1 / 27

From “Motion Events” to(wards) a Semantics of Relocation

Copenhagen Business School Center of Language, Cognition and Mentality. From “Motion Events” to(wards) a Semantics of Relocation. Viktor Smith vs.first@cbs.dk. First Conference of the Swedish Association for Language and Cognition Lund, November 29th – December 1st, 2007.

santo
Download Presentation

From “Motion Events” to(wards) a Semantics of Relocation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Copenhagen Business School Center of Language, Cognition and Mentality From “Motion Events” to(wards) a Semantics of Relocation Viktor Smith vs.first@cbs.dk First Conference of the Swedish Association for Language and Cognition Lund, November 29th – December 1st, 2007

  2. Motion Event Research …in the Talmy-Slobin tradition Primary focus: Conceptualization, lexicalization, and verbalization of motion in terms of “moving, or being moved, from Loc1 to Loc2” Suggested terms: RelocationRelocation Verbs Smith (2003: 71ff; 2005) Yet: Generally accepted terms and definitions still lack in mainstream motion event research

  3. Some standard assumptions • The cognitive variables involved appear to be universal • The linguistic means available for communicating their products display profound and systematic crosslinguistic differences Example: est entré(sorti(e))

  4. The key typology • Manner or: S(atellite-framed) languages • e.g. Danish, Swedish, English, German, Russian, Chinese versus • Path or: V(erb-framed) languages • e.g. French, Italian, Spanish, Modern Greek,Turkish, Japanese Talmy (1985, 1991, 2000); Slobin (1996a/b, 2004a/b); Mora Gutiérrez (2001); Berthele (2004). Growth points for continued research • Refining and differentiating the typological description of particular languages • Assessing the impact of typological differences on crosslinguistic communication and translation • The language  worldview & “thinking for speaking” dimensions

  5. Aims of this presentation Improving the theoretical tools and metalanguage for capturing the semantic variables of interest by: • Providing a firmer basis for distinguishing between (a) motion in general (b) going from Loc1 to Loc2 relocation Aliases:motion events, translocation, displacement; directed motion, change of location, etc. …yet the terminology remains tentative and vague • Specifying the intuitively attractive but vaguely specified “primitives” known as Path and Manner

  6. Attempted synthesis The analysis of the “cognitive anatomy” of motion events offered by Talmy (2000: 51ff) as extended by… …the principles of situation and verb classification suggested by Durst-Andersen offering an additional differentiation of the cognitive variables involved (1992; 2000; 2002) while… • further clarifying the impact of pre-linguistic visual cognition • specifically addressing the variables of • (a) simple motion vs. Loc1  Loc2 • (b) Path and Manner

  7. Basic assumptions and prerequisites • The semantic modeling • must incorporate insights on pre-linguistic visual cognition • Figure/ground segmentation • is a key variable in humans’ conceptualization of the real-world situations of interest • See e.g. Palmer (1999: 281f) for a general overview • “Delay-and-compare” processing • is basic to any form of motion detection • See Borst (2000) for a condensed introduction But:The relevant processing may be performed on two distinct cognitive levels. See Blaser & Sperling (in press) for a polemic but highly illustrative discussion ….and possibly in different parts of the human brain Dodge & Lakoff (2005)

  8. Talmyan basics (2000:25f) I. (Main) Motion Event • Figure • Ground • Path • Motion (in terms of either Motion or Locatedness (i.e. non-motion)) II. Co-event definable in terms of Manner or Cause Pre-view of suggested adjustments: Inserting an additional level of analysis: • 2 types of simple situations definable in terms of Figure, Ground, and “simple” Motion or Locatedness only  I and II above • Additional level:1 complex situation given by observed or expected interdependencies between the simple ones • Path and Relocationare variables on this level only

  9. A cross-linguistic ontology and verb classification In continuation of Durst-Andersen (1992, 2000, 2002); Durst-Andersen & Herslund (1996) • actions:mental constructs linking together a certain activity (in that case conceived as a process) and a certain state (in that case conceived as an event) action verbs(put, arrive, kill, show, etc.) Conceptualization and lexicalization of real-world situations • states:stable figure on stable ground  state verbs(lie, stand, resemble, etc.) • activities:unstable figure on stable ground or vice versa activity verbs(dance, wave, shiver, carry,flow, etc.)

  10. The meta-language of relocation Actions in which the change of state is definable in terms of spatial relationships (location) alone Relocation processes and events As rendered linguistically by: Location-based action verbs  or in short:Relocation verbs (Alternative categories Possession-based, Experience-based, and Qualification-based action verbs)

  11. Applying action verbs to real-world situations In actual communication, action verbs will be referring to either: • an activity, presenting it as aprocess: She is just putting the cake on the table or • a (change of) state, presenting it as anevent: • Who put that cake on my table? • NB!The semantics of simplex action verbs leaves the process underdetermined (“whatever it takes”), while specifying the event only

  12. TELICITY Ground-situations to put Ground-propositions Y IS ON Z (Loc2) X DO SOMETHING IMPLICATION logically entails Y IS WITH X (Loc1) The semantics of putting

  13. A related point made on pre-linguistic visual cognition • “Time and space provide contrasting perspectives on events. A temporal perspective highlights the sequence of transition, the dynamic changes from segment to segment, things in motion. A spatial perspective highlights the sequence of states, the static spatial configuration, things caught still. Capturing the temporal and spatial at once seems elusive; like waves and particles, the dynamic and the static appear to complement each other.” • Zacks & Tversky (2001: 19, my italics) The present approach is an attempt to embrace “wawes” and “particles” within the same model

  14. Applying the framework Specifying the Path/Manner distinction • Activity oriented (whether or not the activity is presented as part of an action, i.e. as a process) • Specify certain properties of either the figure, the ground and/or the interrelations between them • For transitive verbs: The Agent’s interaction with the figure and/or ground, given these properties, can also be part of the semantics Manner verbs are: Path verbs are: • (Change of) State oriented • Specify certain properties of either the initial location, Loc1, the consequent location, Loc2, and/or the interrelation between them • (the figure being a variable only in terms of its presence/absence on these locations, i.e. grounds).

  15. Example for illustration: What goes on in a beet sugar factory? Focus of the SugarTexts Project at CBS revolving around a multilingual corpus of authentic step-by-step descriptions of the processing of sugar beets into refined white sugar in a sugar factory,as found in textbooks, technical research reports, information folders, encyclopedias, sales material, on websites, etc. That is: Spontaneous verbalizations of uniform extralinguistic scenarios containing a wide variety of relocation processes and events in terms of both Path and Manner of motion See Smith (in press) for an updated review…

  16. The perceived extra-linguistic reality What we see... But how is it conceptualized and verbalized?

  17. The SugarWorld Ontology DIFFUSION WASHING SLICING PURIFICATION beets cosettes crude juice thin juice EVAPORATION soil pulp filter cake steam CRYSTALLIZATION CENTRIFUGATION sugar crystals thick juice massecuite steam molasses

  18. The Ontology content • Actions involving a change of location in terms of presence or absence of a Figure on a particular Ground (Location) may be further specified linguistically in terms of Loc1 Loc2 Path verbs (simple or complex) arrive, enter, etc. • Activities involving unstable Figure-Ground relationships on one and the same Ground (Location) may be further specified linguistically in terms of Figure  Ground interaction and compatibility (+ impact of Agent, for transitive verbs)  Manner verbs roll, soak, throw, etc.

  19. Pinpointing the standard typology Continuing Herslund’s exemplification (1998:8-9) Typical Path language – French Typical Manner language – Danish MANNER marcher ‘walk’ courir ‘run’ flâner ‘stroll’ ramper ‘crawl’ MANNER gå ‘walk’ løbe ‘run’ spadsere ’stroll’ kravle ’crawl’ PATH aller ‘go’ entrer ‘enter’ venir ‘come’ sortir ‘exit’ • PATH • ind ‘in ud ‘out’ op ’up’ ned ’down’ complex (phrasal) action verbs = relocation verbs with obligatory Manner component simple action verbs =relocation verbs simple activity verbs simple activity verbs

  20. The borderland between lexicon and syntax in S-languages And hence “distributed semantics” in the sense of Sinha & Kuteva (1995) Why is “Satellite №1” is different? … as stressed but not fully explained by Talmy (2000:106 f.) Examples:English:She ranoutof the kitchen uptothe bedroom... etc. (infinitive: run out)  German:infinitive: herauslaufen  finite form: ...lief ...heraus Russian:infinitive:выбежать… finite form:выбежала The first satellite/prefix “does the trick” = shifts the semantics from activity to action and hence relocation. word-forming function, revealed by prefix vs. free particle status in e.g. German and Russian

  21. Actions, satellites, and verb aspect In Russian, the prefix is both a Path and an Aspect marker … and only action verbs form aspect pairs For details, see e.g. Durst-Andersen (1992) Examples: Насос качалмедленно но надежно ’The pump pumped slowly but reliably’ Насос перекачал воду в бак ’The pump pumped (over) the water into the tank’ Насос перекачивалводу в бак ’The pump was pumping (over) the water into the tank’ This can hardly be coincidental or irrelevant to understanding the mechanisms in play in other satellite-framed languages!

  22. Extending the verb (and situation) classification beyond “pure” relocation Examples: Relocation + Position on Loc1 or Loc2 Positioning verbs English: Put the bottle on the table Put the book on the table versus Danish:Stille flasken på bordet Lægge bogen på boret Relocation + Qualification English: deliver, steal, etc. (+ similar verbs in other languages)

  23. To sum up: • Simple motion (activities) and relocation (actions) rely on fundamentally different cognitive representations conflated and combined differently in different languages, but should not be confused • Path is a property of actions and hence Relocation “par excellence” • Manner is a property of activities (though it may also be conflated as a processes-specifying element in complex (phrasal) action verbs in S-languages) So much for the descriptive tools Where they might prove their worth is in providing a more stringent metalanguage for future investigations into the typological, communicative, and cognitive dimensions outlined initially… The SugarTexts being one context for doing so. Thank you for your attention

  24. Selective bibliography Berman R.A. & Slobin D.I., eds. (1994). Relating events in narratives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berthele, R. (2004): The typology of motion and posture verbs: A variationist account. In: B. Kortmann, ed. Dialectology Meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin & New York, 93-126. Blaser, E. & Sperling, G.  (in press) When is motion motion? Perception. Borst, A. (2000). Models of motion detection. In: Nature Neuroscience 3, 1168. Borst, A & Egelhaaf, M. (1989) Principles of visual motion detection. Trends Neurosci 12, 297-306 Durst-Andersen, P. (2002). Russian and English as two distinct subtypes of accusative languages, Scando-Slavica Tomus 48. Durst-Andersen, P. (2000). The English progressive as picture description. In: Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 32, 45-103. Durst-Andersen, P. (1992). Mental grammar. Russian aspect and related issues. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc. Durst-Andersen, P. & Herslund M. (1996). The syntax of Danish verbs. Lexical and syntactic transitivity. In: Content, expression, and structure. Studies in Danish functional grammar. In: H. Engberg-Pedersen et al., eds. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 65-102. Dodge, E. & Lakoff, G. (2005). On the neural basis of image schemas. In: B. Hampe, ed. From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Ettin, T. (2007). Relokation i en endo- / exocentrisk kontekst. En analyse af relokationsbegivenheder i danske og italienske SugarTexts med henblik på udformningen af en oversættelsesstrategi.[Relocation in an endo- / exocentric context. An analysis of relocation events in Danish and Italian SugarTexts as a basis for formulationg a translation strategy]. Master Thesis. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. Fong, V. & Poulin, C. (1998). Locating linguistic variation in semantic templates. In: J.-P. Koenig, ed. Discourse and cognition. Bridging the gap. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications, 29-39. Gennari, S. P.; Sloman, S. A.; Malt, B. C. & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. In: Cognition 83 (1), 49-79. Herslund, M. (1998). Typologi, leksikalisering og oversættelse. [Typology, lexicalization, and translation]. Lingvistisk Oversættelse. Copenhagen Working Papers in LSP 3. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, 7-12. Herslund, M. (2000). Tipologia grammaticale e tipologia lessicale. In: I. Korzen & C. Marello, eds. Argomenti per una linguistica della traduzione. Notes pour une linguistique de la traducion.On linguistic aspects of trans­lation. Gli argomenti umani 4. Alessandria: Edizioni del­l'Orso, 11-18.

  25. Selective bibliography Herslund, M. & Baron, I. (2003) Language as world view. Endocentric and exocentric representations of reality. In: I. Baron, ed. Language and culture. Copenhagen Studies in Languages 29, 29-42. • Ibarretxe Antuñano, I. (2004). Language typologies in our language use: The case of Basque motion events in adult oral narratives. Cognitive Linguistics 3, 317-349. • Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower, ed. On translation, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 232-239. Korzen, I. (2005). Lingue endocentriche e lingue esocentriche: lseeico, testo e pensiero. In: I. Korzen & P. D’Achille, eds. Tipologia linguistica e società. Considerazioni inter- e intralinguistiche. Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore, 31-54. Mora Gutiérrez, J. P. M. (2001). Directed motion in English and Spanish. In: Estudios de Lingüística Española 11. Nørgaard, K.; Nielsen, L. Ø. B. (20079: Model for dansk-fransk terminologisk vidensformidling inden for sukkerproduktion. [A model of Danish-French knowledge transfer in the field of sugar manufacturing]. Master Thesis. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. Ozol, S. (2004). Fra sukkerroe til sukkerskål: Onomasiologisk undersøgelse af danske og russiske relokationsverber baseret på SugarTexts. [From sugar beet to sugar pot: An onomasiological study of Danish and Russian relocation verbs based on SugarTexts.] Master’s Thesis. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. Palmer, S. E. (1999) Vision science. Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Papafragou, A.; Massey, C. & Gleitman, L. (2001). Motion events in language and cognition. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Papafragou, A.; Massey, C. & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle ‘n’ roll: the representation of motion in language and cognition. In:: Cognition 84, 189-219. Plungjan, V. A. (2002). O specifike vyraženija imennych prostranstvennych charakteristik v glagole: kategorija glagol´noj orientacii. In: V. A. Plugjan, ed. Grammatikal­izacija prostranstvennych značenij. Moscow: Russkie slovari, 57-98. • Rojo, A. & Valenzuela, J. (2001) ”How to say things with words: Ways of saying in English and Spanish”. In: Meta, XLVI, 3 467-477. Skytte, G.; Korzen, I.; Polito P. & Strudsholm, E., eds. (1999). Strutturazione testuale in italiano e in daneses. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Sinha, C. & Kuteva, T. (1995) Distributed spatial semantics. In: Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18, 167-199.

  26. Selective bibliography Slobin, D. (2004a). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In: S. Strömquist & L. Verhoeven, eds. Relating events in narrative: Typological contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Slobin, D. (2004b). Relating narrative events in translation. In: D. Ravid & H. B. Shyldkrot, eds. Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman. Dordrecht: Kluwer. • Slobin, D. (1996a). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In: Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning. M. Shibatani & S. Tompson, eds. Oxford: University Press, 195-219. • Slobin, D. (1996b). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In: J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson, eds. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: University Press. Smith, V. (in press). SugarTexts. Telling the SugarStory in 6 Indo-European angauages: What may and what must be conveyed? Proceedings of Lingue e culture europee: Tipologie a confronto, Cagliari, November 13-14, 2007. Smith, V (2005a). Modeling the semantics of relocation: For SugarTexts and beyond. Proceedings of the 7th International conference on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. Smith, V. (2005b). Motion at the sugar factory: Is Russian a genuine MANNER language? In: K. Ahmad; M. Rogers, eds. Proceedings of the 14th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes .Communication, culture, knowledge. Surrey: University of Surrey, 77-84. Smith, V. (2003). Talking about motion in Danish, French, and Russian: Some implications for LSP in theory and practice. In: LSP & Professional Communication 2, 66-90. Smith, V. (2000). On the contrastive study of lexicalization patterns for translation pur­poses: some reflections on the levels of analysis. In: I. Korzen & C. Marello, eds. Argomenti per una linguistica della traduzione. Notes pour une linguistique de la traducion.On linguistic aspects of trans­lation. Gli argomenti umani 4. Alessandria: Edizioni del­l'Orso, 19-42. Strömqvist, S.; Verhoeven, L., eds. (2004). Relating events in narrative: Typological contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Talmy, Leonard (2000). Towards a cognitive semantics: Volume 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In: T. Shopen, ed. Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III. Grammatical categories and the lexicon.Cambridge: University Press, 57-149. Tesnière, L. 1976 [1959]. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. IIième édition. Paris: Klincksieck.

  27. Selective bibliography Tøgersen, M. (2007). Når ord taler: Terminologisk undersøgelse af udvalgte begreber i danske og tyske SugarTexts – med særlig fokus på leksikaliseringsforskelle. [When words talk: A terminological investigation on selected concepts in Danish and German SugarTexts with a special focus on lexicalization differences]. Master Thesis. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School. Zacks, J. M. & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and cognition. In: Psychological Bulletin 1, 3-21. Zlatev, J.; David, C. & Blomberg, J. (submitted). Translocation, language and the categorization of experience. Zlatev, J & Yangklang, P (2004). A third way to travel, the place of Thai (and other serial verb languages) in motion event typology. In: S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven, eds. Relating events in narrative: Typological contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zlatev, J. & David, C. (2004). Three ways to travel: Motion events in French, Swedish and Thai. In: A. Soares da Silva, A. Torres & M. Gonçalves, eds. Linguagem, Cultura e Cognição: Estudos de Linguística Cognitiva, eds., Coimbra: Almedina.

More Related