EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN INDO-EUROPEAN …pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1388677:4...The typology of motion expressions revisited1 JOHN BEAVERS Department of Linguistics, The

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN INDO-EUROPEAN

MOTION EVENT ENCODING

Annemarie Verkerk

SCCR 22/25-02-2011

TALMY’S MOTION TYPOLOGY

Spanish (verb-framed) La botella entró a la cueva flotandothe bottle moved.in to the cave floating PATH MANNER

Talmy (1985: 69)

Dutch (satellite-framed)De fles dreef de grot inthe bottle floated the cave into MANNER PATH

‘The bottle floated into the cave’

The typology of motion expressions revisited1

JOHN BEAVERS

Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin

BETH LEVIN

Department of Linguistics, Stanford University

SHIAO WEI THAM

Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, Wellesley College

(Received 20 March 2008; revised 15 January 2009)

This paper provides a new perspective on the options available to languages forencoding directed motion events. Talmy (2000) introduces an influential two-waytypology, proposing that languages adopt either verb- or satellite-framed encodingof motion events. This typology is augmented by Slobin (2004b) and Zlatev &Yangklang (2004) with a third class of equipollently-framed languages. We proposethat the observed options can instead be attributed to: (i) the motion-independentmorphological, lexical, and syntactic resources languages make available for encod-ing manner and path of motion, (ii) the role of the verb as the single clause-obligatorylexical category that can encode either manner or path, and (iii) extra-grammaticalfactors that yield preferences for certain options. Our approach accommodatesthe growing recognition that most languages straddle more than one of the previouslyproposed typological categories : a language may show both verb- and satellite-framed patterns, or if it allows equipollent-framing, even all three patterns.We furthershow that even purported verb-framed languages may not only allow but actuallyprefer satellite-framed patterns when appropriate contextual support is available, asituation unexpected if a two- or three-way typology is assumed. Finally, we explainthe appeal of previously proposed two- and three-way typologies : they capture theencoding options predicted to be preferred once certain external factors are rec-ognized, including complexity of expression and biases in lexical inventories.

[1] This work was supported in part by NSF Small Grant for Exploratory Research BCS-0004437 to Beth Levin. We have benefited from the comments of two anonymous JLreviewers, and we also thank Jurgen Bohnemeyer, Marc Ettlinger, Itamar Francez, HyunJong Hahm, Hayriye Kayi, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Ulia Lierler, Jean-PhilippeMarcotte, Tatiana Nikitina, Peter Sells, Dan Slobin, Judith Tonhauser, Kiyoko Uchiyama,and Stephen Wechsler for discussion, suggestions, and comments, as well as audiencesat the Stanford Diversity in Language Workshop, the 2006 LSA Annual Meeting, theStanford Semantics Fest, and Trinity University. We are grateful to Malka RappaportHovav and Maria Polinsky for helpful discussion at earlier stages of this research. Finally,we thank Grace Song, whose earlier work with Beth Levin (Song & Levin 1998) was a directprecursor of this paper.

J. Linguistics 46 (2010), 331–377. f Cambridge University Press 2009doi:10.1017/S0022226709990272 First published online 30 November 2009

331

The Many Ways to Search for a Frog Linguistic Typology and the Expression of Motion Events

Dan 1. Siobin

1. INTRODUCTION

The chapters in this volume, along with the extensive list of frog-story studies in Appendix II, provide a rich database for the exploration of particular questions of language use and acquisition. The studies reported in Part I reflect a range of languages of different types, making it possible to focus on the role of linguistic typology in narrative construction. l A recurrent concern in those studies is the expression of motion, which is one of the dominant themes of Frog, where are you? In one way or another, all of the studies confront Talmy's by now familiar typology of verb-framed and satellite-framed languages (Talmy 1985, 1991, 2000b). Briefly, the typology is concerned with the means of expression of the path of movement. In verb-framed languages ("V-languages") path is expressed by the main verb in a: clause (,enter', 'exit', 'ascend', etc.), whereas in satellite-framed languages ("S-languages") path is expressed by an element associated with the verb ('go in/out/up', etc.). This dichotomy has engendered a good deal of research and debate in the literature on motion-event descriptions over the past decade or SO.2 In this concluding chapter on typological perspectives I suggest that several different sorts of factors "conspire" to produce a range of frog-story varieties. These varieties result from combined influences of linguistic structure, on-line processing, and cultural practices. Talmy's typology was designed to characterize lexicalization patterns, and it has provided important insights into the overall set of structures that define individual languages. However, the typology alone cannot account for discourse structures, because language use is determined by more than lexicalization patterns. It is striking how much has been learned by application of the V-Ianguage/S-Ianguage contrast, and it still plays a part in the mix of factors considered here. But a fuller account of narrative organization will require attention to a range of morphosyntactic, psycho linguistic, and pragmatic

200 Yoko Hasegawa, Russell Lee-Goldman, Kyoko Hirose Ohara, Seiko Fujii and Charles J. Fillmore

Kay, Paul (2008). Not as hard a problem to solve as you might have thought. Presented at the Fifth International Conference on Construction Grammar, Austin, Texas.

Kay, Paul and Charles Fillmore (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generaliza-tions: the 'What's x doing y' construction. Language 75,1-33.

Kay, Paul & Ivan Sag (in preparation). Not as hard a problem to solve as you might have thought. Ms, UC Berkeley and Stanford.

Langacker, Ronald (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lounsbury, Floyd (1956). A semantic analysis of Pawnee kinship usage. Language 32,158-194. Matsumoto, Yo (1996). Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and lin-

guistic bases. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (124-156). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ohara, Kyoko Hirose (2008). Lexicon, grammar, and multilinguality in the Japanese FrameNet. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.

Ohara, Kyoko Hirose, Seiko Fujii, Toshio Ohori, Ryoko Suzuki, Hiroaki Saito & Shun Ishizaki (2004). The Japanese FrameNet project: An introduction. Proceedings of the 4th Interna-tional Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.

Petruck, Miriam (1986). Body part terminology in Hebrew: A study in Lexical Semantics. Dis-sertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Johnson & Jan Scheffczyk (2006). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. http://frameneticsi.berkeley.edu/book! book.pdf.

Sag, Ivan (2008). Feature geometry and predictions oflocality. In G. Corbett & A. Kibort (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sag, Ivan (to appear). Sign-based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In: H.C. Boas and I. Sag (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Sawada, Osamu & Thomas Grano (2009). Investigating an asymmetry in the semantics of Japanese measure phrases. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Schwarzschild, Roger (2004). Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches Linguis-tiques de Vincennes 35, 207-228.

Svenonius, Peter & Christopher Kennedy (2006). Northern Norwegian degree questions and the syntax of measurement. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (133-161). Berlinl New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Van Eynde, Frank. (2006). NP-internal agreement and the structure of the noun phrase. Journal of Linguistics 42, 139-186.

Zauner, Adolf (1902). Die romanischen Namen der Korperteile: Eine onomasiologische Studie, Dissertation. Erlangen. (Reprinted 1903 in Romanische Forschungen 14: 339-530).

Revising Talmy's typological classification of complex event constructions

William Croft, Johanna Barodal, Willem Hollmann, Violeta Sotirova, and Chiaki Taoka University of New Mexico, USA, University of Bergen, Norway, University of Lancaster, UK, University of Nottingham, UK, and Kobe College, Japan

1. Introduction

In this chapter, we critically examine Talmy's typological classification of complex event constructions. Talmy first proposed a typological classification of motion event constructions nearly forty years ago (Talmy 1972, 1974, 1985); he later extended his typological classification to event constructions in general, particularly, constructions expressing events with resulting states (Talmy 1991, 2000). Talmy's extension of his typological classification reflects a parallel generalization of the analysis of resultative constructions to include constructions of motion events with a path to a destination (e.g. Goldberg 1995, Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2001).

Talmy's typological classification of complex event constructions has been ex-tremely influential in linguistics and psycholinguistics. More recently, however, it has started to be modified, in order to account for languages that do not quite fit into the classification. New types have been proposed, by Talmy himself and by others. We developed a similar but more detailed typology independently of the analyses offered by other researchers. We propose two revisions to Talmy's typological classification (a brief outline is found in Croft 2003:220-24). The first is given in (1):

(1) Talmy's typological classification of complex event constructions must be elaborated to include additional types.

This first revision offers a richer classification than Talmy's original classification for grammatical constructions that express events.

Talmy's classification has generally been taken as a typological classification of languages: that is, languages encode different complex events consistently with the same morpho-syntactic type. However, this is not the case, and this is the second revi-sion of Talmy's typological classification that we offer:

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (Lewis Carroll)

Through the Looking-Glass and what Alice found there

O Alquimista (Paulo Coelho)

308 motion sentences

PARALLEL CORPUS

DUTCHENGLISH

GERMAN

FRENCH

PORTUGUESEGREEK

IRISHLITHUANIAN RUSSIAN

POLISH

PERSIAN

HINDI

ARMENIAN

ALBANIANSERBO-CROATIAN

ROMANIAN

NEPALI

SWEDISHLATVIAN

ITALIAN

MOTION ENCODING STRATEGIES

Alice laughed so much at this, thatsatellite-framed: she had to run back into the wood for fear of their hearing her;

verb-framed: she had to enter the wood running / at a run / quickly

path-only: she had to enter the wood

manner-only: she had to run in the wood

deictic: she had to go into the wood

coordination: she had to run and go back into the wood

subordination: she had to run to go back into the wood

manner+path verb: she had to run+enter the wood

other: she was in the wood

MOTION ENCODING IN IE

originals russian polish lithuanian swedish german dutch latvian english irish serbocroatian greek italian portuguese romanian french hindi persian armenian albanian nepali

prop

ortio

n pe

r sen

tenc

e

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

MOTION ENCODING IN IE

originals russian polish lithuanian swedish german dutch latvian english irish serbocroatian greek italian portuguese romanian french hindi persian armenian albanian nepali

prop

ortio

n pe

r sen

tenc

e

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

satellite-framed

verb-framed

path-only

PHYLOGENETIC COMPARATIVE METHODS

PHYLOGENETIC COMPARATIVE METHODS

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS

65% of the variance is explained by the first principal component

Take the score of each language on the first principal component

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

First principal component

Sec

ond

prin

cipa

l com

pone

nt

Russian

Polish

Lithuanian

Dutch

German

English

Irish

GreekFrench

Portuguese

Armenian

Hindi

Albanian

Persian

Nepali

Romanian

Swedish

Serbo-Croatian

Italian

Latvian

TESTING HISTORICAL SIGNAL

Phylogenetic trees:

- from Dunn et al. (2011)

- build on lexical data (Swadesh lists)

- estimated using a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach

TsouRukai

Siraya

Sediq

CiuliAtayalSquliqAtayal

Sunda

Minangkabau

IndonesianMalayBahasaIndonesia

Iban

TobaBatakLampung

TimugonMurutMerinaMalagasy

Palauan

MunaKatobuTongkuno DWunaPopalia

Wolio

Paulohi

MurnatenAluneAlune

KasiraIrahutuLetineseBuruNamroleBay

LoniuLou

ManamKairiru

DobuanBwaidogaSaliba

KilivilaGapapaiwa

MekeoMotu

AriaMoukSengseng

KoveMaleu

Lakalai

NakanaiBileki DMaututu

NggelaKwaio

Vitu

TigakTungagTungakLavongaiNalik

KuanuaSiar

Kokota

BabatanaSisingga

BanoniTeop

NehanHapeNissan

KiribatiKusaie

Woleai

WoleaianPuluwatesePuloAnnan

PonapeanMokilese

Rotuman

TokelauRapanuiEasterIsland

TahitianModern

HawaiianMaori

FutunaFutunaWest

FutunaEastNiueSamoanTongan

FijianBau

DehuIaai

SyeErromangan

LenakelAnejomAneityum

NgunaPaameseSouth

SakaoPortOlry

BumaTeanu

Giman

AmbaiYapenMor

NgadhaManggarai

Lamaholot

ESLewa D

ESKamberaSouthern DKambera

ESUmbuRatuNggai D

NiasChamorro

Bajo

BikolNagaCity

CebuanoMamanwa

TboliTagabiliWBukidnonManobo

AgtaIlokano

IfugaoBatadBontokGuinaang

Pangasinan

Kapampangan

Paiwan

Austronesian

Tocharian BTocharian A

Albanian G

Greek ModAncientGreek

Armenian Mod

FrenchProvencalWalloonLadin

Italian

Catalan

SpanishPortuguese ST

Sardinian CRumanian List

Latin

Old Norse

DanishSwedish List

Riksmal

FaroeseIcelandic ST

German STDutch List

FrisianFlemishAfrikaans

Pennsylvania DutchLuxembourgish

English STOld English

Gothic

Old Church Slavonic

SlovenianSerbocroatian

MacedonianBulgarian

Lusatian ULusatian LSlovak

CzechUkrainianByelorussian

RussianPolish

LatvianLithuanian ST

Nepali ListBihariBengali

AssameseOriya

GujaratiMarathi

MarwariSindhi

LahdnaPanjabi ST

UrduHindi

SinghaleseKashmiri

Kurdish

WaziriAfghan

TadzikPersian List

WakhiOssetic

Baluchi

Scots GaelicIrish B

Welsh N

Breton STCornish

Hittite

Indo-European

PipilAztecTetelcingo

Cora

OpataEudeve

GuarijioTarahumara

Yaqui

NorthernTepehuan

PapagoPimaSoutheasternTepehuan

CahuillaLuiseno

MonoNorthernPaiute

Comanche

SouthernPaiuteSouthernUte

Chemehuevi

HopiUto-Aztecan

Makwa P311

Cewa N31bNyanja N31a

Shona S10Ngoni S45

Xhosa S41Zulu S42

Hadimu G43cKaguru G12

Gikuyu E51Haya J22H

Hima J13Rwanda J611

Luba L33Ndembu K221

Lwena K141Ndonga R22

Bira D322Doko C40D

Mongo C613MongoNkundo C611

Tiv 802Bantu

Figure 1 | Twoword-order features plotted ontomaximumclade credibilitytrees of the four language families. Squares represent order of adposition andnoun; circles represent order of verb and object. The tree sample underlyingthis tree is generated from lexical data16,22. Blue-blue indicates postposition,

object–verb. Red-red indicates preposition, verb–object. Red-blue indicatespreposition, object–verb. Blue-red indicates postposition, verb–object. Blackindicates polymorphic states.

RESEARCH LETTER

2 | N A T U R E | V O L 0 0 0 | 0 0 M O N T H 2 0 1 1

Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved©2011

DATA + TREES

Albanian 0.21

Persian 0.12 Armenian 0.13

Modern Greek 0.06

Nepali 0.23 Hindi 0.06

Serbo-Croatian 0.04 Russian -0.25

Polish -0.17

Latvian -0.11 Lithuanian -0.16

English -0.05 Swedish -0.20

Dutch -0.17 German -0.15

Portuguese 0.12 French 0.15

Italian 0.10 Romanian 0.12

Irish -0.10

1

0.43

0.37

0.75

0.44

11

11

10.7

0.4

111

0.410.50.6

HISTORICAL SIGNAL

the likelihood of real trees is significantly different from likelihood of trees with zero lambda (p < 0.01)

(Pagel 1999)


Albanian

Persian Armenian

Modern Greek

Nepali Hindi

Serbo-Croatian Russian

Polish

Latvian Lithuanian

English Swedish

Dutch German

Portuguese French

Italian Romanian

Irish

Albanian

Persian Armenian

Modern Greek

Nepali Hindi


Polish

Latvian Lithuanian

English Swedish

Dutch German

Portuguese French

Italian Romanian

Irish


Blomberg et al. (2003)

Albanian

Persian Armenian

Modern Greek

Nepali Hindi


Polish

Latvian Lithuanian

English Swedish

Dutch German

Portuguese French

Italian Romanian

Irish

Albanian

Dutch Persian

Serbo-Croatian

Modern Greek Hindi

French Nepali

Polish

Lithuanian Romanian

English Armenian

Swedish Irish

German Russian

Portuguese Latvian

Italian

the kappa score provided by this analysis shows that historical signal is present

Albanian 0.21

Persian 0.12 Armenian 0.13

Modern Greek 0.06

Nepali 0.23 Hindi 0.06

Serbo-Croatian 0.04 Russian -0.25

Polish -0.17

Latvian -0.11 Lithuanian -0.16

English -0.05 Swedish -0.20

Dutch -0.17 German -0.15

Portuguese 0.12 French 0.15

Italian 0.10 Romanian 0.12

Irish -0.10

1

0.43

0.37

0.75

0.44

11

11

10.7

0.4

111

0.410.50.6

TESTING FOR HISTORICAL SIGNAL

DONE

• go back in time

ANCESTRAL STATE ESTIMATION


PIE? Albanian

Persian Armenian

Modern Greek

Nepali Hindi


Polish

Latvian Lithuanian

English Swedish

Dutch German

Portuguese French

Italian Romanian

Irish


Albanian

Persian Armenian

Modern Greek

Nepali Hindi


Polish

Latvian Lithuanian

English Swedish

Dutch German

Portuguese French

Italian Romanian

Irish

PIE = satellite framed?(Talmy 2007, Acedo Matellán

and Mateu 2008)


Albanian

Persian Armenian

Modern Greek

Nepali Hindi


Polish

Latvian Lithuanian

English Swedish

Dutch German

Portuguese French

Italian Romanian

Irish

PIE?

?

?

?

?

??

??

?? ?

??

?

?

Maximum Likelihoodtransition rate:

-0.5 ⇄ 0.5

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

IrishAlbanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrenchIrish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGermanPortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanianEnglishDutchGerman


AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

Armenian

Greek

RussianLithuanianEnglish

DutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

IrishAlbanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman


Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian


Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek



AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

Armenian

Greek


DutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

IrishAlbanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman


Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian


Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek



AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

Armenian

Greek


DutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

IrishAlbanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman


Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian


Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek



AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

Armenian

Greek


DutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

n. 346n. 345 n. 347 n. 348

n. 619 n. 621n. 620 n. 622

n. 887n. 886 n. 889n. 888

?

?

?

?????

?-0.5 ⇄ 0.5


-0.25 0.23

Russian

SwedishPolishDutch

LithuanianGerm

an

LatvianIrish

English

Serbo-C

roatian

Hindi

Modern G

reek

ItalianPersian

Romanian

PortugueseArmenianFrench

AlbanianNepali


-0.25 0.23

Russian

SwedishPolishDutch

LithuanianGerm

an

LatvianIrish

English

Serbo-C

roatian

Hindi

Modern G

reek

ItalianPersian

Romanian

PortugueseArmenianFrench

AlbanianNepali

Root estimate PIE:between -0.02 and 0.09

INCORPORATING INFORMATION FROM ANCIENT LANGUAGES

PIE? Albanian

Persian Armenian

Modern Greek

Nepali Hindi


Polish

Latvian Lithuanian

English Swedish

Dutch German

Portuguese French

Italian Romanian

Latin Irish

Sanskrit

THE EVOLUTION OF THE PIE PREVERB SYSTEM

PIE Latin Romance

“Prep.+Noun ... Verb” “Preverb ... Verb” “... Preverb Verb” “... prefix-Verb” “... Verb”

Watkins (1964), Vincent (1999), Iacobini & Masini (2006)

! !


Latinse-que rursus in osti-um dom-us in-ced-ere3SG.F.REFL.ACC-and back in entrance-N.ACC.SG house-F.GEN.SG in-go-PRS.INF‘and found herself walking in at the front-door again.’

in tenebr-as se ab-rip-uit quam cel-emme pot-uitinto darkness-F.ACC.PL 3SG.REFL.ACC away-tear-PFV.3SG how fast-ADV be.able-PFV.3SG‘and skurried away into the darkness as hard as he could go.’


PIE/Sanskrit later Sanskrit modern lang.

“Prep.+Noun ... Verb” lost“Preverb ... Verb” “Noun+Post. ... Verb”“... Preverb Verb” “... prefix-Verb” “... Verb”

Watkins (1964), Bloch (1965)

! !


Sanskritút pāt-ay-ati pakṣíṇaḥaway/out fly-CAUS-3PL bird.PL ‘she makes the birds fly away‘ Delbrück (1893: 648)

INCORPORATING INFORMATION FROM ANCIENT LANGUAGES

Albanian

Persian Armenian

Modern Greek

Nepali Hindi


Polish

Latvian Lithuanian

English Swedish

Dutch German

Portuguese French

Italian Romanian

Latin Irish

Sanskrit

PIE?? ?

?

?

?

?

?

CORRELATED EVOLUTION

walk

saunter

fly

roll

runjog

tumblefloat correr

precipitar se trotarnadarswim

rastejar

voar

esgueirar se

pular

passearcaminharhurry

creep

crawlskurry

slip

rush

march

soar

skim glide

drift(Slobin 2004)

CORRELATED EVOLUTION language encoding manner verb class 1. Russian -0.23 332. Swedish -0.18 233. Polish -0.15 264. Lithuanian -0.14 265. Dutch -0.14 216. German -0.12 307. Latvian -0.09 26 8. Irish -0.08 149. English -0.03 30 10. Greek 0.09 1611. Hindi 0.08 16 12. Italian 0.13 1613. Persian 0.14 1514. Portuguese 0.15 2015. Armenian 0.15 1516. French 0.18 1317. Albanian 0.24 11


English

Dutch

Russian

GermanLithuanian

Portuguese

IrishArmenianGreek

Albanian

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

510

1520

2530

35

scale of encoding patterns

size

of m

anne

r ver

b cl

ass

Polish Latvian

Swedish

FrenchHindi Persian

Italian

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

IrishAlbanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman


Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian


Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek



AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

Armenian

Greek


DutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

IrishAlbanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman


Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian


Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek



AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

Armenian

Greek


DutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

IrishAlbanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman


Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian


Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek



AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

Armenian

Greek


DutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

IrishAlbanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman


Albanian

ArmenianGreek

RussianLithuanian


Irish

Albanian

ArmenianGreek



AlbanianArmenian

Greek

RussianLithuanian

EnglishDutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

Albanian

Armenian

Greek


DutchGerman

PortugueseFrench

Irish

n. 346n. 345 n. 347 n. 348

n. 619 n. 621n. 620 n. 622

n. 887n. 886 n. 889n. 888

Phylogenetic Generalized Least Squares

CORRELATED EVOLUTIONp = 0.05

probability of slope

frequency

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

050

150

250

CONCLUSION

An approach to motion events that takes into account patterns of usage gives us a more fine-grained and productive perspective

Patterns of motion encoding diversity are not random but historically patterned, and comparative analysis needs to take this into account

In order to take into account this history we need ways to combine traditional historical linguistic methods with phylogenetic comparative methods

Thank you!

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTANCE

Mantel test (Spearman correlation):

Mantel coefficient 0.095

Two-tailed p-value: 0.369

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTANCE

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

log.lang.dists

data.dists


Coefficients: ! Estimate ! Std. Error ! t value !Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) !2.73756 0.31165 ! 8.7841 !1.041e-05 ***log(encoding) !-1.01505 !0.36695 ! -2.7662!0.02189 * ---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.01612 on 9 degrees of freedomMultiple R-squared: 0.4595,!Adjusted R-squared: 0.3995 F-statistic: 7.652 on 2 and 9 DF, p-value: 0.01144

Documents

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN INDO-EUROPEAN …pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1388677:4...The typology of motion expressions revisited1 JOHN BEAVERS Department of Linguistics, The