Covert encoding is one of the strategies available to languages for the encoding of motion, in which, in accordance with the laws of Gestalt, the meaning of an expression encoding motion is not coincident with the mere sum of the meanings of each of its constitutive units, relying on the mediation of grammatical and co(n)textestablished knowledge for its interpretability. Moving on from a data set gathered for a previous study and adopting a holistic, constructional approach, several strategies were found in a diachronic corpus of Italian, French and Spanish for the covert encoding of motion in such languages, based on whether the motioninterpretation attributed to the covert construction is mediated by either linguistic or extralinguistic knowledge. The diachronic investigation also showed that the use of such patterns is diachronically consistent in frequency, thus proving that such patterns of interaction between language and cognition may be regarded as functional for speakers of all languages and time stages, also confirming that a holistic, constructional approach to language study can help shed light on linguistic–cognitive phenomena on the basis of language variation and change.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. In K. Hall, M. Meacham, & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 1–14). Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W. (2010). The typology of motion expression revisited. Journal of linguistics, 46(3), 331–377.
Buoniconto, A. (2018). The many ways to cross a boundary. (Intra)Typological limina in motion event encoding. In M. De Blasi, G. Imbriaco, F. Messina, S. Orlando, & V. Schettino (Eds.), In limine. Forme marginali e discorsi di confine – Quaderni della ricerca 2 (pp. 359–374). Napoli, Italy: Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale” Press.
Buoniconto, A. (2019a). “Going through the motions”. Motion events encoding and analysis parameters. A test study on the Romance family (Doctoral dissertation, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy).
Buoniconto, A. (2019b). “It goes without saying”. Covert encoding in the linguistic expression of motion events. In A. Buoniconto, R. Cesaro, & G. Salvati (Eds.), Spazi Bianchi. Le espressioni letterarie, linguistiche e visive dell’assenza (pp. 261–271). Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W. B., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. (2010). Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in construction grammar (pp. 201–235). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Fagard, B., Zlatev, J., Kopecka, A., Cerruti, M., & Blomberg, J. (2013). The expression of motion events: A quantitative study of six typologically varied languages. In M. Faytak, M. Goss, N. Baier, J. Merrill, K. Neely, E. Donnelly, & J. Heath (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 364–379). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Filipović, L. (2007). Talking about motion. A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Filipović, L. (2013). Typology as a continuum. Intraypological evidence from English and SerboCroatian. In J. Goschler, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 17–38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Filipović, L., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2015). Motion. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 526–545). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Fortis, J.-M., & Vittrant, A. (2016). On the morphosyntax of pathexpressing constructions: Toward a typology. Language Typology and Universals – STUF, 69(3), 341–374.
Giacalone Ramat, A., Mauri, C., & Molinelli, P. (Eds.). (2013). Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hijazo-Gascón, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). Same family, different paths: Intratypological differences in three Romance languages. In J. Goschler, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 39–54). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Iacobini, C. (2015). Particleverbs in romance. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe (pp. 627–659). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Iacobini, C., Corona, L., Buoniconto, A. (forthcoming). A grid for decoding motion encoding. In C. Iacobini, L. Corona, & L. Brucale (Eds.), La semantica dello spazio del movimento e della maniera. Roma, Italy: Carocci.
Iacobini, C., & Fagard, B. (2011). A diachronic approach to variation and change in motion event expression. Faits de Langues. Les cahiers, 3, 151–171.
Iacobini, C., & Vergaro, C. (2014). The role of inference in motion event encoding/decoding: A crosslinguistic inquiry into English and Italian. Lingue e Linguaggio, 13(2), 211–240.
IbarretxeAntuñano, I. (2009). Path salience in motion events. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. ErvinTripp, K. Nakamura, & S. Özçalişkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 403–414). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
IbarretxeAntuñano, I. (Ed.). (2017). Motion and space across languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Kopecka, A. (2013). Describing motion events in old and modern French discourse effects of a typological change. In J. Goschler, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 163–183). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Landragin, F., Poibeau, T., & Victorri, B. (2012). ANALEC: A new tool for the dynamic annotation of textual data. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Doğan, M. Uğur, M. Bente, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (pp. 357–362). Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Miller, G. A., & JohnsonLaird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Naidu, V., Zlatev, J., Duggirala, V., Van De Weijer, J., Devylder, S., & Blomberg, J. (2018). Holistic spatial semantics and postTalmian motion event typology: A case study of Thai and Telugu. Cognitive Semiotics, 11(2). doi:10.1515/cogsem20182002.
Nikitina, T. (2008), Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals: The case of into vs. in. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlačil, B. Gehrke, & R. Nouwen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P (pp. 175–209), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
OsmańskaLipka, I. (2012). Elements of Gestalt psychology in American Cognitive Linguistics. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, 30(2), 47–72.
Sinha, C., & Kuteva, T. (1995). Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18(2), 167–199.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–220). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.) Relating events in narrative: Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. I. (2005). Relating narrative events in translation. In D. Ravid, & H.B.Z. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman (pp. 115–129). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Slobin, D. I., & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. In S. Gahl, A. Dolbey, & C. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 487–505). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Stein, P. (1997). Untersuchungen zur Verbalsyntax der Livius Übersetzungen in die romanischen Sprachen: ein Versuch zur Anwendung quantitativer Methoden in der historisch-vergleichenden Syntax. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
Stolova, N. (2015). Cognitive linguistics and lexical change. Motion verbs from Latin to Romance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Talmy, L. (1975). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, K. Whistler, & J. Wright (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 419–430). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space, in H. L. Pick, & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: theory, research and application (pp. 225–282). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zlatev, J. (2003), Holistic spatial semantics of Thai. In E. Casad, & G. Palmer (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and non-indo-European languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.