Caused-Motion and the ‘Bottom-Up’ Role of Grammar

Leek, Frederike van der

doi:10.1075/cilt.178.17lee

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, they share similarities with PUT and TAKE, i.e., with placement and removal events, differing mainly in that the caused motion is accompanied (i.e., the agent moves along the same trajectory as the theme object). Caused motion events have received considerable attention in the literature (see Colleman & De Clerck, 2009;Hendriks et al, 2008;Hickmann et al, 2018;Hovav Rappaport & Levin, 2008;Ji et al, 2011;Levin, 1993;Van der Leek, 2000, to name but a few). This includes a recent cross-linguistic study specifically on PUT and TAKE events (Kopecka & Narasimhan, 2012).…”

Section: Studies In the Cross-linguistic Encoding Of Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing and taking

Hellwig

Margetts

Riesberg

et al. 2022

Typological Studies in Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter proposes a typology of expressions of directed caused accompanied motion (directed CAM): it introduces and defines this semantic domain, presents the corpus-based methodology used by the authors of this volume, and gives an overview of the results. It shows that directed CAM expressions tend to be morphosyntactically complex and it identifies four distinct patterns based on the lexical core of the expression: first, with a directed CAM verb; second, with an intransitive motion verb; third, with a transitive verb of accompaniment or of caused (accompanied) motion; or fourth, with a combination of the second and the third options. The chapter discusses each pattern and addresses issues of universality and variability in the domain of directed CAM.

show abstract

Section: Studies In the Cross-linguistic Encoding Of Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing and taking

Hellwig

Margetts

Riesberg

et al. 2022

Typological Studies in Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events

Cappelle

Declerck

2005

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how reference to spatial boundaries can make speakers of English represent or understand a motion event as temporally bounded. Spatial boundaries can be implied by (a) the path expressed by a directional item, (b) the so-called -landmark‖ (Langacker, 1987) serving as ‗support' for the path, and (c) the moving entity. Importantly, one and the same entity in the real world can also be conceptualized as either primarily delimited (bounded) or extended (nonbounded).After setting the stage with an example (section 1) and dealing with some important terminological preliminaries (section 2), we take a closer look at the concept of boundaries (section 3). We then set up a four-way classification of directional prepositions in English (section 4), based on whether they refer to a path that is extended and, if so, on whether that path is specified or not for having or lacking an endboundary.In the subsequent sections (5-7), we zoom in on the aspectual role played by adverbial particles, on the possible influence of the object NP of directional prepositions, and briefly on the role played by the NP referring to the moving entity.The most important findings of this study are summarized in section 8.

show abstract

Polysemy's paradoxes

Taylor

2003

Language Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Caused-Motion and the ‘Bottom-Up’ Role of Grammar

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Bringing and taking

Bringing and taking

Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events

Polysemy's paradoxes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About