Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:49:56.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ways of looking: Lexicalizing visual paths in verbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2021

EWELINA WNUK Open the ORCID record for EWELINA WNUK [Opens in a new window]
EWELINA WNUK*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University College London, 14 Taviton St., LondonWC1H 0BW, UKe.wnuk@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The packaging of meaning in verbs varies widely across languages since verbs are free to encode different aspects of an event. At the same time, languages tend to display recurrent preferences in lexicalization, e.g. verb-framing vs. satellite-framing in motion. It has been noted, however, that the lexicalization patterns in motion are not carried over to the domain of vision, since gaze trajectory (‘visual path’) is coded outside the main verb even in verb-framed languages. This ‘typological split’ (Matsumoto 2001), however, is not universal. This article contains the first extensive report of verb-framing in the domain of vision based on data from Maniq (Austroasiatic, Thailand). The verbs are investigated using a translation questionnaire and a picture-naming task, which tap into subtle semantic detail. Results suggest the meanings of the verbs are shaped by universal constraints linked to earth-based verticality and bodily mechanics, as well as local factors such as the environment and the cultural scenarios of which looking is a salient part. A broader look across the whole Maniq verb lexicon reveals further cases of verbally encoded spatial notions and demonstrates a pervasive cross-domain systematicity, pointing to the language system itself as an important shaping force in lexicalization.

Keywords

fictive motionlexicalization patternpathsystematicityverbs of perceptionverb semantics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 157 - 202
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to the Maniq community of Manang (Satun) and the National Research Council of Thailand. I thank Asifa Majid, Stephen Levinson, Niclas Burenhult, Lila San Roque, Carolyn O’Meara, Rebecca Defina, Josje de Valk, and three anonymous Journal of Linguistics reviewers for comments, Elisabeth Norcliffe for stimulating discussions, and Kukiat Tudpor for Thai translations. This research was supported by the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.

Interlinear and in-text glosses follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules wherever possible, with the sole exception of mult ‘multiplicity (iterative/distributive)’.

References

REFERENCES

Beavers, John & Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2012. Manner and Result the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43.3, 331–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John, Levin, Beth & Tham, Shiao Wei. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46.2, 331–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa, Gullberg, Marianne, Majid, Asifa & Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 2004. Put project: The cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In Majid, Asifa (ed.), Field manual, vol. 9, 10–24. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.). 2001. Language acquisition and conceptual development (Language, Culture and Cognition 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2001. Learning to talk about motion UP and DOWN in Tzeltal: Is there a language-specific bias for verb learning? In Bowerman & Levinson (eds.), 512–543.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C.. 1993. ‘Uphill’ and ‘downhill’ in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3.1, 46–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas. 2008. Streams of words: Hydrological lexicon in Jahai. Language Sciences 30. 2–3, 182–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas & Kruspe, Nicole. 2016. The language of eating and drinking: A window on Orang Asli meaning-making. In Endicott, Kirk (ed.), Malaysia’s original people: Past, present and future of the Orang Asli, 175–199. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.Google Scholar
Carlson-Radvansky, Laura A. & Irwin, David E.. 1993. Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? Cognition 46.3, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, Soonja & Bowerman, Melissa. 1991. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41.1, 83–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cifuentes-Férez, Paula. 2014. A closer look at Paths of vision, Manner of vision and their translation from English into Spanish. Languages in Contrast 14.2, 214–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coventry, Kenny R., Carmichael, Richard & Garrod, Simon C.. 1994. Spatial prepositions, object-specific function, and task requirements. Journal of Semantics 11.4, 289–309. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Blasi, Damián E., Lupyan, Gary, Christiansen, Morten H. & Monaghan, Padraic. 2015. Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19.10, 603–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, Nicholas. 2011. Anything can happen: The verb lexicon and interdisciplinary fieldwork. In Thieberger, Nick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), 183–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32.5, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 73.3, 546–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, Michele I. 2008. Space between languages. Cognitive science 32.7. Wiley Online Library, 1177–1199.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1982. Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In Kuczaj, Stan A. (ed.), Language development, vol. 2: Language, thought, and culture, 301–334. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In Bowerman, & Levinson, (eds.), 215–256.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The event structure of perception verbs (Oxford Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, González, Jesús, María. 1997. Sobre la motivación semántica de las expresiones pleonásticas de movimiento: Subir, bajar abajo, entrar adentro y salir afuera. In Concepción Company Company (ed.), Cambios diacrónicos en el español, 123–141. México: Universidad Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1967. Look and see. Language 43.4, 937–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition (Current Studies in Linguistics Series 8). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1985. Multiple subcategorization and the ϑ-criterion: The case of climb. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3.3, 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Harriet E. Manelis. 1981. Location and direction in Toba: Verbal morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 47.3, 227–235.Google Scholar
Kraft, Thomas S., Venkataraman, Vivek V. & Dominy, Nathaniel J.. 2014. A natural history of human tree climbing. Journal of Human Evolution 71, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruspe, Nicole. 2010. A dictionary of Mah Meri as spoken at Bukit Bangkong (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 36). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Kruspe, Nicole, Burenhult, Niclas & Wnuk, Ewelina. 2015. Northern Aslian. In Sidwell, Paul & Jenny, Mathias (eds.), Handbook of the Austroasiatic languages, 419–474. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1984. Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. In Van Doorn, Andrea J., Van de Grind, Wim A. & Koenderink, Jan J. (eds.), Limits in perception, 323–358. Utrecht: VNU Science Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2001. Motion verb stimulus, version 2. In Levinson, Stephen C. & Enfield, N. J. (eds.), Manual for the field season 2001, 9–13. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity (Language, Culture, and Cognition 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Burenhult, Niclas. 2009. Semplates: A new concept in lexical semantics? Language 85.1, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., Meira, Sergio & The Language and Cognition Group. 2003. ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 79.3, 485–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Wilkins, David (eds.). 2006. Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (Language, Culture, and Cognition 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa. 2015. Comparing lexicons cross-linguistically. In Taylor, John R. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word, 364–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa, Boster, James S. & Bowerman, Melissa. 2008. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 109.2. 235–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Majid, Asifa, Bowerman, Melissa, Kita, Sotaro, Daniel, B. M. Haun & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8.3, 108–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majid, Asifa, Bowerman, Melissa, Staden, Miriam van & Boster, James S.. 2007. The semantic categories of cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 18.2, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, Barbara C., Ameel, Eef, Imai, Mutsumi, Gennari, Silvia P., Saji, Noburo & Majid, Asifa. 2014. Human locomotion in languages: Constraints on moving and meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 74, 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malt, Barbara C. & Majid, Asifa. 2013. How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4.6, 583–597.Google ScholarPubMed
Matlock, Teenie. 2004. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition 32.8, 1389–1400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matlock, Teenie & Bergmann, Till. 2019. Fictive motion. In Dąbrowska, Ewa & Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Key topics, 109–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 2001. Lexicalization patterns and caused and fictive motion: The case of typological split. Lecture at SUNY Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive linguistics 15.1, 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A. & Johnson-Laird, Philip N.. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy, and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 2009. A cross-linguistic overview of ‘eat’ and ‘drink’. In Newman, John (ed.), The linguistics of eating and drinking (Typological Studies in Language vol. 84), 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth, Enfield, N. J., Majid, Asifa & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2010. The grammar of perception. In Norcliffe, Elisabeth & Enfield, N. J. (eds.), Field manual volume, vol. 13, 7–16. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Hovav, Rappaport, Malka, . 2014. Building scalar changes. In Alexiadou, Artemis Borer, Hagit & Schäfer, Florian (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics), 259–281. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovav, Rappaport, Malka, & Levin, Beth. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Hovav, Malka Rappaport Edit Doron, & Sichel, Ivy (eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, vol. 1, 21–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selimis, Stathis & Katis, Demetra. 2010. Motion descriptions in English and Greek: A cross-typological developmental study of conversations and narratives. Linguistik online 42.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2001. Form-function relations. In , Bowerman & , Levinson (eds.), 406–449.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2004. 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. 2009. Relations between paths of motion and paths of vision: A crosslinguistic and developmental exploration. In Mueller-Gathercole, Virginia C. (ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman, 197–222. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. & Hoiting, Nini. 1994. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 20), 487–505. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Rohde, Ada. 2004. The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Radden, Gunter (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 249–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, Sven & Verhoeven, Ludo (eds.). 2004. Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial p in English. In Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), vol. 6, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, Kiyoko. 2000. Expressions of emanation fictive motion events in Thai. Ph.D. dissertation, Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 55–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 17, 480–519. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring (Language, Speech, and Communication), vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems (Language, Speech, and Communication), vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Bill, Roberts, Seán G. & Lupyan, Gary. 2020. Cultural influences on word meanings revealed through large-scale semantic alignment. Nature Human Behaviour. Nature Publishing Group, 1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0924-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1984. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21.1, 123–162.Google Scholar
Wnuk, Ewelina. 2016a. Semantic specificity of perception verbs in Maniq. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Wnuk, Ewelina. 2016b. Specificity at the basic level in event taxonomies: The case of Maniq verbs of ingestion. In Papafragou, Anna Grodner, Dan Mirman, Dan & Trueswell, John (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2687–2692. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan & Yangklang, Peerapat. 2004. A third way to travel. In Strömqvist, & Verhoeven, (eds.), 191–218.Google Scholar