Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T05:36:29.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2013

ŞEYDA ÖZÇALIŞKAN
ŞEYDA ÖZÇALIŞKAN*
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Şeyda Özçalışkan, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, PO Box 5010, Atlanta, GA 30302-5010. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Expression of spatial motion shows wide variation as well as patterned regularities across the world's languages (Talmy, 2000), and events involving the traversal of a spatial boundary impose the tightest typological constraints in the lexicalization of motion, providing a true test of cross-linguistic differences. Speakers of verb-framed languages are required by their language not to use manner verbs in marking the change of location across boundaries (Aske, 1989). Here we test the strength of the boundary-crossing constraint and ask how speakers convey motion events when the constraints imposed by the experimental task are at odds with the constraints imposed by their native language. We address this question by comparing adult speakers’ description of motion scenes that involve the traversal of a spatial boundary in two typologically distinct languages: English and Turkish. Using an experimental paradigm that imposes competing demands with the semantic structure of Turkish, we compare Turkish speakers’ description of boundary-crossing scenes to that of English speakers. We find strong cross-linguistic differences in speakers’ verb choice (manner vs. path) and event segmentation (one vs. many), suggesting that boundary-crossing constraint can serve as a reliable test to detect the typological class of a language.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , March 2015 , pp. 485 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, S., Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., Ishizuka, T., et al. (2007). Language-specific and universal influences in children's syntactic packaging of manner and path: A comparison of English, Japanese and Turkish. Cognition, 102, 16–48.Google Scholar
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Cifuentes-Ferez, P. (2010). The semantics of the English and Spanish motion verb lexicons. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 233–271.Google Scholar
Essegby, J., & Ameka, F. (2005). Serializing languages: Satellite-framed, verb-framed or neither? Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gennari, S., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49–79.Google Scholar
Hamano, S. (1998). The sound–symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hickman, M. (2007). Static and dynamic location in French: Developmental and crosslinguistic perspectives. In Aurnague, M., Hickmann, M., & Vieu, L. (Eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (pp. 205–231). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2004). Motion events in Basque narratives. In Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 89–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2006). Lexicalisation patterns and sound symbolism in Basque. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2009). Path salience in motion events. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Ervin-Tripp, S., Budwig, N., Nakamura, K., & Özçalışkan, Ş. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 403–414). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kita, S. (1997). Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics, 35, 379–415.Google Scholar
Kita, S. (1999). Japanese enter/exit verbs without motion semantics. Studies in Language, 23, 317–340.Google Scholar
Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does crosslinguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 16–32.Google Scholar
Naigles, L., Eisenberg, A., Kako, E., Highter, M., & McGraw, N. (1998). Speaking of motion: Verb use by English and Spanish speakers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 521–549.Google Scholar
Oh, K. (2003). Language, cognition and development: Motion events in English and Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California–Berkeley.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş. (2004). Encoding the manner, path and ground components of a metaphorical motion event. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 73–102.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş. (2005). Metaphor meets typology: Ways of moving metaphorically in English and Turkish. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 207–246.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş. (2009). Learning to talk about spatial motion in language-specific ways. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Ervin-Tripp, S., Budwig, N., Nakamura, K., & Özçalışkan, Ş. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 263–276). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş. (2012). When gesture does and does not follow speech in describing motion. Paper presented at the 36th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Accessed at http://www.bu.edu/bucld/files/2012/07/ozcaliskan-36.pdfGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş., & Slobin, D. I. (1999). Learning “how to search for the frog”: Expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, & Turkish. In Greenhill, A., Littlefield, H., & Tano, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 541–552). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş., & Slobin, D. I. (2003). Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in English and Turkish. In Özsoy, A. S., Akar, D., Nakipoglu-Demiralp, M., Taylan, E. E., & Aksu-Koç, A. (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp. 259–270). Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Press.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
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1997). Mind, code and text. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 437–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 107–138). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 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: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P. (2003). A third way to travel: The place of Thai in motion–event typology. In Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 159–190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar