Minding Your Manners: Linguistic Relativity in Motion

Abstract

Talmy's (1985;2000) observations regarding the typology of motion descriptions. However, a flurry of research GENTNER, 2006;GENNARI et al., 2002;TERRAZAS, 1998;HULBERT;TRUESWELL, 2008; among others)

L1 thinking-for-Speaking Habits are Difficult to Change in L2: Evidence from the Semantic Domain of Motion

“…As Slobin (2004, p. 226) states, in V-languages "one can "throw oneself into a room," but one can"t generally "walk into a room"". In brief, it is generally accepted that V-language speakers use path constructions of the type [Path Verb + from] (henceforth [V P + from]) to describe boundary-crossing events while Sframed languages use manner constructions of the type [Manner Verb + out] (henceforth [V M + out](e.g., Alonso, 2011;Feist, 2015;Song et al 2015;Özçalişkan, 2015).As the following section shows, TA speakers adhere to the Vframed TfS norm.…”

Matched or moved? Asymmetry in high- and low-level visual processing of motion events

“…One account of this link comes from linguistic relativity (Whorf, 1956), with the reasoning that the way in which a language typically expresses motion events can influence how speakers of that language perceive and think about motion. The domain of motion events has been intensively investigated in search of a gradually more refined understanding of the correlations between different encodings of motion across languages and their speakers' cognitive processes (e.g., Athanasopoulos & Bylund, 2013;Feist, 2016;Papafragou et al, 2008). Recent extensions also explored the impact of linguistic expression of motion on perceptual processes (e.g., Flecken et al, 2015;Slivac et al, 2021).…”

“…Evidence for such effects abounds, especially when study designs let language be consciously recruited during experimental task completion. However, linguistic modulation effects often vanish when the task does not rely on the involvement of language, either covertly or overtly (Casasanto, 2016; Feist, 2016; Gleitman & Papafragou, 2013).…”

On the translation of boundary-crossing events: Evidence from an experiment with German and Spanish translation students

“…Motion event linguistic framing and translation research has come a long way since Talmy published his seminal work on the typology of motion events (1985,1991,2000) and Slobin proposed his Thinking-for-speaking/translating hypotheses (1996,2003). In the literature on the linguistic encoding of motion events (see Ibarretxe-Antuñano & Filipović, 2013, for a detailed review) and on linguistic relativity research using motion events (see, for example, Feist, 2016, for a summary), most of the existing studies compare typologically different languages, but we do find some studies which focus on languages belonging to the same typological group (e.g., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 2004;Kopecka, 2010;Hijazo-Gascón & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 2013;Verkerk, 2014;Lewandowski, 2018). Research on the translation of motion events pertaining to typologically similar languages is also scarce (see Cifuentes-Férez (2018) for an updated review on translation of motion events), with a few exceptions, for example, Filipović (1999Filipović ( , 2008 on English into Serbo-Croatian translation and vice versa, Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2003) on English into Basque and Spanish translation, Sugiyama (2005) on English into Japanese and French translation, and Lewandowski and Mateu (2016) on English into Polish and German translation.…”