Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp.864–895

The locative alternation in verb-framed vs. satellite-framed languages

A corpus study of Spanish and Polish

| Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
I propose a comparative analysis of the locative alternation in Polish and Spanish. I adopt a constructional theory of argument structure (Goldberg (1995)), according to which the locative alternation is an epiphenomenon of the compatibility of a single verb meaning with two different constructions: the caused-motion construction and the causative + with adjunct construction. As claimed by Pinker (1989), a verb must specify a manner of motion from which a particular change of state can be obtained in order to be able to appear in both constructional schemas. However, I show through a corpus study that the compatibility between verbal and constructional meaning is further restricted by Talmy’s (1985, 1991, 2000) distinction between verb-framed and satellite-framed languages. In particular, Talmy’s lexicalization patterns theory systematically explains why both the token frequency and the type frequency of the alternating verbs are considerably higher in Polish than in Spanish.
Keywords: locative alternation, Spanish, typology, Polish, Construction Grammar, lexicalization patterns, corpus linguistics
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.08lew
References (72)
Anderson, Stephen. 1971. On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 41. 387–396.Google Scholar
Aske, Jon. 1989. Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Proceedings of the 15 th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 1–14.
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1). 39–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John, Beth Levin & Shiao Wei Tham. 2010. A morphosyntactic basis for variation in the encoding of motion events. Journal of Linguistics 461. 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bleam, Tonia. 2001. Properties of the double object constructions in Spanish. In Rafael Nuñez-Cedeño, Luia López & Richard Cameron (eds.), A Romance perspective of language knowledge and use, 233–252. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans. 2006. A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning. In Petra Steiner, Hand Boas & Stefan Schierholz, Contrastive studies and valency: Studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas, 119–149. Frankfurt & New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2008. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. In Eulalia Sosa Acevedo & Francisco José Cortés Rodríguez (eds.), Grammar, constructions, and interfaces. Special Issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 571, 17–48.Google Scholar
Brinkmann, Ursula. 1997. The locative alternation in German: Its structure and acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, Williams. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Construction Grammar. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 463–509. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W., Jóhanna. Barðdal, Willem Hollmann, Violeta Sotirova & Chiaki Taoka. 2010. Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex events. In Hans Boas, Contrastive construction grammar, 201–235. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Anthony. 2001. Linking by types in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 71. 5–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1996. The spatial structuring of events: A study of Polish perfectivizing prefixes”. In Putz, Martin & René Dirven (eds.), The Construal of Space in Language and Thought. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 467–490.Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio. 2007. An exhaustive lexicalisation account of directional complements. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 34(2). 165–199.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 1993. The locative alternation and multistratalism. Linguistics 321. 5–45.Google Scholar
. 2009. The preposition with in Role and Reference Grammar. In Lilián Guerrero, Sergio Ibáñéz & Valeria Belloro, Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 179–202. México: UNAM.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1). 55–101.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 111.73–86.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13(4). 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander & Richard Goldberg. 1991. Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition 411. 153–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwata, Seizi. 2005. Locative alternation and the two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics 16(2). 355–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura. 2007. Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language 311. 607- 648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura & Steven Clancy. 2002. The case book for Russian. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
. 2006. The case book for Czech. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Kailuwait, Rolf. 2008. A RRG description of locative alternation verbs in English, French, German and Italian. In Rolf Kailuweit, Björn Wiemer, Eva Staudinger & Ranko Matasović (eds.), New applications of role and reference grammar, 328–355. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 751. 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta. 2010. Motion events in Polish: Lexicalization patterns and the description of Manner. In Victoria Hasko & Renee Perelmutter, New approaches to Slavic verbs of motion, 225–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & María Sandra Peña Cervel, Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Cognitive (construction) grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 201. 167–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1990. Double objects revisited: A reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 211. 589–632.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, Wojciech. 2012. “The locative PP motion construction in Polish: A third lexicalization pattern?”. In Luna Filipović & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.), Space and Time in Languages and Cultures. Linguistic Diversity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 437–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1987. The competition model. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 249–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maldonado, Ricardo. 2002. Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics 13(1). 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateu, Jaume. 2000. La semàntica relacional de l’estructura argumental i la seva aplicació a una alternança lexicosemàntica del català. Llengua & Literatura 111. 281–309.Google Scholar
. 2002. Lexicalization patterns and the locative alternation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona ms.
Michaelis, Laura & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2001. Valence creation and the German applicative: The inherent semantics of linking patterns. Journal of Semantics 171. 335–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreno Cabrera, Juan Carlos. 2003. Semántica y gramática: Sucesos, papeles semánticos y relaciones sintácticas. Madrid: Antonio Machado Libros.Google Scholar
Morera, Marcial. 1988. Estructura semántica del sistema preposicional del español moderno y sus campos de usos. Puerto del Rosario: Servicio de publicaciones del Exmo. Cabido Insular de Fuerteventura.Google 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, Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 175–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olbishevska, Olesya. 2005. Locative alternation in Slavic: The role of prefixes. In Marie-Odile Junker, Martha McGinnis & Yves Roberge (eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 CLA Annual Conference.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Seyda. 2002. Metaphors we move by: A crosslinguistic-developmental analysis of metaphorical motion events in English and Turkish. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
Pedersen, Johan. 2014. Variable type framing in Spanish constructions of directed motion. In Hans Boas & Francisco Gonzalvez-García (eds.), Construction grammar and Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña Cervel, María Sandra. 2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences 311. 740–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plunket, Kim & Virginia Marchman. 1991. U-Shaped learning and frequency effects in a mulitilayered perception: Implications for child language acquisition. Cognition 381. 43–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Przybylska, Renata. 2006. Schematy wyobrażeniowe a semantyka polskich prefiksów czasownikowych [Image schemas and the semantics of verbal prefixes in Polish]. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1988. What to do with theta-roles. In Wendy Wilkins (ed.), Syntax and semantics: Thematic relations, vol. 211, 7–36. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Sara. 1996. Events and verb classification. Linguistics 341. 191–223. 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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 59–81. Amsterdam : John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sokolova, Svetlana & Wojciech Lewandowski. 2010. Constructional profile of the verbal prefix za-: A comparative study of Russian and Polish. Oslo Studies in Language 2(2). 365–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Śmiech, Witold. 1986. Derywacja prefiksalna czasowników polskich [The prefixal derivation of Polish verbs]. Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk & Łódź: Zakład Narodowy Im. Ossolinskich.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1983. Verb Descriptivity in German and English, Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Tabakowska, Elżbieta. 2003. Space and time in Polish: The preposition za and the verbal prefix za‑. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language, 153–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard 1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. In Timothy Shopen, Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the 17 th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 480–519.
. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Timyam, Napasri & Benjamin Bergen. 2010. A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. In Hans Boas (ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, 137–168. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torre, Enrico. 2012. Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions. An embodied construction grammar approach. Constructions 20121. 1–52.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Fagard, Benjamin & Anetta Kopecka
2021. Source/Goal (a)symmetry. Studies in Language 45:1 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley
2020. A Head Movement Approach to Talmy’s Typology. Linguistic Inquiry 51:3 ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
Ziegler, Jayden, Rodrigo Morato & Jesse Snedeker
2019. Priming semantic structure in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 3:S1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Lewandowski, Wojciech
2018. Exploring vagueness: Preposition alternation in Spanish. Language Sciences 66 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lewandowski, Wojciech
2018. A typological approach to the encoding of motion events. In The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 296], ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
LEWANDOWSKI, WOJCIECH
2021. Variable motion event encoding within languages and language types: a usage-based perspective. Language and Cognition 13:1 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Lewandowski, Wojciech
2022. Bilingual patterns of path encoding: A study of Polish L1-German L2 and Polish L1-Spanish L2 speakers . International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:3 ► pp. 679 ff. DOI logo
Mateu, Jaume
2017. Two types of locative alternation. In Verb Valency Changes [Typological Studies in Language, 120], ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo
Lewandowski, Wojciech & Jaume Mateu
2016. Thinking for translating and intra-typological variation in satellite-framed languages. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Lewandowski, Wojciech & Jaume Mateu
2020. Motion events again: Delimiting constructional patterns. Lingua 247 ► pp. 102956 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 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.