Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-jhrpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T13:17:39.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The typology of motion expressions revisited1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2009

JOHN BEAVERS ,
BETH LEVIN  and
SHIAO WEI THAM
JOHN BEAVERS*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin
BETH LEVIN*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University
SHIAO WEI THAM*
Affiliation:
Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, Wellesley College
*
Authors' addresses: Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, B5100, Austin, TX 78712-0198, USAjbeavers@mail.utexas.edu
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2150, USAbclevin@stanford.edu
Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02481-8203, USAstham@wellesley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides a new perspective on the options available to languages for encoding directed motion events. Talmy (2000) introduces an influential two-way typology, proposing that languages adopt either verb- or satellite-framed encoding of motion events. This typology is augmented by Slobin (2004b) and Zlatev & Yangklang (2004) with a third class of equipollently-framed languages. We propose that the observed options can instead be attributed to: (i) the motion-independent morphological, lexical, and syntactic resources languages make available for encoding manner and path of motion, (ii) the role of the verb as the single clause-obligatory lexical category that can encode either manner or path, and (iii) extra-grammatical factors that yield preferences for certain options. Our approach accommodates the growing recognition that most languages straddle more than one of the previously proposed typological categories: a language may show both verb- and satellite-framed patterns, or if it allows equipollent-framing, even all three patterns. We further show that even purported verb-framed languages may not only allow but actually prefer satellite-framed patterns when appropriate contextual support is available, a situation unexpected if a two- or three-way typology is assumed. Finally, we explain the appeal of previously proposed two- and three-way typologies: they capture the encoding options predicted to be preferred once certain external factors are recognized, including complexity of expression and biases in lexical inventories.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , July 2010 , pp. 331 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Footnotes

[1]

This work was supported in part by NSF Small Grant for Exploratory Research BCS-0004437 to Beth Levin. We have benefited from the comments of two anonymous JL reviewers, and we also thank Jürgen Bohnemeyer, Marc Ettlinger, Itamar Francez, Hyun Jong Hahm, Hayriye Kayi, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Ulia Lierler, Jean-Philippe Marcotte, Tatiana Nikitina, Peter Sells, Dan Slobin, Judith Tonhauser, Kiyoko Uchiyama, and Stephen Wechsler for discussion, suggestions, and comments, as well as audiences at the Stanford Diversity in Language Workshop, the 2006 LSA Annual Meeting, the Stanford Semantics Fest, and Trinity University. We are grateful to Malka Rappaport Hovav and Maria Polinsky for helpful discussion at earlier stages of this research. Finally, we thank Grace Song, whose earlier work with Beth Levin (Song & Levin 1998) was a direct precursor of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Allen, Shanley, Özyürek, Aslı, Kita, Sotaro, Brown, Amanda, Furman, Reyhan, Ishizuka, Tomoko & Fujii, Mihoko. 2007. Language-specific and universal influence in children's syntactic packaging of manner and path: A comparison of English, Japanese, and Turkish. Cognition 102, 16–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alonge, Antonietta. 1997. Semantica lessicale e proprietà sintattiche dei verbi di movimento italiani: analisi di dati acquisiti da dizionari di macchina e da un corpus testuale computerizzato. In Agostiniani, Luciano, Bonucci, Paola, Giannecchini, Giulio, Lorenzi, Franco & Reali, Luisella (eds.), Atti del III convegno della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, 31–63. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix K. & Essegbey, James. In press. Serialising languages: Satellite-framed, verb-framed or neither. In Hyman, Larry & Maddieson, Ian (eds.), African comparative and historical linguistics: 32nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Lawrenceville, NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 1971. The grammar of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asbury, Anna, Dotlačil, Jakub, Gehrke, Berit & Nouwen, Rick (eds.). 2008a. Syntax and semantics of spatial P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asbury, Anna, Gehrke, Berit, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Joost. 2008b. Introduction: Syntax and semantics of spatial P. In Asbury, et al. (eds.), 1–32.Google Scholar
Aske, Jon. 1989. Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 15, 1–14.Google Scholar
Baicchi, Annalisa. 2005. Translating phrasal combinations across the typological divide. In Papi, Marcella Bertuccelli (ed.), Studies in the semantics of lexical combinatory patterns, 487–519. Pisa: Pisa University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 513–553.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2002. Aspect and the distribution of prepositional resultative phrases in English (LinGO Working Paper #2002-7). Stanford, CA: CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2006. Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2008a. On the nature of goal marking and delimitation: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2008b. Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In Dölling, Johannes, Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana & Schäfer, Martin (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 245–265. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2009a. Predicting argument realization from oblique semantics. In Campos, Hector, Lardiere, Donna & Leow, Ron (eds.), Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and acquisition, 121–130. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2009b. Multiple incremental themes and figure/path relations. In Friedman, Tova & Ito, Satoshi (eds.), SALT XVIII, 90–107. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bergh, Lars. 1940. L'idée de direction exprimée par un adverbe ou par une préposition en suédois, par un verbe et une préposition en français. Studia Neophilologica 12, 66–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Folli, Raffaella. 2004. Goals of motion in Afrikaans. In Courzet, Olivier, Demirdache, Hamida & Wauguier-Gravelines, Sophie (eds.), Journées d'ètudes linguistiques 2004, 19–26. Nantes: UFR Lettres et Langages, Université de Nantes.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Enfield, Nicholas J., Essegbey, James, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide, Kita, Sotaro, Lüpke, Friederike & Ameka, Felix K.. 2007. Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language 83, 495–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The semantics of syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Liang. 2007. The acquisition and use of motion event expressions in Chinese. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Chen, Liang & Guo, Jiansheng. 2009. Motion events in Chinese novels: Evidence for an equipollently-framed language. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1749–1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Soonja & Bowerman, Melissa. 1991. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41, 83–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, Desmond T. 1955. An introduction to Tswana grammar. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1997. Argument sharing in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 461–497.Google Scholar
Croft, William, Barðdal, Jóhanna, Hollmann, Willem, Sotirova, Violeta & Taoka, Chiaki. In press. Revising Talmy's typological classification of complex events. In Boas, Hans (ed.), Contrastive construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Crowley, T. 1987. Serial verbs in Paamese. Studies in Language 11, 35–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Sarah. 1996. Movement and direction in French and English. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 31–54.Google Scholar
Cummins, Sarah. 1998. Le mouvement directionnel dans une perspective d'analyse monosémique. Langues et Linguistique 24, 47–66.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat & Cappelle, Bert. 2005. Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 889–917.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2000. The universal basis of case. Logos and Language 1, 1–15.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Location and direction in Klamath. In Shay, Erin & Seibert, Uwe (eds.), Motion, direction and location in language, 59–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2005. Adpositions as a non-universal category. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt (ed.), Linguistic diversity and language theories, 185–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. Ms., CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Dini, Luca & Tomaso, Vittorio Di. 1995. Linking theory and lexical ambiguity: The case of Italian motion verbs. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica 9, 161–169. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1997. Grammatical structures in verb serialization. In Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan & Sells, Peter (eds.), Complex predicates, 289–354. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1972. Evidence that indirect-object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8, 546–561.Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio. 2007. The Exhaustive Lexicalisation Principle. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 34.2, 165–199. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/ (13 October 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, Luna. 2007. Talking about motion: A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Olson, Mike. 1985. Clausehood and verb serialization. In Nichols, Johanna & Woodbury, Anthony C. (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field, 17–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella. 2008. Complex PPs in Italian. In Asbury, et al. (eds.), 197–220.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2006. On the licensing of causatives of directed motion: Waltzing Matilda all over. Studia Linguistica 60, 121–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Ramchand, Gillian. 2005. Prepositions and results in Italian and English: An analysis from event decomposition. In Verkuyl, Henk, de Swart, Henriëtte & Hout, Angeliek van (eds.), Perspectives on aspect, 81–105. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, Vivienne. 1997. The order of things: What directional locatives denote. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fong, Vivienne. 2003. Resultatives and depictives in Finnish. In Nelson, Diane & Manninen, Satu (eds.), Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics: Case, features, and constraints, 201–233. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gaines, Richard. 2001. On the typology of directional verbs in Bantu. In Botne, Robert & Vondrasek, Rose (eds.), Explorations in African linguistics: From Lamnso' to Sesotho (Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics 3), 25–35. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit. 2007. Putting path in place. In Puig-Waldmüller, Estela (ed.), Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 244–260. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit. 2008. Ps in motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events. LOT Dissertation Series, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. In press. Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. In Rappaport Hovav et al. (eds.).Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1973. A syntactic syncretism in English and French. In Kachru, Braj B., Lees, Robert B., Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina & Saporta, Sol (eds.), Issues in linguistics, 257–278. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Reprinted as part of Lexical structures in syntax and semantics, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976.]Google Scholar
Guevara, Emiliano & Scalise, Sergio. 2009. Searching for universals in compounding. In Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta & Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.), Universals of language today, 101–128. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1997. The limits of argument structure. In Mendikoetxea, Amaya & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam (eds.), Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, 203–230. Bilbao: Universidad de País Vasco, Euskal Herriko Universitatea.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 73–118.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1997. If you have, you can give. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 15, 193–207.Google Scholar
Harrison, Sheldon P. 1976. Mokilese reference grammar. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Kennedy, Christopher & Levin, Beth. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In Matthews, Tanya & Strolovitch, Devon (eds.), SALT IX, 127–144. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.Google Scholar
Hickmann, Maya & Robert, Stéphane (eds.). 2006. Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 2000. Accomplishments. GLOW in Asia II, 72–82. Nagoya: Nanzan University.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1995. To have to be dative. In Haider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan & Vikner, Sten (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, 119–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1998. Small clause results. Lingua 74, 101–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, Claudio & Masini, Francesca. 2006. The emergence of verb–particle constructions in Italian locative and actional meanings. Morphology 16, 155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2004a. Dicotomias frente a continuos en la lexicalización de los eventos de movimiento. Revista Española de Lingüística 34, 481–510.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2004b. Language typologies in our language use: The case of Basque motion events in adult oral narratives. Cognitive Linguistics 15, 317–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Im, Sung-Chool. 2000. Lexicalization patterns of motion verbs in Korean. In Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 2000, 253–264.Google Scholar
Im, Sung-Chool. 2001. Typological patterns of motion verbs in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, The University at Buffalo, State University of New York.Google Scholar
Israeli, Alina. 2004. Case choice in placement verbs in Russian. Glossos 5, 1–54.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1973. The base rules for prepositional phrases. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 345–356. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jo, In-Hee. 1990. Multi-verb constructions in Korean. In Joseph, & Zwicky, (eds.), 265–287.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael A. 1983. Speculations on the expression of movement in French. In Durand, Jacques (ed.), A Festschrift for Peter Wexler (Occasional Papers 27), 165–194. Colchester: University of Essex Language Centre.Google Scholar
Jones, Michael A. 1996. Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.). 1990. When verbs collide: 1990 Ohio State Mini-conference on Serial Verbs (Working Papers in Linguistics 39). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1983. Finnish grammar. Helsinki: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö.Google Scholar
Kim, Young-Joo. 1997. Verb lexicalization patterns in Korean – with focus on motion conflation in complex verb constructions. In Sohn, Ho-Min & Haig, John (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 6, 495–511. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2006. On the typology of state/change of state alternations. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005, 83–117. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew & Beavers, John. 2009. Is there a manner/result complementarity in verbal roots? Presented at Roots: Word Formation from the Perspective of ‘Core Lexical Elements’, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. In Koopman, Hilda (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta. 2006. The semantic structure of motion verbs in French: Typological perspectives. In Hickmann, & Robert, (eds.), 83–101.Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta. 2009. L'expression du déplacement en français: L'interaction des facteurs sémantiques, aspectuels et pragmatiques dans la construction du sens spatial. Langages 173, 54–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lamarre, Christine. 2008. The linguistic categorization of deictic direction in Chinese – with reference to Japanese. In Xu, Dan (ed.), Space in languages of China: Cross-linguistic, synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 69–97. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2008. Dative verbs: A crosslinguistic perspective. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 31, 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, Beavers, John & Tham, Shiao Wei. 2009. Manner of motion roots across languages: Same or different? Presented at Roots: Word Formation from the Perspective of ‘Core Lexical Elements’, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1991. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1992. The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity. In Roca, Iggy M. (ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, 247–269. Berlin: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1998. Morphology and lexical semantics. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 248–271. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Sells, Peter. 2009. Unpredicated particles. In Wee, Lian Hee & Uyechi, Linda (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life. 303–324. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Li, Yafei. 1991. On deriving serial verb constructions. In Lefebvre, Claire (ed.), Serial verbs: Grammatical, comparative, and cognitive approaches, 103–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Yafei. 1993. Structural head and aspectuality. Language 69, 480–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liceras, Juana M. & Díaz, Lourdes. 2000. Triggers in L2 acquisition: The case of Spanish N–N compounds. Studia Linguistica 54, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential, and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3, 390–396.Google Scholar
Makino, Seiichi & Tsutsui, Michio. 1986. A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times.Google Scholar
Martínez Vázquez, Montserrat. 2001. Delimited events in English and Spanish. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 9, 31–59.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca. 2005. Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: The case of Italian verb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18, 145–173.Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume. 2008. On the l-syntax of directionality/resultativity: The case of Germanic preverbs. In Asbury, et al. (eds.), 221–250.Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume & Rigau, Gemma. 2002. A Minimalist account of conflation processes: Parametric variation at the lexicon–syntax interface. In Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals, 211–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion ‘word’. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2004. Event paths, conflation, argument structure, and VP shells. Linguistics 42, 523–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muansuwan, Nuttanart. 2000. Directional serial verb constructions in Thai. 2001 HPSG Conference, 229–246. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/HPSG00/ (13 October 2009).Google Scholar
Nedashkivska, Alla. 2001. Whither or where: Case choice and verbs of placement in contemporary Ukrainian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 9, 213–251.Google Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2008. Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals: The case of into vs. in. In Asbury, et al. (eds.), 175–209.Google Scholar
Nishiyama, Kunio. 1998. V–V compounds as serialization. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 175–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Şeyda & Slobin, Dan I.. 2003. Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in Turkish and English. In Sumru Özsoy, A., Akar, Didar, Nakipoğlu Demiralp, Mine, Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser & Aksu-Koç, Ayhan (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 259–270. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna, Massey, Christine & Gleitman, Lila. 2004. When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion. Cognition 98, B75–B87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pourcel, Stéphanie & Kopecka, Anetta. 2006. Motion events in French: Typological intricacies. Ms., University of Sussex, Brighton & Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James & Busa, Frederica. 1995. Unaccusativity and event composition. In Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Bianchi, Valentina, Higginbotham, James & Squartini, Mario (eds.), Temporal reference, aspect, and actionality, vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, 159–177. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, Doron, Edit & Sichel, Ivy (eds.). In press. Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1988. What to do with θ-roles. In Wilkins, Wendy (ed.), Thematic relations, 7–36. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2008. Lexicalized manner and result are in complementary distribution. Presented at IATL 24, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. In press. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Rappaport Hovav, et al. (eds.), 21–38.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Pinkster, Harm & Genee, Inge (eds.), Unity in diversity: Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 60th birthday, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van & Huijbregts, Riny. 2008. Locations and locality. In Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida & Wilkins, Wendy K. (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, 339–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 1996. Prepositions and Minimalist Case-marking. In Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Epstein, Samuel & Peter, Steve (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, vol. II, 226–256. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, Ronald P. 1985. Motion in Tswana and its characteristic lexicalization. Studies in African Linguistics 16, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, Ronald P. 1986. Lexicalizing directional and nondirectional motion in Emai. Studies in African Linguistics 17, 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1990. Serial verb constructions. In Joseph, & Zwicky, (eds.), 14–33.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1998. Languages with and without objects: The functional grammar approach. Languages in Contrast 1, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In Levin, Lorraine, Rappaport, Malka & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 143–157. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sitoe, Bento. 1996. The semantics and syntax of the Tsonga verbs kuwà ‘fall’ and kuntlúlá ‘jump’, and their relatives. South African Journal of African Languages 16, 144–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, Roumyana. 2002. The Compounding Parameter in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 507–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1996. Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shibatani, Masayoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 195–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1997. Mind, code, and text. In Bybee, Joan, Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 437–467. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2000. Verbalized events – a dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In Niemeier, Susanne & Dirven, René (eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity, 107–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2004a. How people move: Discourse effects of linguistic typology. In Moder, Carol Lynn & Martinovic-Zic, Aida (eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures, 195–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2004b. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, & Verhoeven, (eds.), 219–257.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2006. What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Hickman, & Robert, (eds.), 5–81.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. & Hoiting, Nini. 1994. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 20, 487–505.Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 1995a. The acquisitional role of the syntax–morphology interface: Morphological compounds and syntactic complex predicates. 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 1, 728–735.Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 1995b. A Neo-Davidsonian approach to resultatives, particles, and datives. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 25, vol. 1, 457–471.Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77, 324–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, Minjeong. 2007. Directionality and resultativity: The cross-linguistic correlation revisited. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 34.2, 126–164. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/ (13 October 2009).Google Scholar
Song, Grace. 1997. Cross-linguistic differences in the expression of motion events and their implications for second language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Song, Grace & Levin, Beth. 1998. A compositional approach to cross-linguistic differences in motion expressions. Presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Zaretskaya, Marina. 1998. Verb prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination. Linguistics 36, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlke, Herbert. 1970. Serial verbs. Studies in African Linguistics 1, 60–99.Google Scholar
Stewart, Osamuyimen Thompson. 2001. The serial verb construction parameter. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Stringer, David. 2001. The syntax of paths and boundaries. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 37, 139–153.Google Scholar
Stringer, David. 2003. Acquisitional evidence for a universal syntax of directional PPs. In Conference booklet of ACL-SIGSEM workshop: The linguistic dimensions of prepositions and their use in computational linguistics formalisms and applications, 44–55. Toulouse: IRIT.Google Scholar
Stringer, David. 2006. Typological tendencies and universal grammar in the acquisition of adpositions. In Saint-Dizier, Patrick (ed.), Syntax and semantics of prepositions, 57–68. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strömqvist, Sven & Verhoeven, Ludo (eds.). 2004. Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2007. Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. In Reuland, Eric, Bhattacharya, Tanmoy & Spathas, Giorgos (eds.), Argument structure, 63–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. In Kimball, John P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, 181–238. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57–149. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization – via aspect and result. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 17, 480–519.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Eri. 2002. A Japanese compound verb V-te-iku and event structure. Pacific Asia Conference on Language and Computation 16, 421–432.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax–semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn. 1986. Serial verb constructions in Thai. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Thomas, Emma. 2004. On ‘syntactic’ versus ‘semantic’ telicity: Evidence from in and on. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18, 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tungseth, Mai. 2004. PP, FP, and telic/atelic distinction in Norwegian motion constructions. In Kempchinsky, Paula & Slabakova, Roumyana (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 147–168. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tungseth, Mai. 2008. Verbal prepositions and argument structure: Path, place and possession in Norwegian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Washio, Ryuichi. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality, and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2001. An analysis of English resultatives under the event-argument homomorphism model of telicity. 3rd Workshop on Text Structure, 1–15. The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2005. Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity. In Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Rapoport, Tova (eds.), The syntax of aspect, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wienold, Götz. 1995. Lexical and conceptual structures in expressions for movement and space: With reference to Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Indonesian as compared to English and German. In Egli, Urs, Pause, Peter E., Schwarze, Cristoph, Stechow, Arnim von & Wienold, Götz (eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organization of language, 301–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winford, Donald. 1990. Serial verb constructions and motion events in Caribbean English Creoles. In Joseph, & Zwicky, (eds.), 109–148.Google Scholar
Yoneyama, Mitsuaki. 1986. Motion verbs in conceptual semantics. Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities, vol. 22, 1–15. Tokyo: Seikei University.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan & Yangklang, Peerapat. 2004. A third way to travel: The place of Thai in motion-event typology. In Strömqvist, & Verhoeven, (eds.), 159–190.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Oh, Eunjeong. 2007. On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1990. What are we talking about when we talk about serial verbs? In Joseph, & Zwicky, (eds.), 1–13.Google Scholar