Cover not available
Part of
Broader Perspectives on Motion Event Descriptions
Edited by Yo Matsumoto and Kazuhiro Kawachi
[Human Cognitive Processing 69] 2020
► pp. 235–280

Chapter 8
Looking into visual motion expressions in Dutch, English, and French

How languages stick to well-trodden typological paths

 | University of Lille
This study investigates visual motion expressions in Dutch, English, and French. As a translation corpus, I use Roald Dahl’s children’s book The Witches, which abounds in staring and peeping events, and its Dutch and French translations. Based on the hypothesis that languages’ constructional repertoires for physical motion are exploited for visual motion, one can predict, correctly, that Dutch uses its syntactically wide variety of path complement types in the domain of visual motion. It is tempting to assume that French, lacking looking verbs expressing path, would lose its generally verb-framed nature in visual motion descriptions. However, French appears to preserve some of its typological identity, by using causative path verbs such as lever ‘raise’ combined with an object meaning ‘one’s eyes/gaze’. In keeping with its verb-framed nature, French uses fewer visual path complements than Dutch and English, but it does have, and frequently uses, manner-of-vision expressions.
Keywords: manner, path, satellite-framed, translation, verb-framed
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is visual motion, and how fictive is it?
  • 3.Hypotheses and predictions
    • 3.1Rationale
    • 3.2Specific hypotheses and predictions
    • 3.3Interim summary
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1The corpus
    • 4.2Data
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Visual motion in Dutch: Parallels with physical motion
    • 5.2Path of vision in French: Still some verb-framing devices
    • 5.3Manner-of-vision verbs and verb-external paths of vision: Partially confirmed typology-based predictions
      • 5.3.1Availability of manner-of-vision verbs
      • 5.3.2Frequency and complexity of paths of vision
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 11 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.69.08cap
References (89)
References
Ameka, F., & Essegbey, J. 2013. Serialising languages: Satellite-framed, verb-framed or neither. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 2(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A. 2005. Translating phrasal combinations across the typological divide. In M. Bertuccelli Papi (Ed.), Studies in the semantics of lexical combinatory patterns (487–519). Pisa: Pisa University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1978. Introduction to Generative-Transformational Syntax. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W. 2010. The typology of motion verbs revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beliën, M. 2008. Construction, constraints, and construal: Adpositions in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. I. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic and developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. 2013. Disentangling manner from path: Evidence from varieties of German and Romance. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (55–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J. 2014. Motion in language and experience: Actual and non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
2015. The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 657–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Non-actual motion in language and experience. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (205–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. 2014. Actual and nonactual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13, 395–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C. 2003. The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R. 2017. Metaphorical motion constructions across specialized genres. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (229–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2005. Particle patterns in English: A comprehensive coverage. Ph.D. dissertation, K.U. Leuven.Google Scholar
2012. English is less rich in manner-of-motion verbs when translated from French. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(2), 173–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Raised Grounds in Dutch and English: Common underlying semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop Space, Time and Existence: Typological, cognitive and philosophical viewpoints, 46th annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE 2011), Split, Croatia, 18–21 September 2013.
2015. Achterzetsels: de spraakkunst uit ermee! [Postpositions: out of the grammar with them!] Over Taal, 54(1), 14–17.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., & Loock, R. 2017. Typological differences shining through: The case of phrasal verbs in translated English. In G. De Sutter, M.-A. Lefer, & I. Delaere (Eds.), Empirical translation studies: New theoretical and methodological traditions (235–264). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelli, F. 2013. Etude de mouvement fictif à travers un corpus d’exemples du français: Perspective sémantique du lexique au discours. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Toulouse 2.Google Scholar
Cifuentes-Férez, P. 2014. A closer look at Paths of vision, Manner of vision and their translation from English into Spanish. Languages in Contrast, 14(2), 214–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cifuentes-Férez, P., & Rojo, A. 2015. Thinking for translating: A think-aloud protocol on the translation of manner-of-motion verbs. Target, 27(2), 273–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. 2010. Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex events. In H. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive construction grammar (201–235). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, S. 1996. Movement and direction in French and English. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 15(1), 31–54.Google Scholar
Egan, Th. 2015. Manner and path: Evidence from a multilingual corpus. CogniTextes, 12, 1–32. [URL]. DOI logo
Egan, Th., & Rawoens, G. 2013. Moving over in(to) English and French: A translation-based study of ‘overness’. Languages in Contrast, 13(2), 193–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N. 2010. The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1991. It can’t go up the chimney down: Paths and the English resultative. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society: General Session and Parasession on The Grammar of Event Structure (368–378). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. 1979. On the semantic nature of see. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 347–352.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. 1967. Look and see. Language, 43(4), 937–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M., Engemann, H., Soroli, E., Hendriks, H., & Vincent, C. 2017. Expressing and categorizing motion in French and English. In Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (61–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoelbeek, T. 2017. The evolution of complex spatial expressions within the Romance family: A corpus-based study of French and Italian. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2001. An overview of Basque Locational cases: Old descriptions, new approaches. Technical report. International Computer Science Institute. No 01-006. (Available at [URL]).
2003. What translation tells us about motion: a contrastive study of typologically different languages. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 151–176.Google Scholar
2004. Motion events in Basque narratives. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (89–111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2009. Path Salience in Motion Events. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & Ş. Özçalışkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (403–414). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
2015. Going beyond motion events typology: The case of Basque as a verb-framed language. Folia Linguistica, 49(2), 307–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017a. Motion and semantic typology: A hot old topic with exciting caveats. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (13–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). 2017b. Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., & Filipović, L. 2013. Lexicalisation patterns and translation. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (251–281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A. 2004. Étude typologique de l’expression de l’espace: Localisation et déplacement en français et en polonais. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Laffut, A. 1998. The locative alternation: A contrastive study of Dutch vs. English. Languages in Contrast, 1(2), 127–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Ross, J. R. 1966. Criterion for verb phrase constituency. Technical Report NSF-17, Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1986. Abstract motion. In V. Nikiforidou, M. VanClay, M. Niepokuj, & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (455–471). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000. Virtual reality. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 29, 77–103.Google Scholar
2005. Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The Imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking (164–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Ameel, E., Imai, M., Gennari, S. P., Saji, N., & Majid, A. 2014. Human locomotion in languages: Constraints on moving and meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 107–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T. 2004a. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004b. The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & R. Dirven (Eds.), Motivation in Grammar (221–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010. Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language & Cognition, 2(2), 243–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T., & Bergman, T. 2015. Fictive motion. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Mouton Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (546–562). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. 1996a. Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996b. How abstract is subjective motion? A comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (359–373). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2001. Lexicalization patterns and caused and fictive motion: The case of typological split. Handout for a lecture at SUNY Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
2017. Eigo ni okeru idoo-zisyoo-hyoogen no taipu to keiro no hyoogen. [Types of motion-event expressions and expressions of path in English]. In Y. Matsumoto (Ed.), Idoo-hyoogen no ruikeiron [The typology of motion expressions]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y., Akita, K., Bordilovskaya, A., Eguchi, K., Koga, H., Mano, M., Matsuse, I., Morita, T., Takahashi, K., Takahashi, R., & Yoshinari, Y. 2017. Linguistic representations of the path of vision: a crosslinguistic experimental study. Paper presented at the international workshop “NAMED: Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Descriptions”, Paris, 19–20 May 2017.
Mauranen, A., & Kujamäki, P. (Eds.). 2004. Translation universals: Do they exist? Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford Dictionaries. n.d. penetrate. Oxford Dictionaries. Available online: [URL]. Last accessed: 29 September 2018.
. n.d. stare. Oxford Dictionaries. Available online: [URL]. Last accessed: 29 September 2018.
Özçalışkan, Ş. 2004. Encoding the manner, path and ground components of a metaphorical motion event. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 73–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Metaphor meets typology: Ways of moving metaphorically in English and Turkish. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 207–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş., Stites, L. J., & Emerson, S. N. 2017. Crossing the road or crossing the mind: How differently do we move across physical and metaphorical spaces in speech and in gesture? In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (257–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Volynsky, M. 2015. Motion encoding in Russian and English: Moving beyond Talmy’s typology. The Modern Language Journal, 99(S1), 32–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojo, A., & Valenzuela, J. 2003. Fictive motion in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 123–149.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1987. Thinking for speaking. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis, & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (435–445). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004. The many ways to search for a frog. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (219–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2005. Relating narrative events in translation. In D. D. Ravid & H. B.-Z. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman (115–129). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (59–81). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Relations between Paths of motion and Paths of vision: A crosslinguistic and developmental exploration. In V. C. M. Gathercole (Ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (197–222). New York & London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Soroli, E. 2011. Language and spatial cognition in French and in English: Crosslinguistic perspectives on aphasia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paris 8.Google Scholar
Soroli, E., Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H. 2019. Casting an eye on motion events: eye tracking and its implications for typology. In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The semantics of dynamic space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression (250–288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soroli, E. & Verkerk, A. 2017. Motion events in Greek. Cognitextes, 15(1), 1–54.Google Scholar
Stosic, D., Fagard, B., Sarda, L., & Colin, C. 2015. Does the road go up the mountain? Fictive motion between linguistic conventions and cognitive motivations. Cognitive Processing, 16(S1), 221–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space. In H. L. Pick, Jr. & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (225–282). New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic descriptions, Vol. 3. Grammatical categories and the lexicon (36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society: General Session and Parasession on The Grammar of Event Structure (480–519). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1996. Fictive motion in language and ‘ception”. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (211–276). Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000. Toward a cognitive semantics (2 Volumes). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2017a. Foreword: Past, present and future of motion research. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (1–12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b. The targeting system of language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2018. Ten lectures on cognitive semantics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waliński, J. T. 2018. Verbs in Fictive Motion. Łódz: Łódz University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yasuhara, M. 2013a. One eventuality per subevent: An event-based account of argument structure. Language Sciences, 40, 251–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b. Further specification analysis of the Unique Path Constraint effect: From the perspective of spatial extension. English Linguistics Research, 2(2), 141–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P. 2004. A third way to travel: The place of Thai in motion event typology. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (159–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Dai, Ying & Yicheng Wu
2024. The colexification of vision and cognition in Mandarin: controlled activity surpasses uncontrolled experience. Cognitive Linguistics 35:3 ► pp. 345 ff. DOI logo
Laporte, Samantha, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Casting new light on the CAUSED-MOTION construction: Some evidence from Harry Potter. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Matsumoto, Yo, Kimi Akita, Anna Bordilovskaya, Kiyoko Eguchi, Hiroaki Koga, Miho Mano, Ikuko Matsuse, Takahiro Morita, Naonori Nagaya, Kiyoko Takahashi, Ryosuke Takahashi & Yuko Yoshinari
2022. Chapter 3. Linguistic representations of visual motion. In Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Description [Human Cognitive Processing, 72], ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.