No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Endocentric and exocentric verb typology: Talmy revisited – on good grounds
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2015
Abstract
This paper presents the so-called Endo- and Exocentric Verb Typology advanced by the Danish research group TYPOlex. The typology is partly based on Talmy’s lexicalization patterns for motion verbs with some elaboration and refinement of the manner–path distinction, and it is generalized to comprise Germanic and Romance verbs (and nouns) as a whole. The Danish findings point to a relatively high lexical precision and concreteness in Germanic verbs (and Romance nouns) and a relatively high lexical abstractness and genericity in Romance verbs (and Germanic nouns). Furthermore, the paper investigates Talmy’s two semantic components ground and figure and argues that they are far more generalized in Romance (secondary) lexicalization patterns – parasynthetic derivation – than normally assumed.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014
References
references
Alonge, A. (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, L. (Ed.), Atti del III Convegno Internazionale della SILFI (Perugia, 27–29 giugno 1994) (pp. 31–63). Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.Google Scholar
Alonge, A. (1998). Verbi italiani e inaccusatività: una proposta basata su dati estratti da ampie risporse lessicali computerizzate. In Navarro Salazar, M. T. (Ed.), Italica Matritensia: Atti del IV Convegno SILFI (Madrid, 27–29 giugno 1996) (pp. 61–75). Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Baron, I. (Ed.) (2003). Language and culture (Copenhagen studies in language 29). Copenaghen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Baron, I. (2007). Attention! Surveillance vidéo. La linguistique à l’intersection des langues et du droit. In Korzen, I., Lammert, M., & Vassiliadou, H. (Eds.) (2007, pp. 105–123).Google Scholar
Baron, I. (2009). Les notions de liberté et de démocratie au Danemark et en France: valeurs universelles ou culturelles? In Korzen, I. & Lavinio, C. (Eds.) (2009, pp. 231–252).Google Scholar
Baron, I., & Herslund, M. (2005). Leksikon. In Korzen, I. & Lundquist, L. (Eds.), Sprogtypologi og oversættelse: Endocentriske og exocentriske sprog (pp. 18–39). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Blaser, E., & Sperling, G. (2007). When is motion motion? Perception, 37, 624–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borst, A. (2000). Models of motion detection. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borst, A., & Egelhaaf, M. (1989). Principles of visual motion detection. Trends in Neurosciences, 12, 297–306.Google Scholar
Collins English Dictionary: 21 stCentury Edition (2000). Glasgow: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Cresti, E., & Korzen, I. (Eds.) (2010). Language, cognition and identity. extensions of the endocentric/exocentric language typology. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Dellen, B. K., & Wessel, R. (2009). Visual motion detection. In Squire, L. R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of neuroscience 10 (pp. 291–295). Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
De Mauro, T., Mancini, F., Vedovelli, M., & Voghera, M. (1993). Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Milano: Etaslibri.Google Scholar
Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). On the neural basis of image schemas. In Hampe, B. (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–91). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durst-Andersen, P. (1992). Mental grammar: Russian aspect and related issues. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Durst-Andersen, P. (2000). The English progressive as picture description. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 32, 45–103.Google Scholar
Durst-Andersen, P., Smith, V., & Thomsen, O. N. (2013). Towards a cognitive-semiotic typology of motion verbs. In Paradis, C.Hudson, J., & Magnusson, U. (Eds.). The construal of spatial meaning: windows into conceptual space (pp. 118–143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83 (1), 49–79.Google Scholar
Herslund, M. (Ed.) (1997). Det franske sprog: Kapitel I. Grundlag. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Herslund, M. (2000). Tipologia grammaticale e tipologia lessicale. In Korzen, I. & Marello, C. (Eds.) (2000, pp. 11–18).Google Scholar
Herslund, M. (2003a). Pour une typologie lexicale. In Herslund, M. (Ed.) (2003b, pp. 13–28).Google Scholar
Herslund, M. (Ed.) (2003b). Aspects linguistiques de la traduction. Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Herslund, M. (2005). Komplekse prædikater. In Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. En helhedsforståelse af forholdet mellem sprogstruktur, sprogbrug og kognition (pp. 88–100). Copenhagen & Roskilde: Københavns Universitet, Handelshøjskolen i København & Roskilde Universitetscenter.Google Scholar
Herslund, M. (2014). Mouvement et déplacement: typologie des verbes de mouvement en roman et en germanique. In Korzen, I.Ferrari, A., & De Cesare, A.-M. (Eds.) (2014, pp. 75–93).Google Scholar
Herslund, M., & Baron, I. (2003). Language as world view: endocentric and exocentric representations of reality. In Baron, I. (Ed.) (2003, pp. 29–42).Google Scholar
Herslund, M. & Baron, I. (Eds.) (2005). Le génie de la langue française: Perspectives typologiques et contrastives (Langue française 145). Paris: Larousse-Colin.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1993 [1943]). Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague XXV). Copenhagen: Reitzel.Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. v. (1997 [1822]). On the national character of languages. In Harden, T. & Farrelly, D. (Eds.), W. v. Humboldt: essays on Language (pp. 52–67). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C. (2004). Parasintesi. In Grossmann, M. & Rainer, F. (Eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano (pp. 165–188). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In Brower, R. A. (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–239). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1997). Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alsina, A., Bresnan, J., & Sells, P. (Eds.), Argument structure (pp. 473–499). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Korzen, I. (2000). Pragmatica testuale e sintassi nominale: sull’esplicitezza pragma-testuale del sistema nominale in italiano e in danese. In Korzen, I. & Marello, C. (Eds.) (2000, pp. 81–109).Google Scholar
Korzen, I. (2005a). Struttura linguistica e schema cognitivo: tipologie a confronto. In Korzen, I. (Ed.), Lingua, cultura e intercultura: l’italiano e le altre lingue. Atti dell’VIII Convegno SILFI (Copenhagen Studies in Language 31) (pp. 123–134). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar
Korzen, I. (2005b). Dalla microstruttura alla macrostruttura. In D’Achille, P. (Ed.), Generi, architetture e forme testuali. Atti del VII Convegno SILFI (pp. 363–376). Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Korzen, I. (2008). Strutture di lessicalizzazione: un approccio tipologico-comparativo. In Cresti, E. (Ed.), Prospettive nello studio del lessico italiano. Atti del IX Congresso della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana (pp. 341–349). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Korzen, I. (2012). Endo- og exocentrisk verbaltypologi: en genlæsning af Talmy – nu med (god) Grund. In Bache, C., Holsting, A., & Kjær Nissen, U. (Eds.), Ny forskning i grammatik 19 (pp. 129–152). Odense: Syddansk Universitet.Google Scholar
Korzen, I., & D’Achille, P. (Eds.) (2005). Tipologia linguistica e società. Considerazioni inter- e intralinguistiche. Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Korzen, I., Ferrari, A., & De Cesare, A.-M. (Eds.) (2014). Tra romanistica e germanistica: lingua, testo, cognizione e cultura [Between Romance and Germanic: language, text, cognition and culture]. Bern, et al.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Korzen, I., Lammert, M., & Vassiliadou, H. (Eds.) (2007). Langues d’Europe, l’Europe des langues: croisements linguistiques (Scolia 22). Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch.Google Scholar
Korzen, I., & Lavinio, C. (Eds.) (2009). Lingue, culture e testi istituzionali. Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Korzen, I., & Marello, C. (Eds.) (2000). Argomenti per una linguistica della traduzione (Gli argomenti umani 4). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1992). The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: the perspective from unaccusativity. In Roca, I. M. (Ed.), Thematic structure: its role in grammar (pp. 247–269). Berlin: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Gullberg, M., van Staden, M., & Bowerman, M. (2007). How similar are semantic categories in closely related languages? A comparison of cutting and breaking in four Germanic languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 18 (2), 179–194.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M., Gagliardi, G., Gregori, L., Panunzi, A., Paladini, S., & Williams, A. (2012). La variazione dei verbi generali nei corpora di parlato spontaneo: l’ontologia IMAGACT. In Mello, H., Pettorino, M., & Raso, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the VIIth GSCP International Conference: Speech and Corpora (pp. 406–411). Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Moneglia, M., Monachini, M., Calabrese, O., Panunzi, A., Frontini, F., Gagliardi, G., & Russo, I. (2012). The IMAGACT cross-linguistic ontology of action: a new infrastructure for natural language disambiguation. In Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Declerck, T., Doğan, M. U., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Odijk, J., & Piperidis, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12) (pp. 2606–2613). Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Moneglia, M., & Panunzi, A. (2010). I verbi generali nei corpora di parlato: un progetto di annotazione semantica cross-linguistica. In Cresti, E. & Korzen, I. (Eds.) (2010, pp. 27–45).Google Scholar
Mora Gutiérrez, J. P. M. (2001). Directed motion in English and Spanish. Estudios de Lingüística Española, 11.Google Scholar
Müller, H. H. (2005). Meaning construction within Spanish nominal syntagmatic compounds (NSCs). In Korzen, I. & D’Achille, P. (Eds.) (2005, pp. 55–76).Google Scholar
Pascual Aransáez, C. (1999). A cognitive analysis of the cross-linguistic differences between English and Spanish motion verbs and the Spanish translator’s task. Cuadernos de investigación filológica, 25, 127–136.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. H. (1939). The problem of the hybrid language. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, XXXVIII, 23–41.Google Scholar
Rousseau, A. (1995). À propos des préverbes du français: pour une méthodologie d’approche syntaxique. In Rousseau, A. (Ed.), Les préverbes dans les langues d’Europe: introduction à l’étude de la préverbation (pp. 197–223). Villeneuve d’Aasq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Rousseau, A. (1998). La double transitivité existe-t-elle? Réflexions sur la nature de la transitivité. In Rousseau, A. (Ed.), La transitivité (pp. 85–112). Villeneuve d’Aasq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1964 [1929]). The status of linguistics as a science. In Mandelbaum, D. G. (Ed.), Culture, language and personality: selected essays (pp. 160–166). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schøsler, L. (2010). Bevægelsesverber i et historisk og i et typologisk perspektiv. In Birkelund, M., L. Dam, H. Dam-Jensen, S. S. Fernández. (Eds.), Ny forskning i grammatik 17 (pp. 129–148). Odense: Syddansk Universitet.Google Scholar
Sen, S., & Janowicz, K. (2005). Semantics of motion verbs. In Proceedings of Workshop on Spatial Language and Dialogue (WOSLAD), Delmenhorst, Germany, online: <http://ifgi.uni-muenster.de/~sumitsen/Sen%26Janovicz.pdf>.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, V. (2005a). From motion events to(wards) a semantics of relocation. Paper presented at ‘New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics’, Brighton, 23–25 October, online: <www.sugartexts.dk/oxford_pd_vs.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Smith, V (2005b). Modeling the semantics of relocation. For SugarTexts and beyond. In , B. N & , H. E (Eds.). Terminology and concept development. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering (pp. 225–236). Copenhagen: Litera.Google Scholar
Smith, V. (2009). Telling the sugarstory in seven Indo-European languages. What may and what must be conveyed? In Korzen, I. & Lavinio, C. (Eds.), Lingue, culture e testi istituzionali (pp. 61–76). Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a cognitive semantics, Volume 2: typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956 [1940]). Science and linguistics. In Carroll, J. B. (Ed.), Language, thought and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 207–219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2007). Spatial semantics. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 318–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar