Motion by Daniela Neeven

Of special interest for linguists and cognitive psychologists

One of the most basic human concepts

All languages supposed to have ways of talking about motion and ways of describing different kinds of motion

Psychologists: motion verbs = most characteristically verbal of all the verbs, purest and most prototypical of verbs

Extension of view: LOCALISM Hypothesis: motion provides cognitive

framework for more abstract domains of meaning (possession, communication, transformation)

Evidence: English `motional´ prepositions to and from are used in these domains

Going deeper into the semantics of motion good reason: fascinating differences in how different languages go about describing motion

E.g.: not all have equivalents for words as simple as come and go

Pre-modern approaches to space and motion

Even concerned with in ancient times Example: Zeno of Elea

Paradox of the flying arrow Idea: motion is a continuous change of

location different location at every moment of flight

PROBLEMIf so, means at rest at every moment When does it move?

Reply by Aristotle time not composed of `nows´ (moments) true at a moment ≠ true over period duration necessary attribute of motion

Many theories and approaches to terminology

essential: motion = change of place

Modern treatments

Talmy (1985) 4 basic components of `motion event´

FIGURE: object moving or located with respect to

reference-object GROUND: reference-object PATH: course followed or site occupied

by figure MOTION: presence in event of motion

(move) or location (be)

If motion involved, 2 kinds of GROUND SOURCE: origin point GOAL: destination point

EXAMPLE: Max travelled from Sydney to Melbourne

figure source goal

via Canberra. path

WE APPROACHED THE VILLAGE. figure goal Goal not always indicated by

prepositon or morphological marking can be implied by meaning of verb

approach (transitive) requires grammatical object indicating goal

Similar: leave requires source

In English, path component indicated by prepositional phrase or adverb over, along

Some verbs already include specification about path verbs enter and return imply same kinds of

path as composite expressions go in and go back

LEXICAL CONFLATION

MOTION EVENT also manner and cause

Many English motion verbs encode manner (way motion is carried out) E.g.: I walked/ran/rushed down the

stairs.

Jackendoff Included many of Talmy´s ideas in his

treatment of motion go and be = basic conceptual

functions The bird went from the ground to the tree.

The bird is in the tree. A be-sentence expresses the end-state

of a go-sentence LOCALISM

Formalism for encoding concepts of spatial location and motion can be generalised to other semantic fields Many verbs and prepositions in two or more s.f.

The inheritance went to Phillip.The money is Phillip´s. possessionThe lights went from green to red.The light is red. ascription of properties

GO and BE as designating abstract meanings not tied to their motional and locational uses

considers motion verbs which DO NOT imply path intransitive actions

wiggle, dance, spin, wave

NSM treatment of space and motion Includes even more elements, e.g. time More elaborate than other approaches All in all:

X moved from A to B =X moved for some timebefore this X was somewhere (place A)after this X was somewhere else (place B)

Necessary: period of duration Not necessary: clear definition of

point of origin and destination X is moving towards A =

X is movingif it moves in the same way for some time it will be near A concept of nearness, not of arrival

Coming or going?

COME = `motion-towards-speaker´

GO = `motion-away-from-speaker´

Not that simple!

GO GO polysemous Confine to motional sense exclude

use of participial adjective gone, because can apply to anything living or non-living without implication that the thing moved itself E.g.: The clouds were gone.

motional GO in ordinary English = wilful motion by animate beings

2 other properties of GO can be combined with indefinite or

interrogative location word without prepositional to-phrase

She went somewhere. Where are you going?

seems more focused on leaving than on possibility of arriving somewhere

She went yesterday.

Cross-linguistic perspective

People think GO such a simple word must have equivalents in all languages

Plenty of languages lack an exact semantic equivalent German: 2 everyday words

gehen = go on foot fahren = go, not on foot

To say in German She went to the shops. a litte more is needed, because in choosing gehen or fahren one must indicate whether she went under her own steam or not

Similar in Polish: iść = move on foot jechać = move in a vehicle

can also occur either in imperfective form or with various perfective prefixes

Longgu (Solomon Islands): English GO translated in two ways, depending on speaker´s perspective if only `from one place to another´ la if `being away from speaker or reference

point´la + directional particle hou

if saying come la + directional particle mai

COME Goal-oriented

Implies/takes for granted that goal of motion is a known place

More interesting property: the way in which it imparts a particular perspective upon the motion event reported

Come more appropriate than go when speaker at destination AT ARRIVAL TIME I work at a shop in town and I know

John will visit it tomorrow odd if I said to you: John´s going to the shop tomorrow.

ignoring that I will be there when he arrives

Come also preferred if speaker at destination AT TIME OF SPEAKING

I am at the shop talking to you over telephone.

John´s coming to the shop tomorrow. OK, although we both know that I will not be there tomorrow.

`motion towards the speaker´ (the speaker´s location)

But English COME also in other contexts DEICTIC PROJECTION (refers to

speaker´s ability to project imaginatively to some remote location

Cross-linguistic perspective

Basic meaning `motion towards speaker´

Other uses result of ability to adopt another person´s point of view

BUT this view faces diffiulties:

Why should deictic projection be possible with come, but not with here and now ?

Equivalents in other languages do not allow deictic projection as freely as English come

If flexibility of come result of inherent human capacity for deicitic projection, why should the exercise of this capacity vary so much from language to language?

Alternative explanation Differences in behaviour of `come verbs

´ across languages result of differences in lexical semantics of verbs involved

Why should we assume that all the words are precise semantic equivalents?

According to English come usage with inanimate things also possible When does the bus come?

When does the train go?The plane was going to Sydney.

suitable, because part of our understanding that we are in control of these things and use them

COME and GO also used with natural phenomena such as the tides, rain and sun The tide was going out. The floodwaters came right up to the

front fence. The sun went down/came up. Presumably possible, because

move by themselves

Hypothesis

Use of come and go with natural phenomena an echo of earlier animistic conceptions `childhood animism´: series of stages

before adult view of movement, life and consciousness

attribute consciousness to anything that moves

Summary Motion = change of place `Motion event´ consists of

FIGURE GROUND PATH (source and goal) MOTION

(MANNER) (CAUSE)

English motion verbs COME and GO also used in other semantic fields

In special cases also possible with inanimate things

Not necessarily equivalents in other languages

THANK YOU

very much for your attention