Cover not available
Article published In:
Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages
Edited by Anetta Kopecka and Marine Vuillermet
[Studies in Language 45:1] 2021
► pp. 109–129

Source-Goal (a)symmetry in Romanian

ORCID logo | Babeș-Bolyai University
According to Talmy (2000), a motion event has four conceptual components: Figure, Motion, Path and one or more Grounds. Path can be further decomposed into Source, Medium and Goal (or: departure, passing and arrival). In many languages, intuitive pairs of motion events such as come/go seem to indicate that Source and Goal are equally able to build the image of the Path. However, numerous studies have pointed to an asymmetry in favor of Goal in motion descriptions. Using the corpus elicited during the Trajectoire project, this paper explores Source-Goal asymmetries in Romanian; this concerns adposition inventories (which are symmetrical for Source and Goal), adposition-verb combinations, and the attention payed by speakers to Source viz. Goal-oriented motion. The paper postulates possible semantic causes of Source-Goal asymmetry not identified in previous literature, such as the bounded nature of the Ground, and motion being associated with a particular human activity.
Keywords: Source-Goal asymmetry, Romanian, motion, boundary crossing, adposition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus and method
  • 3.The language
  • 4.Morphological and semantical (a)symmetries in Romanian prepositions
  • 5.Asymmetrical combinatorics of verbs with Source and Goal expressions
  • 6.Asymmetries in complex path descriptions
  • 7.Asymmetry in attention
  • 8.Discussion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 21 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19084.pap
References (36)
References
Arias Oliveira, Roberto Carlos. 2012. Boundary-crossing: Eine Untersuchung zum Deutschen, Französischen und Spanischen. München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Aurnague, Michel. 2011. How motion verbs are spatial: The spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes 34(1). 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas J. Enfield, James Scobey, 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
Borillo, Andrée. 1998. L’espace et son expression en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe. 1997. On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In Palek, Bohumil (ed.), Proceedings of LP ‘96: Typology: prototypes, item orderings and universals, proceedings of the conference held in Prague, August 20–22, 1996, 185–216. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Encoding the distinction between location, source, and destination: A typological study. In Maya Hickmann & Robert, Stéphane (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 19–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1971/75. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1972. How to know whether you’re coming or going. In Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen (ed.) Linguistik 1971: Referate des 6. Linguistischen Kolloquiums 11.–14. August 1971 in Kopenhagen, 369–379. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.Google Scholar
Hamp, Paul. 1967 [1888]. Die zusammengesetzten Präpositionen im Lateinischen. Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik V1. 321–367.Google Scholar
Hottenroth, Priska-Monika. 1993. Prepositions and object concepts: A contribution to cognitive semantics. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.). The Semantics of prepositions. From mental processing to natural language processing, 179–219. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, Claudio, Luisa Corona, Noemi De Pasquale & Alfonsina Buoniconto. 2017. How should a “classical” satellite-framed language behave? Path encoding asymmetries in Ancient Greek and Latin. In Silvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.). Space in diachrony, 95–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1987. Source vs. Goal: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In René Dirven & Günter Radden (eds.). Concepts of case, 122–146. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Ilinski, Kirill. 2003. La préposition et son régime. Étude des cas atypiques. Paris: H. Champion.Google 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
Ishibashi, Miyuki. 2012. The expression of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ events in Japanese: The 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
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta. 2009. L’expression du déplacement en français: l’interaction des facteurs sémantiques, aspectuels et pragmatiques dans la construction du sens spatial. Langages 1731. 54–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau. 2005. Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 961. 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Naigles, Letitia, Ann R. Eisenberg, Edward T. Kako, Melissa Highter & Nancy McGraw. 1998. Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes 13(5). 521–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Loretta. 2012. Take it up, down, and away: Encoding placement and removal in Lowland Chontal. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.). Events of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’: A crosslinguistic perspective, 297–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçalișkan, Șeyda. 2013. Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Applied Psycholinguistics 36(2). 1–24.Google Scholar
Papahagi, Cristiana. 2015. Les prépositions de la trajectoire en français et en roumain. Cluj: Casa Cărții de Știință.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba. 1998. Early spatial case markers in Hungarian children. In Karen Emmorey, Judy S. Reilly & Eve V. Clark (ed.). Proceedings of the twenty-ninth Annual Child Language Research Forum, 211–219. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sinha, Chris & Tania Kuteva. 1995. Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 181. 167–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 1997. Mind, code, and text. In Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Essays on language function and language type, 437–467. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan. & Nini Hoiting. 1994. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. In Richard Rhodes, Susanne Gahl, Chris Johnson & Andy Dolbey. Proceedings of the twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 487–505. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde. 2004. The Goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.). Studies in linguistic motivation, 249–267. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 11. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Lexical typologies. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 66–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 1996. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1987. La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation. Langue française 761. 77–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, René Dirven & Günter Radden. 1999. Putting concepts together: Syntax. In René Dirven & Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics, 79–105. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Fernando Zúñiga. 2006. Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. STUF – Language Typology and Universals. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59(3). 284–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar