Download Why Deixis must be treated separately from Path* Yo

The interactional nature of deictic verbs in English, Japanese, and Thai:
Why Deixis must be treated separately from Path*
Yo Matsumoto (Kobe University), Kimi Akita (Nagoya University), and Kiyoko Takahashi
(Kanda University of International Studies)
Abstract
The semantics of venitive deictic verbs like come is not merely spatial but also interactional. Results
of video-based experiments in English, Japanese, and Thai are reported, which revealed that the
venitive verbs tend to be used more often when the motion is not just toward the speaker but also into
his/her space as defined by limits on interaction and visibility, and that they can be used for motion
off the direction of the speaker if it is into the speaker’s space. Directional venitive PPs like toward
me do not clearly have such properties. The interactional nature of deictic verbs, along with frequency
and other evidence, suggests that Deixis should be treated separately from Path in the discussion of
motion event descriptions.
Keywords: deictic verbs, Path, motion, interactional space, video experiments
1.
Introduction
In this chapter, we argue that the semantics of “venitive” deictic verbs (i.e. verbs representing
motion toward the speaker) involves interactional properties rather than being defined in
purely spatial terms. Our evidence comes from video-based production experiments in
English, Japanese, and Thai. The discussion supports the general claim that Deixis needs
separate treatment from Path in the typology of motion expressions.
Deixis is often treated as a component of Path (Talmy 2000: 53ff; see also Chapter 1).
However, deictic expressions exhibit a set of behaviors distinct from the expressions of
*
In writing this paper we are thankful to Brian Williams, Monica Kahumburu, and Yuzo Morishita
for their help in creating video clips, to Akinori Ito, Hirotaka Nakajima, and Haiyan Xia for their help
in collecting and transcribing data, and to Akinori Ito (again) and Carolyn Heaton for comments on
our earlier draft. We are also grateful to Dan Slobin, Colette Grinevald, and Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
for their interest and discussions. All errors are of course ours. The research reported in this work is a
part of a National Institute of Japanese Language and Linguistics collaborative research project titled:
Japanese and the Typology of Linguistic Expressions for Motion Events: A Crosslinguistic
Experimental Study with a Focus on Deixis (Yo Matsumoto, leader).
1
non-deictic Path. First, deictic verbs are usually found as basic verbs regardless of the
number and nature of path verbs in a language. For example, come and go are common verbs
in English, whose path verbs commonly have a markedly formal flavor (e.g. exit, descend).
Second, Deixis has its own morphosyntactic slot in some languages distinct from non-deictic
Path (Choi & Bowerman 1991, Koga, to appear; Matsumoto 1997, 2013, etc.). For example,
in Japanese, ku ‘come’ and ik ‘go’ always occur as the final verb of multi-verb complexes,
with Manner and path verbs preceding them (e.g. arui-te de-te ku-ru (walk-CONJ exit-CONJ
come-NPST), koroge-oti-te ik-u (roll-fall-CONJ go-NPST)).1 Similarly, German has a special
affixal slot for Deixis distinct from a Path slot, as in hin-aus-laufen (thither-out-run), as do
Jakaltek (Craig 1993) and Kupsapiny (Kawachi 2014).2 Frequencies in which Deixis is
expressed also differ among languages in a way different from the frequencies of Path (Koga
to appear; see below).
In this chapter we will look at how and when Deixis is expressed in English, Japanese,
and Thai. These are languages often cited as representative of different language types in the
typology of motion event descriptions, usually based on examples involving Manner and Path.
In Talmy’s (1991, 2000) two-way typology, English is a “satellite-framed” language, and
Japanese is a “verb-framed” language. Thai has been claimed to be neither, and arguably
belongs to what Slobin (2004) calls an “equipollently-framed” language with verb
serialization (see Zlatev and Yangklang 2003). Matsumoto (to appear) proposes a slightly
different typology, and categorizes languages in terms of whether Path is coded in 1) the
single head (the main verb) of a sentence, or 2) any element outside such a head
(head-externals), or 3) any one of a series of verbs that “cohead” the sentence (as in serial
verb construction) (see also Matsumoto 2003 [2011]). In this typology, Japanese is said to
employ “head coding of Path,” English, “head-external coding of Path,” and Thai, “cohead
coding of Path.”
The organization of this chapter is as follows. Section 2 points out the possibility that
the meanings of deictic verbs are more than just spatial by considering their interactional
1
The abbreviations used in this chapter are as follows: ACC = accusative; CONJ = conjunctive; DAT =
dative; NOM = nominative; NPST = non-past; PST = past; 1SG = first person singular, 3SG = third person
singular.
2
In these languages a deictic affix occurs outside a path affix. Colette Grinevald (personal
communication) argues that there may be an iconic explanation for such a tendency: nonpropositional
properties such as Deixis occur outside propositional properties.
2
nature. Section 3 reports on the production experiments that consider both spatial and
interactional factors, and we will examine how and when Deixis is expressed in the three
languages examined. Section 4 proposes an interactional definition of venitive verbs and
draws some typological implications from the findings. Section 5 concludes this chapter.
2. The semantics of deictic expressions
2.1. Spatial and interactional nature of Deixis
Deictic expressions are those expressions that are sensitive to deictic center, which is usually
the location of the speaker. Lexical items that are used deictically include personal pronouns,
demonstratives, and verbs of coming and going (see Huang 2006). What are relevant in the
motion event descriptions are verbs of coming and going and directional or source/goal
phrases involving the speaker or speaker’s location (toward me, hither, etc.). Prepositional
phrases like toward me are in fact composed of a preposition representing Path and a pronoun
representing a Ground.
Fillmore (1971) provides a foundational analysis of English deictic verbs of motion. He
argues that come is used to refer to the movement to the location of the speaker or hearer at
the time of the motion event or of the utterance, while go is used to refer to the movement to
the location where the speaker is not at the time of utterance. Deictic verbs in other languages
are similar except that many use only the location of the speaker as the deictic center (see
Gathercole 1977, Huang 2006; see also Wilkins & Hill 1995 for other differences).
One issue in the semantics of deictic verbs concerns the notion of the “location of the
speaker,” which we argue to be functionally defined. In this regard, Enfield’s (2003) work on
demonstratives is relevant. He argues that the notion of
HERE
is not so much the spatial
domain of the speaker as his/her functional domain, saying that “[j]ust one of the factors that
can define a speaker’s here-space is his or her
ENGAGEMENT AREA,
the place which is, at
moment t, the conceived site of a person’s currently dominant manual and attentional
engagement” (p. 89), suggesting it is influenced by such factors as visibility and access. He
also states that such a domain is often defined by spatial partitions such as rooms and
buildings limiting human interaction (Goffman 1963). The speaker’s location in the meaning
of deictic verbs may also be similarly defined.
If this is indeed the case, one may hypothesize the following about venitive verbs.
Venitive verbs of motion are typically used for motion to the goal within the functional HERE
of the speaker or the speaker’s (interactional) space, defined by the spatial limit of
interactivity and visibility. More specifically, we predict the following. First, motion to the
3
speaker’s location may be described with venitive verbs of motion more often if the location
is within some delimited speaker’s space than in an open space. Second, motion may be
described with venitive verbs even if the motion is off the direction of the speaker if it is into
the speaker’s space. The speaker’s space can be 1) an artificially delimited closed space, such
as a room and a floor, within which the speaker is located, or 2) the space visible to the
speaker.3
Another functional hypothesis to test involves the relevance of interactional behavior. If
venitive verbs are interactionally based, their use would be enhanced if the motion to be
described contains some interactional behaviors of a moving person toward the speaker, such
as smiling at or greeting him/her. Such a behavior would encourage the speaker’s
conceptualization of the motion as an event that affects him/her, and suggest a potential
further interaction with the speaker after motion.
We will test these two hypotheses concerning venitive verbs in the experiments reported
below. The experiments are designed to test properties of venitive verbs, and interactional
properties of andative verbs such as go are outside the scope of this work. The interactional
effects on directional phrases like toward me are hard to predict. The above effects may well
enhance the use of the first person pronoun. At the same time, if terms like toward are purely
directional, interactional effects would not be relevant. We will discuss the issue of
directional phrases below.
2.2. Deictic expressions in the three languages
Before moving on to our experiments, we will here review lexical means used to indicate
Deixis in English, Japanese, and Thai. In those languages, Deixis can be coded primarily in a
deictic verb, or in verb phrases or adpositional phrases, as illustrated in (1) to (3).
(1) English:
3
a.
A man came out of the room walking. (verb)
b.
A man walked toward me. (PP)
Note that visibility is often coded in the semantics of demonstratives (see Huang 2006, Imai 2009).
4
(2)
a.
Japanese:
Otoko ga
heya kara
arui-te
de-te
ku-ru. (verb)
man NOM
room from
walk-CONJ
exit-CONJ
come-NPST
‘A man comes out of the room walking.’
b.
Otoko ga
kotira ni
arui-te
ku-ru.
(PP)
man NOM
over.here GOAL
walk-CONJ
come-NPST
‘A man comes walking this way.’
(3) Thai:
a.
Phûu chaaj dəәəәn
ɂɔ̀ɔk
maa
hǎa
man
exit
come
approach 1SG
walk
chán
(verb+VP)
‘A man came out toward me walking.’
b.
Phûu chaaj dəәəәn
maa
thaaŋ
man
come
in.the.direction.of 1SG
walk
chán
(verb+PP)
‘A man came in the direction of me walking.’
In the three languages, deictic verbs are used differently in a sentence. In English it
occurs in the head position, as in (1a), which is the position alternatively occupied by a
manner verb. In Japanese it occurs as the head verb, preceded by a path verb and a manner
verb, as in (2a). In Thai a deictic verb occupies a position after manner verbs and most path
verbs but before “arrival verbs” in the order of serial verbs, as in (3) (see Thepkanjana 1986,
Takahashi 2009a,b, to appear, for details). An important fact to note is that in English Deixis
is in competition with Manner for expression in the main verb position, which is a factor
restricting the use of deictic verbs in this language. The languages also differ slightly in the
PPs/VPs expressing Deixis. English and Japanese typically use PPs like toward me in (1b)
and kotira ni ‘this way’ in (2b). Thai also has a similar PP, as in (3b), but it can also use a
verb phrase like hǎa chán ‘approach me’, placed after the deictic verb, as in (3a).
Deictic verbs and PPs/VPs differ in their explicitness of directionality and deictic center.
Deictic verbs like come, ku, and maa require the goal to be the speaker’s location or domain
(or hearer’s in the case of come), and thus the notion of directionality is not transparently
expressed, and the reference to the speaker is implicit (explicitly marked by the co-occurring
phrases involving the first person). Phrases like toward me in English and hǎa chán
‘approach me’ in Thai, on the other hand, are transparently directional, with directionality
5
marked by an adposition or a verb, and the reference to the first person is direct.4
3. Experiments
3.1. Method
To examine our hypotheses, we conducted a video-based speech elicitation experiment.
Twelve Japanese speakers, twelve American English speakers, and eighteen Thai speakers
participated in the experiment. The English and Japanese speakers are native-speaker
residents of the USA and Japan, respectively, and the Thai speakers are temporary residents
in Japan. We asked them to describe orally 30 short video clips in which various motion
events are videotaped. All the instructions were in the tested languages.
The videos were chosen to test two main factors. The first factor is interactional space:
whether the goal of the motion is within the speaker’s space (room, floor, or visible space) or
not. The second factor is interactional behavior: whether the moving person greeted or smiled
at the speaker while in motion or not.5 The videos were presented in random order, preceded
by a practice video that did not involve a motion event. The participants went through the
experiment by pressing a key on a laptop.
The experiments were designed so that each participant could identify himself/herself in
the position of the camera in the videos. The actual instructions that were presented on the
screen of the laptop (the English version) are as follows:
You’ll see 30 video clips. In these video clips, some people appear on a school campus. Imagine
that they are your friends and you are now there, looking at the scenes shown. After each video,
please describe what has happened on the scene and tell it to the experimenter. Each video clip
is preceded by a brief explanation of the setting.
The “brief explanation of the setting” specified where the camera (i.e. the participant) was
located in the videotaped scene.
The following are the 13 scenes used, videotaped in 4 settings. “S” indicates the location
of the camera from which the scene was videotaped, which is also where the participants
were instructed to imagine themselves to be. We will refer to this location as the speaker’s
4
The verb phrase hǎa chán ‘approach me’ is often used without the first person pronoun. We will
count such a case as an instance of the directional verb phrase.
5
Not every interaction is peaceful. One may also examine whether negative types of interactional
features, such as the aggressiveness of the mover, also contribute to the use of venitive verbs.
6
location.
L. Lawn (Open space)
L-1. motion toward the speaker
L-2
motion off to a side of the speaker
L-3
motion across in front of the speaker
C. Classroom
C-1. motion into the classroom toward the speaker
C-2
motion into the classroom off to a side of the speaker
C-3
motion out of the classroom across in front of the speaker
(who is at another door)
S. Staircase outside a building
S-1
motion onto the speaker’s level toward the speaker
S-2
motion onto the speaker’s level across in front of the
speaker
S-3
motion onto the speaker’s level away from the speaker
S-4
motion onto the nonspeaker’s level toward the speaker
S-5
motion onto the nonspeaker’s level across in front of the
speaker
S-6
motion onto the nonspeaker’s level away from the speaker
B. Building
B-1
motion out of the building across in front of the speaker
(who is outside the building)
Two video clips were created for each of the scenes above. In one clip the moving person
smiled at, or called out to (greeted) the speaker (or in fact, the camera), and in the other such
a behavior was absent. The timing of smile/greeting in the video was the most natural
moment in each scene: L-1, L-2, L-3, S-1, S-2, S-4, S-5: from the beginning toward the
middle of motion; S-3, S-6: at the beginning of motion; C-1, C-2, C-3: at the time of
entry/exit; B-1: after exit.
There were four other video clips, which functioned as fillers.
Figure 1 shows the still frames of three example videos.
7
a. C-1
b. S-2
c. B-1
Figure 1. Example videos
The experiments in the three languages were conducted on a university campus or an
adjacent area (English: University of California, Berkeley (USA); Japanese: Kobe University
(Japan); Thai: Kanda University of International Studies (Japan)) with permission as
appropriate from an institutional review board wherever necessary. The participants were all
individually interviewed for the experiment. All elicited utterances were recorded,
transcribed, and coded for the syntactic realization of each motion-related semantic
component. We analyzed all relevant motion sentences in the data.
8
3.2. Results on the frequencies of deictic verbs and PPs/VPs
We will first look at the overall frequencies of deictic expressions, venitive and otherwise,
elicited by the 26 clips in the three languages, in order to see the general patterns of the
expressions of Deixis in the languages. The frequencies are shown in Figure 2. It shows the
average percentages of the use of deictic verbs and deictic PPs/VPs per clip in the three
languages, with the observed frequencies in parentheses.
0%
English
Japanese
Thai
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
17.9% (52)
19.9% (62)
84.9% (265)
18.3% (57)
V
PP/VP
72.4% (339)
24.1% (113)
Figure 2. The verbal and PP/VP indications of Deixis in English, Japanese, and Thai
(average rates of indications per clip)
The general frequencies of deictic expressions are quite different, with English speakers
using them much less often, especially in the verb. A chi-square test and an adjusted residual
analysis of the data revealed that English speakers used a deictic motion verb significantly
less frequently than did Japanese and Thai speakers (
2
(2) = 342.06, p < .001, adjusted
residual = −18.16). Responses without a deictic verb in English had mostly manner verbs in
the main verb position. English speakers equally used PPs and the deictic verbs (which are
used in the main verb position) (
2
(1) = 0.38, p = .54 (n.s.)), while Japanese speakers used
deictic verbs (in the main verb position) for most clips and much more often than PPs (
2
(1)
= 277.61, p < .001). Thai speakers used a deictic verb (as a serial verb) much more often than
VPs and PPs involving the first person pronoun (
2
(1) = 218.52, p < .001). The less frequent
indication of Deixis among English speakers is consistent with findings from other studies
(e.g., Akita, Matsumoto, and Ohara 2010, Koga, to appear).
9
The attested venitive PPs and VPs, which are relevant to the discussions below, are as
follows: Those phrases in English include toward(s) me (or us) (26 instances), to me (11
instances), and approach(ing) me (5 instances); those in Japanese include kotira ni/kotti ni ‘to
over here’ (15 instances) and their complex forms such as kotira no hoo ni ‘in the direction of
over here’ (18 instances), as well as watasi no hoo ni ‘in the direction of me’ (6 instances);
those in Thai include hǎa chán ‘approach me’ (69 instances), thaaŋ chán ‘toward me’ (7
instances), and thîi chán ‘toward me’ (2 instances).
3.3. Results and discussion on venitive verbs
We will now look at the interactional effects on the use of venitive verbs. Results on venitive
directional PPs/VPs will be discussed in Section 3.4.
3.3.1. Presence vs. absence of the speaker’s space
We examine the notion of the speaker’s space in three different comparisons. One involves
the presence vs. absence of speaker’s space, and the other two involve the issue of
directionality vs. speaker’s space. For the purpose of discussing the speaker’s space, we will
be using video clips in which motion is accompanied by an interactional behavior (see
Section 3.3.5 forResults:
the factor
of
international
behaviors).
Space
sharing
I sharing
Results:
Space
Results:
Space
sharing
I
I
First, we compare the descriptions of motion events which involve the presence vs.
eion
head
mpetition
theabsence
head of speaker’s space. That is, we compare the responses to the video showing motion
in theinhead
y Berkeley
(Akita)
toward
(Akita)
Eng,
Berkeley
(Akita)the speaker in an open space (L-1 scene) with motion toward the speaker into his/her
gncing
space, i.e. into the speaker’s room (C-1 scene) or down onto his/her level (S-1 scene). Figure
)e (Matsumoto)3 visualizes the three scenes.
atsumoto)
g
nts
in residents
ry
residents
in in
porary
nJapan
(K. Takahashi)
ahashi)
(K. Takahashi)
# of deictic verbs
in #the
head
position
# of deictic
in
the head
position
ofverbs
deictic
verbs
in the
head position
S
a. open space
S
SS
S
b. classroom
S
S
48
S
48
S
48
c. staircase
Figure 3. Scenes used to test the effects of the presence/absence of the speaker’s space
ce sharing
II II
Space
ring
II sharing
Responses to the video
clipsInteraction
of these
three scenes are given in Figure 4, which presents the
Interaction
Interaction
Thai ThaiEnglish English
nese
English
N=18
=10
N=10
N=10 N=18N=10 percentages
of the use of venitive verbs per
maa
pay
go
iku go
maa come
pay come
go
ome
5
0the
actual
frequencies in the parentheses.
5
0
5160 0016
0
3
13
11
2
2
1
3
1 11
2
4
04
0
4100 0010
0
0
0
83
1
0
0
1
0
08
0
2
17 11
0
2
11
0
21
0
1
18
8
0
1
1
8
0
1
clip for these scenes in the three languages, with
Presence/absence
of calling/smiling
Presence/absence
of calling/smiling
Presence/absence
of calling/smiling
S SS
S S
50
S
50
50
10
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8.3% (1)
English
open space
33.3% (4)
50.0% (6)
into S's room
onto S's level
Japanese
100.0% (12)
100.0% (12)
100.0% (12)
Thai
100.0% (18)
100.0% (18)
88.9% (16)
Figure 4. The use of venitive verbs for scenes with and without the speaker’s space (average
rates of use per clip)
In Japanese and Thai, all types of toward-the-speaker motion were described with a deictic
verb most of the time, and the three scenes did not show difference due to the ceiling effect.
Meanwhile, in English, motion into or onto the speaker’s space (i.e. classroom or staircase
level) facilitated the use of come, with the difference between the open space scene and the
staircase scene statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test: p < .05). This result shows the
relevance of physically delimited speaker’s space to the semantics of English come. When
come is not used, the main verb slot is occupied by a manner verb.
Actual instances of the venitive verbs used for Scene C-1 (Figure 3b) are cited in (4).
(4) a.
b.
I see my friend coming in. (English)
Tomodati ga
kyoositu ni
hait-te
ki-ta.
(Japanese)
friend NOM
classroom GOAL
enter-CONJ
come-PST
‘[My] friend came into the classroom.’
c.
Phɯ̂an dəәəәn
khâw
maa
hǎa
chán
friend walk
enter
come
approach 1SG
naj hɔ̂ŋ rian
in
(Thai)
class.room
‘[My] friend came walking into the classroom toward me.’
3.3.2. Speaker’s space 1: classroom
We will now present data concerning the speaker’s space vs. spatial directionality of motion
by examining motion off the direction of the speaker but into his/her space. First, we will
11
compare the descriptions of motion into a closed space in which the speaker is, with motion
in an open space. Relevant clips are L-1 and L-2 and C-1 and C-2, which are given in Figure
5.
a.
Motion in an open space
b.
Motion into a closed space (room)
Figure 5. Scenes used to test the effects of the speaker’s space 1: Room
We will examine responses to the two video clips videotaped in each of the two different
settings in Figure 5. In addition to the motion directed to the speaker in the Sa positions,
which is examined in Section 3.3.1, we examine motion off to a side of the speaker, who is in
the Sb position. The Paths taken relative to the speaker (camera) are the same for the two
settings, but in the case of the room setting, the motion off the direction of the speaker is one
into the speaker’s space.
The results are shown in Figure 6. It shows the average percentages of the use of
venitive verbs, with the actual frequencies in the parentheses.
Japanese
English
0%
Toward S
Off the direction of S
20%
40%
60%
80%
8.3% (1)
open space
33.3% (4)
into S's room
0.0% (0)
8.3% (1)
100.0% (12)
100.0% (12)
Toward S
58.3% (7)
Off the direction of S
91.7% (11)
100.0% (18)
100.0% (18)
Thai
Toward S
Off the direction of S
100%
27.8% (5)
88.9% (16)
Figure 6. The use of venitive verbs for motion of different directions into/not into S’s room
(average rates per clip)
12
の使用
&"
oom"
"
"S’s"floor""
• English:
•
M/DEnglish:
competition
the head in the head
M/Dincompetition
10 speakers; Am
Eng, Berkeley
10 speakers;
Am (Akita)
Eng, Berkeley (Akita)
Japanese: -te sequencing
• Japanese: -te•sequencing
10 speakers; Kobe
(Matsumoto)
10 speakers;
Kobe (Matsumoto)
The results show that, in Japanese and Thai, venitive verbs were used to describe motion off
• Thai: verb serializing
• Thai: verb serializing
# of deictic verbs in #the
o
the direction of the speaker but into the speaker’s closed space more often than to describe
18 speakers; temporary residents in
Japan (K. Takahashi)
speakers;
temporary
residents
motion of the same direction18
that
occurs(K.inTakahashi)
an open space,
thoughinthe difference was
Japan
significant only in Thai by Fisher’s exact test (Japanese, p = .15 (n.s.); Thai, p < .001). In fact
S
Japanese and Thai speakers used venitive verbs in the former case almost as often as for
motion directly toward the speaker.
6
3.3.3. Results
Speaker’s space
2: staircase
levels
(Exp
B): Space
II
Results
(Exp sharing
B): Space
sharing II
Interacti
We now compare
the frequency
of
venitive
deictic
verbs forThai
motion English
off the direction of the
language/verbs
Japanese
Thai
English
language/verbs
Japanese
N=10
N=18
N=10 N=18
speaker onto the speaker’s level and that onto N=10
some
other level inN=10
the staircase
sharedness /deixis sharedness
kuru /deixis
iku maa pay
come
kuru
iku gomaa pay come go
setting.
Relevant
clips
S-1 through
whichSinvolve
three directions: Toward
S, Neutral, and
down
to are toward
S
10S-6, 0toward
down
to
10 5 0 0
5
0
16
0
16
0
S’s floor
S’s
away from
S floor
2 difference,
Away from
S, in addition
to
the6 level
away
from
2 1 11 in2Figure
3 7. 1Note that ‘Toward
11 S 2 6as 3illustrated
neutral
neutral
0 0is
4
0
10
0 9 4level
10 not 0exactly
S’ in the case of motion
onto9 the 0non-speaker’s
toward
the speaker
Presence/ab
down to
toward
S to 4
down
because
of the
level difference.
non-S’s
floor
non-S’s floor
S
away from S
2
neutral
1
S
S S
a. Motion onto the speaker’s level
3toward
8S
1 4
0 3
7 from
away
1 S 11 2
8neutral
1
8 1
S
S
S
S
1
0
0
0 7
0 8
2 1
11
0
2
0 8
1 1
8
0
1
S S
S
S
50
50
b. Motion onto the non-speaker’s level
Figure 7. Scenes used to test the effects of the speaker’s space 2: Staircase levels
Figure 8 presents the results, which show the average percentages of the use of venitive verbs
Results:
Effects of interaction
Results: Effects
of interaction
Discussio
for each scene, with the actual frequencies in the parentheses.
English
language/interaction language/interaction
Japanese
ThaiJapanese English Thai
N=10
N=18
N=10
N=10
N=18
N=10
calling
no
calling
no
no
calling no
calling no
no
calling
calling
calling
calling
calling
calling
calling
calling
sharedness /deixis sharedness /deixis
to10
toward
S16
down to
toward down
S
10
105
16 2 12
5
2
10
12
S’s floor
S’s floor
away
from
S
away from S
65
43
11 0
5
3
0
6
4
11
neutral
9
3
10
7
4
0
neutral
9
3
10
7
4
0
Conditions forCo
‘c
•J:
•J: Direction OR
•E:
•E: Direction AN
Deixis in Engli
down
toward
S8
45
60
80
5
0
0
down to
toward
S to 4
6
in order to “b
non-S’s floor away from S
floor away
6 Annon-S’s
20
0off
0 the speaker
0
0has been made
from
S
examination
of the
descriptions
of0motion
a side
of
2
1 diagonally
0 to 1
0
competition fo
neutral
12
10
10
2
0
0
neutral
1
1
1
by Ishibashi (2011), using a set of video clips prepared by the Trajektoire project lead by Colette
Interactional n
TOTAL 32
32
2412 47 2 31
12
2
TOTAL
24
47
31
Grinevald. She found that many Japanese speakers used a venitive verb for such motion not directed
toward me)
ofthe
‘come’
in the head position
53
# of ‘come’ verbs#in
headverbs
position
53
to the speaker. Interestingly, the video clip she used depicts motion of a person from a lake to a shore,
seen from a location on the shore, and so the use of a venitive verb was presumably enhanced by the
factor of the goal being within the speaker’s space.
13
0%
20%
0.0% (0)
Neutral
0.0% (0)
English
Toward S
Away from S
0.0% (0)
Japanese
Thai
100%
41.7% (5)
25.0% (3)
100.0% (12)
75.0% (9)
25.0% (3)
onto non-S's
level
onto S's level
58.3% (7)
38.9% (7)
Toward S
Away from S
80%
50.0% (6)
8.3% (1)
Away from S
Neutral
60%
33.3% (4)
Toward S
Neutral
40%
88.9% (16)
5.6% (1)
55.6% (10)
5.6% (1)
61.1% (11)
Figure 8. The use of venitive verbs for different directions of motion onto/not onto S’s level
(average rates of use per clip)
Notably, motion onto the speaker’s space elicited venitive verbs very often, even when the
motion is not spatially directed to the speaker (i.e. Neutral and Away from S). This is seen in
all the three languages. Interestingly, the use of a venitive verb was seen more than half of the
time even for motion away from the speaker onto his/her level in Japanese and Thai (e.g. the
scene in which a male person walks down the outside stairs to the ground away from the
speaker while s/he is on the ground). In contrast, the descriptions of motion onto the
non-speaker’s level contain the use of venitive verbs less often, and their use is seen
primarily for motion directed toward the speaker. The use of venitive verbs for motion off the
direction of the speaker is significantly more frequent for motion onto the speaker’s level
than that onto the non-speaker’s level by Fisher’s exact test (English: p < .01; Japanese: p
< .01; Thai: p < .001); so is the use of venitive verbs for motion toward the speaker (English,
p < .05; Japanese, p < .01; Thai, p < .01). The present data indicate that directionality is not a
necessary condition of the use of the venitive verbs in the three languages, and that the goal
being within the speaker’s space may make up for the nonsatisfaction of the directionality
condition.
Examples of venitive verb uses for motion onto the speaker’s level but not toward the
14
speaker (S-2 Scene) are illustrated in (5).
(5) a. He’s coming down to greet me. (English)
b. Tomodati ga
kaidan kara
ori-te
ki-ta. (Japanese)
friend NOM
stairs from
descend-CONJ come-PST
‘[My] friend came down from the stairs.’
c. Kháw dəәəәn
3SG
walk
loŋ
bandaj maa
phrɔ́ɔm
kàp thák
chán (Thai)
descend
stairs
be.simultaneous
with greet
1SG
come
‘He came down the stairs walking, simultaneously greeting me.’
3.3.4.
Speaker’s space 3: visibility
Another set of scenes tested involves visibility contrast. Relevant clips are L-3, C-3, and B-1,
in which motion events depicted in Figure 9 are videotaped.
a. motion in an open space
b. visible-to-visible exiting
c. invisible-to-visible exiting
Figure 9. Scenes used to test the effects of visibility
In Figure 9a a moving person walks across the open space in front of the speaker. In 9b, a
moving person walks out of the room through a door, with the speaker at another door of the
room, looking sideways at the movement, to whom the moving person is visible both inside
and outside the room. In 9c a moving person walks out of the small building, with the speaker
outside the building, looking sideways at the movement, to whom the moving person is
visible only outside the building. Note that the motion itself is the same relative to the
speaker in all the three scenes, but two of them involve moving out of a closed space, and
only one involves a change in visibility conditions (i.e. invisible to visible).
The results are shown in Figure 10, which indicates the percentages of the use of
venitive verbs, with the actual frequencies in the parentheses.
15
0%
English
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.0% (0)
8.3% (1)
open space
25.0% (3)
Japanese
exiting (visible to
visible)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
91.7% (11)
Thai
exiting (invisible to
visible)
5.6% (1)
0.0% (0)
72.2% (13)
Figure 10. The use of venitive verbs for the scenes testing visibility contrast (average rates of
use per clip)
In all three languages, the invisible-to-visible exiting scene elicited many more uses of
venitive verbs than the other scenes. Comparison between the two exiting scenes showed
statistic significance in Japanese and Thai by Fisher’s exact test (English: p = .59 (n.s.);
Japanese: p < .001; Thai: p < .001). It is striking that this is true when the motion in the
invisible-to-visible exiting is not directed to the speaker at all. This shows that change in
visibility is an important factor in the use of a venitive verb in these languages, and visibility
change makes up for the nonsatisfaction of the directionality condition.
3.3.5. Interactional behavior
Finally, let us consider the effect of interactional behavior on the use of venitive verbs. We
used greeting and smiling as the interactional behavior tested. Figure 11 compares the use of
venitive verbs for all the video clips with and without interactional behaviors. It shows that in
all three languages, presence of interactional behavior significantly enhanced the use of
venitive verbs (English,
2
(1) = 4.52, p < .05; Japanese,
4.16, p < .05).
16
2
(1) = 4.15, p < .05; Thai:
2
(1) =
0%
English
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
15.4% (24)
7.7% (12)
interactional
57.1% (89)
Japanese
noninteractional
45.5% (71)
50.9% (119)
Thai
41.5% (97)
Figure 11. The use of venitive verbs for all the scenes with and without interactional behavior
(average rates of use per clip)
The effect can also be seen in specific video clips. Figure 12 describes the use of
venitive verbs in the staircase scenes in which a moving person moves onto the speaker’s
level (S-1, 2, and 3), with or without greeting behavior.
0%
English
Toward S
20%
40%
60%
0.0% (0)
Away from S
0.0% (0)
100%
50.0% (6)
16.7% (2)
Neutral
80%
41.7% (5)
25.0% (3)
100.0% (12)
100.0% (12)
Japanese
Toward S
Neutral
Away from S
33.3% (4)
Thai
Toward S
Neutral
Away from S
75.0% (9)
25.0% (3)
58.3% (7)
61.1% (11)
88.9% (16)
interactional
noninteracti
onal
55.6% (10)
38.9% (7)
27.8% (5)
61.1% (11)
Figure 12. The use of venitive verbs for staircase scenes with and without interactional
behavior (average rates of use per clip)
17
In all languages there is more use of venitive verbs for clips with greeting than without,
except for one clip where the ceiling effect is observed. Fisher’s exact test revealed that the
total number of venitive verbs for these clips was larger for videos with interactional
behavior than for those without (English: p < .001; Japanese: p < .05; Thai: p < .05).
Moreover, there is a total absence of come in the English descriptions of the
not-toward-the-speaker motion without greeting, which may suggest that in this language the
behavioral factor is necessary to use a venitive verb for motion off the direction of the
speaker. The scene for which English speakers used come most often is motion toward the
speaker onto his/her level with a greeting. As pointed out above, English has a competition
between Manner and Deixis for the main verb slot, in which both manner verb and deictic
verb can occur. It appears that English speakers choose a deictic verb over a manner verb
when the factors of interactional space and interactional behavior act favorably to the use of a
deictic verb, at least in the kinds of scenes used in the present experiment, where the actual
Manner of motion is known to the speaker.
Examples of the non-use of venitive verbs for neutral motion onto the speaker’s level
(nongreeting; S-2 Scene) are given in (6), which can be compared with (5).
(6) a.
b.
He’s walking down the stairs. (English)
Tomodati ga
kaidan o
ori-ta. (Japanese)
friend NOM
stairs ACC
descend-PST
‘[My] friend descended the stairs.’
c.
Phɯ̂an
dəәəәn
loŋ
banday. (Thai)
friend
walk
descend
stairs
‘[My] friend walked down the stairs.’
3.3.6. Discussion
The present experiments in the three languages demonstrate that the semantics of venitive
deictic verbs involves both spatial and functional components, the latter including factors
such as speaker’s interactional space (partitioned space, floor, and visible space) and
interactional behavior that suggest further interaction after motion. The effects of these
factors show up in different ways in the three languages. The use of deictic verbs in English
is generally infrequent, presumably due to a strong tendency to place Manner in the main
verb slot where deictic verbs are placed, but when additional functional factors are present,
the use of deictic verbs is enhanced. In Japanese and Thai the use of deictic verbs is very
18
frequent and due to the ceiling effect the relevance of the functional factors is not visible in
the depiction of motion directed to the speaker, but the presence of such factors does enhance
the use of deictic verbs when the motion is not spatially directed to the speaker.
3.4. Results and discussion on deictic PPs/VPs
We will now look at interactional effects on the use of venitive PPs and VPs. First, Figure 13
presents the use of venitive PPs/VPs in the descriptions of motion in Figure 3, to compare
motion toward the speaker into and not into his/her space.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
91.7% (11)
English
41.7% (5)
25.0% (3)
open space
91.7% (11)
Japanese
8.3% (1)
41.7% (5)
into S's room
onto S's level
88.9% (16)
Thai
55.6% (10)
61.1% (11)
Figure 13. The use of venitive PPs/VPs for three scenes with and without the speaker’s space
(average rates of use per clip)
The speaker’s space did not enhance the use of these phrases. On the contrary, it made the
use of such phrases less frequent in all three languages, especially in English and Japanese.
Fisher’s exact test found that the use of directional phrases for motion into S’s room or onto
S’s level was significantly less frequent than motion in an open space at the .05 level, except
for motion onto S’s level in Thai.
This somewhat unexpected result can be explained in terms of the cooccurrences with
other elements in a sentence. For the open space setting, the path toward the speaker is the
only notable path information to code, and so deictic phrase like toward me is the PP that is
likely to be picked as an argument of a main verb. In the classroom and staircase scenes,
other phrases such as into the room and down the stairs are used to describe the scenes,
requiring a complex PP sequence if deictic information is coded in a PP as well. English
19
allows such a sequence but it may be avoided in spoken discourse unless highly necessary.
This view is supported by our data. In English, a path PP was used in the 75% of the
responses for the classroom and staircase scenes, and it was sequenced with a deictic PP only
in the 13% of the responses. In Japanese, the sequence of two goal/direction phrases is not
allowed, and this accounts for why the use of a deictic goal PP was very rare in the classroom
scene while it was used to some extent in the staircase scene: in the descriptions of the former,
a goal PP is used to indicate Path (cf. (4b)), while those of the latter usually include an
accusative object NP rather than a PP to indicate the Ground (cf. (6b)). The 100% use of a
deictic verb in Japanese also makes the non-use of a deictic PP no great loss of information.
A slight effect of speaker’s space was observed in the descriptions of motion off the
direction of the speaker into his/her space in Thai. Figure 14 presents the use of venitive PPs
and VPs for motion of various directions onto and not onto his/her level depicted in Figure 7.
0%
English
Toward S
Neutral
Away from S
Japanese
Toward S
Neutral
Away from S
Thai
Toward S
Neutral
Away from S
20%
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
40%
60%
80%
25.0% (3)
16.7% (2)
0.0% (0)
8.3% (1)
8.3% (1)
41.7% (5)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
onto non-S's level
onto S's level
8.3% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
100%
61.1% (11)
16.7% (3)
0.0% (0)
11.1% (2)
Figure 14. The use of venitive PPs/VPs for different directions of motion onto/not onto S’s
level (average rates of use per clip)
Fisher’s exact test revealed that the use of venitive PPs/VPs for motion toward the speaker
onto the speaker’s level was significantly more common than for that onto the non-speaker’s
level in Thai (English: p = .21 (n.s.); Japanese: p = .15 (n.s.); Thai: p < .001). This can be
20
spatially accounted for, for the latter motion is not exactly toward the speaker because of the
level difference. Motion off the direction of the speaker did not exhibit a significant
difference between the one onto his/her level and the one onto the non-speaker’s level, but
the difference in Thai is very close to the significance level (English: p = .23 (n.s.); Japanese:
p = 1.00 (n.s.); Thai: p = .05 (n.s.)). There were three instances of deictic PPs used for motion
off the direction of the speaker onto his/her level in English, two of which were to me rather
than toward me; all the five instances in Thai were the VP hǎa chán.
The effect of visibility change, on the other hand, was not relevant to the use of deictic
PPs/VPs at all. An examination of responses obtained from the scene in Figure 9c showed
that no use of such phrases is found in any language, whether they are PPs or VPs.
Does the interactional behavior enhance the use of venitive directional phrases? Figure
15 provides relevant results from all 26 clips. It shows that interactional behavior slightly
enhanced the use of venitive directional phrases in the three languages, but the difference is
statistically not significant (English:
= .73 (n.s.);
0%
2
(1) = 0.42, p = .51 (n.s.); Japanese:
2
(1) = 0.11, p
(1) = 1.84, p = .17 (n.s.)).
20%
40%
English
15.4% (24)
12.8% (20)
Japanese
13.5% (21)
12.2% (20)
Thai
2
60%
80%
100%
interactional
noninteractional
19.2% (44)
14.5% (34)
Figure 15. The use of venitive PPs/VPs for all the scenes with and without interactional
behavior (average rates of use per clip)
Of the three languages Thai exhibits a relatively large difference. We have noted that Thai
hǎa chán was used five times for motion off the direction of the speaker onto his/her level,
instances of which were found for motion with interactional behavior; none were observed
for motion without such behavior. This may suggest that Thai hǎa chán is sensitive to
interactional behavior, though the scarceness of data prohibits a conclusive statement.
21
4. General discussion
We now further discuss our findings, revisiting the semantics of venitive verbs (Section 4.1)
and the typology of motion expressions (Section 4.2).
4.1. The functional semantics of venitive verbs
Our data suggest the need to redefine the semantics of venitive verbs, which appear to mean
more than just ‘move to the deictic center’ (cf. Fillmore 1971). The observed relevance of the
speaker’s interactional space and interactional behavior to the use of venitive verbs allows us
to revise their meanings in terms of interactionality.
Our experimental results indicate that the use of a venitive verb is enhanced by the
coexistence of the speaker and the mover at the end of the motion in some shared space,
perceived through the natural or artificial division of physical space (e.g. room, floor, visible
area). The goal of venitive verbs has been regarded prototypically as the location of the
speaker, but this location can be regarded more appropriately in terms of the speaker’s
(potential) interaction with the moving person. Thus, one may propose the following
interactional condition of the use of venitive verbs: the goal of motion is in the space where
the speaker can easily interact with the moving person. The speaker’s interaction with the
moving person may simply be just seeing him/her, but also talking to him/her, and perhaps
doing something together.
This interactional nature of venitive verbs explains why their conditions of use involve
the speaker’s location at the time of a moving event (Fillmore 1971). The verb come, for
example, has been claimed to refer to the motion to a goal where the speaker (or hearer) is at
the time of utterance or at the time of a moving event. The location of the speaker at the latter
time is exactly where an interaction can take place. One may note that the location of the
speaker at the time of utterance on the other hand is not always where interaction can in fact
take place: for example, the speaker may move to another location by the time someone
arrives. The verb come can still be used in such a case (e.g. Tell him I’ve left when he comes
here), and this may be regarded as a counterexample to the claim that the goal of venitive
verbs is the location of potential interaction. However, the speaker can easily visualize a
person moving to his/her current location and so can imagine or simulate some interaction. In
this sense, the goal of venitive verbs is where the speaker can interact with the moving person
in reality or hypothetically.
An important finding in this paper is that this interactional nature is not clearly seen in
22
directional deictic phrases such as toward me in English, with interactional effects observed
only weakly, and only in some comparisons above. This difference between the two kinds of
expressions testifies to the division of labor between the two kinds of expressions. There are
two possible reasons as for why deictic verbs and directional deictic PPs are different. In one
possibility, the difference reflects the transparency of a directional component in deictic verbs
and prepositional phrases. Prepositional phrases like toward me are transparently directional,
given that the preposition toward is specifically used to indicate spatial direction. The
venitive verbs, on the other hand, do not transparently express spatial directionality. Another
possible source of difference concerns the semantic nature of verbs. Motion verbs tend to
encode one of the components of motion, such as Manner, Path, and Deixis, but often they
encode other aspects of motion that typically accompany the incorporated component as well.
It is known, for example, that manner verbs encode some psychological state of the moving
person as well, unlike Manner nouns, as suggested by the difference between stride through
the crowd and walk through the crowd with a stride.7 The semantics of path verbs often
codes (in)volitionality and certain Manner information, as can be seen in climb and fall,
unlike up and down. It may be typical of verbs that cooccurring aspects of motion are
encoded together. Perhaps such a property is related to the fact that verbs have a grammatical
subject and can encode its properties, and/or that they represent a process that develops over
time (Langacker 1990), which presumably enables temporally co-occurring aspects of an
event to be coded together. One may be able to decide between these possibilities by more
closely examining the use of the directionally transparent verb phrase hǎa chán in Thai,
which seems to have some sort of interactional property. Alternatively one may investigate
whether interactional properties are found in deictic verbal affixes, such as German her-,
Hungarian ide- (Eguchi, to appear), Hausa -o (Newman 2000), and Kupsapiny -n (Kawachi
2014), which are nonverbal elements that do not transparently encode directionality.
The present study did not examine the interactional nature of andative deictic verbs such
as go. This remains a topic for future study.
4.2. Typological implications
How do our findings relate to the issues of the typology of motion event descriptions? One
finding of this work is that the functional properties of venitive verbs are seen in all of the
7
We owe this contrast to Dan Slobin (personal communication). The high semantic flexibility of
verbs vis-à-vis nouns is also suggested in metaphor study (Cameron 2003: 89).
23
three languages examined, which differ drastically in terms of the coding patterns of
(nondeictic) Path. Thus, the proposed interactional nature is essentially independent of the
typology of Path coding positions.
One important suggestion that the present study makes to the issues of typology of
motion event descriptions concerns the differences between deictic verbs and (nondeictic)
path verbs. While deictic verbs have interactional properties as described in this paper, no
such property is known for nondeictic path verbs encoding Path notions such as ‘ascend’,
‘enter’, etc. (though they may encode volitionality/Manner). This suggests that deictic verbs
are fundamentally different in their nature from path verbs in this respect, calling for a
separate treatment.8
There are other pieces of evidence in favor of separating Deixis from Path. The
frequencies of the indication of Path and Deixis also point to the differences between the two.
Our data above in Figure 4 show that languages differ widely in the frequencies of the
indication of deictic information: English is quite lower than Japanese and Thai in the
frequencies of deictic expressions. This finding is consistent with the findings of Koga (to
appear), who points out that English is a Deixis-infrequent language, in comparison to
Japanese. Interestingly, English is known as a Path-frequent language (Slobin 1996,
Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2009), as far as nondeictic Path is concerned, suggesting that the
frequencies of Deixis and Path indications are independent.
We have pointed out in Section 1 that deictic verbs and path verbs differ in their status
in the lexical repertoire of a language, with the former commonly found in languages that
have a poor repertoire of path verbs. We have also pointed out that Deixis is often expressed
in a slot different from that for Path. This second point is worth further comments. Deixis and
Path are in fact often very different in their coding positions in such a way that results in a
different classification of a language depending on which is considered. Matsuse (submitted)
argues that Newar, a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal, has a drastically different pattern of
expression for Deixis and Path. In this language Deixis is primarily expressed in the main
verb, while Path is expressed in adverbs and case markers. A similar situation is found in
Jaminjung, a non-Pama-Nyungan language of northern Australia (Schultz-Berndt 2000), in
which Deixis is expressed in the main verb (light verb), and Path is expressed by a
8
As discussed above, deictic directional PPs do not show clear interactional properties. Perhaps such
phrases should be treated not so much as deictic expressions but as regular Path expressions plus the
first person pronoun in the discussion of the typology of motion event descriptions.
24
noninflecting coverb that occurs with the main verb.
These considerations suggest that Deixis must be treated separately from Path in terms
of the typology of motion event descriptions (see also Verkerk 2013 for relevant data
favoring this view).
5. Conclusion
In this chapter, we have argued that the semantics of venitive deictic verbs is not merely
spatial but also interactional. Our video-based experiments in English, Japanese, and Thai
have revealed that the venitive verbs tend to be used more often when the motion is not just
toward the speaker but also into his/her space defined by limits of interaction and visibility,
and that they can often be used for motion off the direction of the speaker if it is into the
speaker’s space. Furthermore, venitive verbs tend to be used more often when motion is
accompanied by an interactional behavior. Directional venitive PPs do not clearly have such
properties. Moreover, the proposed interactional nature is essentially independent of the
typology of Path coding positions. This interactional nature of deictic verbs, along with
frequency and other evidence, suggests that Deixis should be treated separately from Path in
the discussion of motion event descriptions.
References
Akita, K., Matsumoto, Y., & Ohara, K. H. 2010. Idoo-hyoogen no ruikeiron ni okeru
tyokuzi-teki-keiro-hyoogen to yootai-goi-repaatorii [Deictic Path expressions and Manner
lexicon in the typology of motion expressions]. In T. Kageyama (Ed.), Lexicon forum 5 (1–
25). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of
Linguistics, 46(2), 331–377.
Cameron, L. 2003. Metaphor in educational discourse [Advances in Applied Linguistics Series].
London: Continuum.
Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. 1991. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The
influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41(1-3), 83–121.
Craig, C. G. 1993. Jakaltek directionals: Their meaning and discourse function. Languages of the
World, 7(2), 23–36.
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. 2010. Revisiting Talmy’s typological
classification of complex events. In H. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive construction grammar (201–
235). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Eguchi, K. To appear. Hangarii-go ni okeru idoo-hyoogen [Motion expressions in Hungarian]. In Y.
25
Matsumoto (Ed.), Idoo-hyoogen no ruikeiron [The typology of motion expressions]. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Enfield, N. J. 2003. Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and
implications for semantic analysis. Language, 79, 82–117.
Fillmore, C. J. 1971. Santa Cruz lectures on Deixis. [published in 1997 as Lectures in Deixis. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications].
Gathercole, V. C. 1977. A study of comings and goings of the speakers of four languages: Spanish,
Japanese, English, and Turkish. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 61–94
Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New
York: The Free Press.
Huang, Y. 2006. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2009. Path salience in language. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S.
Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & S. Özçalişkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the
psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (403–414). New
York: Psychology Press.
Imai, S. 2009. Spatial Deixis: How finely do language divides space? Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag.
Ishibashi, M. ms. Nihongo no idoo hyoogen: Daikusisu no hindo to sono shutsugen kontekusuto
[Motion expressions in Japanese: Frequencies and contexts of occurrence of spatial deixis].
Unpublished paper, The University of Lyon 2.
Kawachi, K. 2014. Patterns of expressing motion events in Kupsapiny. In O. Hieda (Ed.), Recent
advances in Nilotic linguistics (Studies in Nilotic Linguistics, Vol. 8), (103–136). Tokyo:
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of
Foreign Studies.
Koga, H. To appear. Niti-ei-doku-ro-go no ziritu-idoo-hyoogen: Taiyaku-koopasu o motiita
hikaku-kenkyuu [Self-motion expressions in Japanese, English, German, and Russian: A
comparative study using translation corpora]. In Y. Matsumoto (Ed.), Idoo-hyoogen no
ruikeiron [The typology of motion expressions]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matsumoto, Y. 1997. Kuukan-idoo no gengo-hyoogen to sono kakuchoo [Linguistic expressions of
motion in space and their extensions]. In S. Tanaka & Y. Matsumoto, Kuukan to Idoo no
Hyoogen [Expressions of space and motion], 125-230. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Matsumoto, Y. 2003. Typologies of lexicalization patterns and event integration: Clarifications and
reformulations. In S. Chiba et al. (Eds.), Empirical and theoretical investigations into
language: A festschrift for Masaru Kajita (403–417). Tokyo: Kaitakusha. [Republished in
A. Goldberg (Ed.), 2011. Cognitive linguistics, Vol III [Critical Concepts in Linguistics].
London: Routledge.]
26
Matsumoto, Y. 2013. Determinants of Manner, Path, and Deixis saliency across languages. Paper
presented at International Workshop SYLEX III: Space and Motion across Languages and
Applications, University of Zaragoza, Spain, 21 November 2013.
Matsumoto, Y. To appear. Nihongo to idoo-hyoogen no ruikei [Japanese and the typology of motion
expressions]. In Y. Matsumoto (Ed.), Idoo-hyoogen no ruikeiron [The typology of motion
expressions]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Matsuse, I. submitted. Deixis and Path in the descriptions of motion and caused motion in Newar.
Newman, P. 2000. The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Schultze-Berndt, E. 2000. Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung: A study of event categorisation in
an Australian language. Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen,
Netherlands (Published as MPI Series in Psycholinguistics 14).
Slobin, D. I. 1996. Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani and
S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (195–317).
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Slobin, D. I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of
motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative:
Typological and contextual perspectives (219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Takahashi, K. 2009a. Thai motion event expressions: A literature review. In M. Minegishi, K.
Thepkanjana,
W.
Aroonmanakun,
&
M.
Endo
(Eds.),
Proceedings
of
the
Chulalongkorn-Japan Linguistics Symposium (29–43). Tokyo: Global COE Program:
Corpus-based Linguistics and Language Education, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Takahashi, K. 2009b. Arrival expressions in Thai. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society,
2, 175–193.
Takahashi, K. To appear. Tai-go no idoo-hyoogen [Motion expressions in Thai]. In Y. Matsumoto
(Ed.), Idoo-hyoogen no ruikeiron [The typology of motion expressions]. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Talmy, L. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth
Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society (480–519). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley
Linguistics Society.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thepkanjana, K. 1986. Serial verb constructions in Thai. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
Verkerk, A. 2013. Scramble, scurry and dash: The correlation between motion event encoding and
manner verb lexicon size in Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change, 3(2), 169–217.
Wilkins, D., & Hill, D. 1995. When “go” means “come”: Questioning the basicness of basic motion
verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(2/3), 209–259.
27
Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P. 2003. A third way to travel: The place of Thai and serial verb languages
in motion event typology. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in
narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (159–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
28