Article published In:
Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages
Edited by Anetta Kopecka and Marine Vuillermet
[Studies in Language 45:1] 2021
► pp. 130171
References (45)
References
Aurnague, Michel. 2011. ‘Quittant tout, nous partîmes’: ‘quitter’ et ‘partir’ à la lumière des changements de relation locative. Journal of French Language Studies 21(3). 285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Heike. 2010. Direction and Perspective in German Child Language. In Jiansheng Guo, Elena Lieven, Nancy Budwig, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Keiko Nakamura & Seyda Ozcaliskan (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 55–67. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas J. Enfield, James Essegbey, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Sotaro Kita, Friederike Lüpke & Felix K. Ameka. 2007. Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language 83(3), 495–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe. 1997. On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. Proceedings of LP ’96: Typology: prototypes, item orderings and universals, proceedings of the conference held in Prague, August 20–22, 1996, 185–216.Google Scholar
De Knop, Sabine and Françoise Gallez. 2013. Manner of motion: A privileged dimension of German expressions. In Thomas Li (ed.), Compendium of cognitive linguistics research, 25–42. Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Dewell, Robert B. 2011. The meaning of particle/prefix constructions in German. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. The semantics of German verb prefixes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, René & Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.). 1998. Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engelen, Bernhard. 1995. Hinunter versus darunter. Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zu den Direktionaladverbien. In Ludwig M. Eichinger & Hans-Werner Eroms (eds.), Dependenz und Valenz, 243–258. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Fagard, Benjamin, Jordan Zlatev, Anetta Kopecka, Masimo Cerruti & Johan Blomberg. 2013. The expression of motion events: A quantitative study of six typologically varied languages. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, 364–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis. 2018. A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry: Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek. Constructions and Frames 10(1). 61–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1987. ‘Source’ vs. ‘Goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In René Dirven & Günter Radden (eds), Concept of case, 122–146. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Imbert, Caroline, Colette Grinevald & Anna Sörés. 2011. Pour une catégorie de “satellite” de Trajectoire dans une approche fonctionnelle-typologique. Faits de Langues – Les Cahiers 38(2). 99–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki. 2012. The expression of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ events in Japanese: ‘Asymmetry of Source and Goal’ revisited. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds). Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective, 253–272. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. A field method to describe spontaneous motion events in Japanese. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 411. 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki, Anetta Kopecka & Marine Vuillermet. 2006. Trajectoire: Matériel visuel pour élicitation des données linguistiques. Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage (CNRS / Université Lyon 2) – Fédération de Recherche en Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques, CNRS, France.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta. 2010. Motion events in Polish: lexicalization patterns and semantic distribution of Manner. In Viktoria Hasko & Renee Perellmuter (eds), New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion, 225–246. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Semantic granularity in the expression of placement and removal events in Polish. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective, 327–347. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta & Miyuki Ishibashi. 2011. L’(a)symétrie dans l’expression de la Source et du But : perspective translinguistique. Les Cahiers de Faits de Langues 31. 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta & Marine Vuillermet. This vol. Source-Goal (a)symmetry across languages: An Introduction. Studies in Language 43(3).
Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau. 2005. Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 961. 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Language and memory for motion events: origins of the asymmetry between goal and source path. Cognitive Science 36(3): 517–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehman, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Second revised edition. Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt Nr. 9.Google Scholar
. 2018. A typological approach of the encoding of motion events. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction, 45–74. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewandowski, Wojciech & Jaume Mateu. 2016. Thinking for translating and intra-typological variation in satellite-framed languages. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 141(1). 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou, Corrien Blom, Geert Booij, Marion Elenbaas & Ans van Kemenenade. 2012. Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Łozińska, Joanna. 2018. Path and manner saliency in Polish in contrast with Russian: A cognitive linguistic study. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke. 2001. On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, Bhuvana, Anetta Kopecka, Melissa Bowerman, Marianne Gullberg & Asifa Majid. 2012. Putting and taking events: A cross-linguistic perspective, In Kopecka, Anetta and Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds), Events of putting and taking, 1–18. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2008. Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals: The case of into vs. in. In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 175–195. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, Wolfgang (dir.). 1993. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. 2nd edn. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Regier, Thierry & Mingyu Zheng. 2007. Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science 311. 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan Isaac, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Anetta Kopecka & Majid Asifa. 2014. Manners of human gait: A crosslinguistic event-naming study. Cognitive Linguistics 251. 701–741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2018. The goal bias revised: A collostructional approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 6(1). 143–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rodhe. 2004. The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), Studies in linguistic motivation, 249–267. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stevens, Christopher M. 2011. Grammaticalization in spatial deixis: A case study. In Irmengard Rauch, Gerald F. Carr & Robert L. Kyes (eds), On Germanic linguistics: Issues and methods, 299–313. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria. 1994. The grammar of space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical form. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and semantic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 36–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 1996. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Verkerk, Annemarie. 2017. The goal-over-source principle in European languages: Preliminary results from a parallel corpus study. In Silvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (Eds), Space in diachrony, 1–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuillermet, Marine & Anetta Kopecka. 2019. Trajectoire: a methodological tool for eliciting Path of motion. Methodological tools for linguistic description and typology. Special issue of Language, Documentation and Conservation 161. 97–124.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1983. On the Compositionality of German Prefix Verbs. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 452–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar