Cover not available
Part of
Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Description: Deixis, asymmetries, constructions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Benjamin Fagard
[Human Cognitive Processing 72] 2022
► pp. 95–121

Chapter 5
On a few instances where deictic directionals confound expectations

ORCID logo | York UniversityToronto
Directional deixis (DD) is characterized by a set of properties that recur across languages, e.g. the feature of goal-orientedness and the built-in asymmetry between ventive direction and itive direction. These properties define a formal and semantic space that has a core and a periphery. DD systems that are outliers with respect to any given property or properties can be shown to support, rather than call into question, the validity of DD as a self-standing descriptive category. This requires articulating an explanatory framework that reconciles the complexity at the periphery with the simplicity of the overarching logic, i.e. the fundamental imbalance between the intrinsically conjunctive semantics of ventive markers and the disjunctive semantics of their itive counterparts.
Keywords: asymmetry, conjunctive vs. disjunctive semantics, goal-orientedness, itive, ventive
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Towards a working definition of directional deixis
  • 3.Directional deixis as against other categories of deixis
    • 3.1Directional deixis and positional deixis: The case of Tima
    • 3.2Directional deixis and person deixis
  • 4.Some design features of systems encoding directional deixis: Canonicity and exceptionality
    • 4.1On the asymmetry of DD systems
    • 4.2Obligatoriness and multiple exponence
    • 4.3Associated motion and unrestricted applicability
    • 4.4DD proper vs. endophoric anchoring
    • 4.5DD and the internal temporal structure of the motion event: The case of Assiniboine
  • 5.Exceptional targeting in Somali, Uduk and Gumuz
    • 5.1The basics
    • 5.2The challenge
    • 5.3Towards an explanation: Canonical targeting vs. exceptional targeting
    • 5.4An alternative explanation
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.05bou
References (68)
References
Ahland, C. A. 2012. A grammar of Northern and Southern Gumuz. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
2013. The status of Gumuz as a language isolate. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts. [URL]
Alamin, S., Schneider-Blum, G., & Dimmendaal, G. J. 2012. Finding your way in Tima. In A. Mietzner & U. Claudi (Eds.), Directionality in Grammar and Discourse: Case Studies from Africa (9–33) [Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 29]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Andersen, T. 2012. Verbal directionality and argument alternation in Dinka. In A. Mietzner & U. Claudi (Eds.), Directionality in Grammar and Discourse: Case Studies from Africa (35–53) [Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 29]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M. 2019. About asymmetry of motion in French. In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, Experimental and Formal Studies on Motion Expressions (32–65) [Human Cognitive Processing 66]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beam, M. S., & Cridland, A. E. 1970 [1956]. Uduk-English Dictionary. Khartoum: University of Khartoum (Sudan Research Unit, Faculty of Arts).Google Scholar
Belkadi, A. 2016. Associated motion constructions in African languages. Africana Linguistica, 22, 43–70.Google Scholar
Bender, L. 1997. The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay [LINCOM Handbooks in Linguistics 06]. Munich & Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2000. Nilo-Saharan. In B. Heine & D. Nurse (Eds.), African Languages: An Introduction (43–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Ph. 1997. On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In B. Palek (Ed.), Proceedings of LP’96. Typology: Prototypes, Item Ordering and Universals (Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague, Aug. 20–22, 1996) (185–218). Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Deixis directionnelle et “acquis cinétique” : de ‘venir’ à ‘arriver’, à travers quelques langues. Travaux linguistiques du CerLiCO, 12, 183–203.Google Scholar
. 2003. On two distinct uses of go as a conjoined marker of evaluative modality. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in Contemporary English (103–127) [Topics in English Linguistics 44]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The marking of directional deixis in Somali: How typologically idiosyncratic is it? In F. K. E. Vœltz (Ed.), Studies in African Linguistic Typology (13–41) [Typological Studies in Language 64]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. When come and go go necessive. In M. Devos & J. van der Wal (Eds.), ‘Come’ and ‘Go’ off the Beaten Grammaticalization Path (103–164) [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 272]. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, L-C. 1999. The grammaticalization of directed motion in Vietnamese. PhD dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Chadwick, N. 1975. A Descriptive Study of the Djingili Language. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Chelimo, A. K. 2015. Tone and tongue root [TR] as ventive morphemes in Endo-Marakwet. In A. Mietzner & A. Storch (Eds.), Nilo-Saharan – Models and Descriptions (245–254) [Nilo-Saharan 28]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Claudi, U. 2012. Who moves, and why? Somali deictic particles. In A. Mietzner & U. Claudi (Eds.), Directionality in Grammar and Discourse: Case Studies from Africa (77–89) [Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 29]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Crowley, T. 1982. The Paamese Language of Vanuatu. Canberra: Australian National University (Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies).Google Scholar
Cumberland, L. A. 2005. A grammar of Assiniboine: a Siouan language of the Northern Plains. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
Dimmendaal, G. J. 2003. Locatives as core constituents. In E. Shay & U. Seibert (Eds.), Motion, Direction and Location in Languages. In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier (91–109) [Typological Studies in Language 56]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Language ecology and linguistic diversity on the African continent. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 840–858. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimmendaal, G. J., Ahland, C., Jakobi, A., & Kutsch Lojenga, C. 2019. Linguistic features and typologies in languages commonly referred to as ‘Nilo-Saharan’. In E. Wolff (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics (326–381) [Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics]. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. 1975 [1971]. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea [Cambridge Language Surveys]. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Z. 1989. A Grammar of Pero [Sprache und Oralität in Afrika 4]. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
2001. A Grammar of Lele [Stanford Monographs in African Languages]. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Grinevald, C. 2011. On constructing a working typology of the expression of path. Faits de Langues, 38(2), 43–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groves, T. R., Groves, G. W., & Jacobs, R. 1985. Kiribatese: An Outline Description. Canberra: Australian National University (Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies).Google Scholar
Guillaume, A. 2016. Associated motion in South America: typological and areal perspectives. Linguistic Typology, 20(1), 81–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, T. 2018. Historical linguistics and genealogical language classification in Africa. In T. Güldemann (Ed.), The Languages and Linguistics of Africa (58–444) [The World of Linguistics 11]. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammarström, H., Forkel, R., Haspelmath, M. & Bank, S. 2021. Glottolog 4.5. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.  (Accessible online at [URL]) DOI logo
Haspelmath, M. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D. 2010. Understanding Morphology (2nd ed.) [Understanding Language Series]. Abingdon (U.K.) & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hayward, D. 1984. The Arbore Language: A First Investigation Including a Vocabulary [Kuschitische Sprachstudien 2]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoijer, H. 1946. Tonkawa. In C. Osgood (Ed.), Linguistic Structures of Native America (289–311) [Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6]. New York: Viking Fund.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Y. 1987. ‘Source’ vs. ‘goal’: A case of linguistic disymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of Case (122–146) [Studien zur englischen Grammatik 4]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, W. H. Jr. 1983. Typological and genetic notes on switch-reference systems in North American Indian languages. In J. Haiman & P. Munro (Eds.), Switch-Reference and Universal Grammar: Proceedings of a Symposium on Switch-Reference and Universal Grammar, Winnipeg, May 1981 (151–183) [Typological Studies in Language 2]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jungraithmayr, H. 2003. Altrilocality in Tangale and Tuareg: a common heritage feature? In E. Shay & U. Seibert (Eds.), Motion, Direction and Location in Languages. In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier (123–128) [Typological Studies in Language 56]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabata, K. 2013. Goal-source asymmetry and crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns: a cognitive-typological approach. Language Sciences, 36, 78–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendall, M. 1975. The /-K/, /-M/ problem in Yavapai syntax. International Journal of American Linguistics, 41(1), 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kießling, R. 2007. Space and reference in Datooga verbal morphosyntax. In D. Payne & M. Reh (Eds.), Advances in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics. Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, University of Hamburg, Aug. 22–25, 2001 (123–142) [Nilo-Saharan 22]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Killian, D. 2015. Topics in Uduk phonology and morphosyntax. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Kopecka, A., & Ishibashi, M. 2011. L’(a)symétrie dans l’expression de la Source et du But : perspective translinguistique. Faits de Langues, 38(2), 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutscher, S. 2011. On the expression of spatial relations in Ardeşen-Laz. Linguistic Discovery, 9(2), 49–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. 2005. Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamarre, Ch. 2008. The linguistic categorization of deictic direction in Chinese – with reference to Japanese. In D. Xu (Ed.), Space in Languages of China: Cross-linguistic, Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (69–97). New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lebaud, D. 1989. Veni, vidi… vici ? Éléments d’analyse en vue d’une caractérisation générale du marqueur venir. In J.-J. Franckel, A. Culioli, R. Iljic & D. Lebaud (Eds.), La Notion de prédicat (117–139). Paris: Université Paris 7 (Unité de formation et de recherches linguistiques).Google Scholar
Luraghi, S., Nikitina, T., & Zanchi, Ch. (Eds.), 2017. Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series 188]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osam, E. K. A. 1994. Aspects of Akan grammar: a functional perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Otero, M. A. 2019. A historical reconstruction of the Koman language family. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Papafragou, A. 2010. Source-Goal asymmetries in motion representation: implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 34(6), 1064–1092. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier, T., & Zheng, M. 2007. Attention to endpoints: a cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Remijsen, B., Miller-Naudé, C. L., & Gilley, L. G. 2016. The morphology of Shilluk transitive verbs. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 37(2), 201–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, E. R. 2012. A grammar of Karajá. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
Ricca, D. 1993. I verbi deittici di movimento in Europa: una ricerca interlinguistica [Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Pavia 70]. Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice.Google Scholar
Sarda, L. 2019. French motion verbs – Insights into the status of locative PPs. In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (Eds.), The Semantics of Dynamic Space in French: Descriptive, Experimental and Formal Studies on Motion Expressions (68–107) [Human Cognitive Processing 66]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Septfonds, D. 1994. Le Dzadrâni : un parler pashto du Paktyâ (Afghanistan) [Travaux de l’Institut d’études iraniennes de l’Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle 15]. Leuven & Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Sophana, S. 1998. Prepositional vs. directional coverbs in Vietnamese. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal, 28, 63–83.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Rohde, A. 2004. The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation (249–267) [Cognitive Linguistics Research 28]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stolz, Th. 1992. Lokalkasussysteme: Aspekte einer strukturellen Dynamik [pro lingua 13]. Wilhelmsfeld (Germany): Gottfried Egert.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2007. Lexical typologies. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon (2nd ed.) (66–168). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanz, Ch. 1980. Studies in the Acquisition of Deictic Terms [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 26]. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Topping, D. M. 1973. Chamorro Reference Grammar [PALI Language Texts – Micronesia]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogt, H. 1971. Grammaire de la langue géorgienne [Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning. Serie B: 57]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Watkins, L., with the assistance of P. McKenzie. 1984. A Grammar of Kiowa [Studies in the Anthropology of North American Indians]. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P., & Hill, D. 1995. When “go” means “come”: questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (2/3), 209–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar