw, N.. 1998. Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes 13. 521–549.Google Scholar
Nikitina, T. 2008. Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals: The case of into vs. in. In Asbury, A., Dotlačil, J., Gehrke, B. & Nouwen, R. (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 175–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Massey, C. & Gleitman, L.. 2002. Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition 84. 189–219.Google Scholar
Pourcel, S. 2010. Motion: A conceptual typology. In Evans, V. & Chilton, P. (eds.), Language, cognition, and space: The state of the art and new directions, 419–450. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Rohde, A. 2001. Analyzing path: The interplay of verbs, prepositions and constructional semantics. Houston, TX: Rice University dissertation.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2003. Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Medow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 157–191. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (eds.), Relating events in narrative (Volume 2: Typological and contextual perspectives), 219–257. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. & Hoiting, N.. 1994. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 487–505.Google Scholar
Son, M. 2007. Directionality and resultativity: The cross-linguistic correlation revisited. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 34(2). 126–164.Google Scholar
Song, G. 1997. Cross-linguistic differences in the expression of motion events and their implications for second language acquisition. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
Stringer, D. 2003. Acquisitional evidence for a universal syntax of directional PPs. In Saint-Dizier, P. (ed.), Proceedings of the ACL-SIGSEM workshop on the linguistic dimensions of prepositions and their use in computational linguistics formalisms and applications, 44–55. Toulouse: IRIT.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and lexical description (Volume 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon), 36–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 17. 480–519.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. 1991. Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J. & David, C.. 2010. Translocation, language and the categorization of experience. In Evans, V. & Chilton, P. (eds.), Language, cognition, and space: The state of the art and new directions, 389–418. London: Equinox.Google Scholar