Conceptualization and Lexical Realization of Motion ...

Conceptualization and Lexical Realization of Motion Verbs in Standard Written Arabic A Semantico-syntactic Study

by Salha Muhammed AI-Qarni MA in Linguistics

A dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics

FACULTY OF ART AND HUMANITIES KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY JEDDAH-SAUDI ARABIA Jamad II, 1431 H/ May 2010G 1


by Salha Muhammed AI-Qarni MA in Linguistics

A dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics

Supervised by Dr. Nuha Sulaiman AI-Shurafa Associate Professor of Linguistics European Languages Department. King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah

FACULTY OF ART AND HUMANITIES KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY JEDDAH-SAUDI ARABIA Jamad II, 1431 H/ May 2010G

2

Dedication

TO

the memory of my father (may Allah's mercy be upon him)

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this work is made possible by the help and grace of Allah, first and foremost, then by the patience and support of many people. First and foremost, I sincerely thank my dissertation advisor, Dr. Nuha Al-Shurafa who has been a constant source of encouragement, inspiration and advice for me. Her personal guidance, enthusiasm, and understanding are incredible. I have learnt a lot from her during the course of my PhD. both personally and academically. I will remain for ever grateful to her. I hope she realizes how much my association with her means to me. I am deeply indebted to her for believing in me, for her challenging comments, useful remarks, unfailing advice, sound guidance, sincere and constant support and encouragement. To her, I say "Thank You", though no amount of thanking would ever be enough. I would also like to gratefully acknowledge my late father (May Allah's mercy be upon him), who though long gone persists in my thoughts and makes me feel content with achieving his dreams. He taught me everything I know and was the driving spirit behind every success I made. The credit for what I am is his.

I am also deeply thankful to the members of my family, and specially my mother whose prayers have been morally and emotionally supportive all the way. I am also very grateful to my husband and my children for always being there for me.

My deepest appreciation goes to my colleagues in the department of European languages and literature for their help and support I specially thank the dean, Dr. Faiza Kalkattawi, who has from the beginning led my first steps into the realm of scientific research. Her intellectual comments and observations have sparkled my interest in exploring the relationship between human cognition and language. Her profound expertise and exceptional vision of linguistics since level one in my undergraduate study has led to what I am now. I would also like to thank the viceii

dean of higher studies, Dr. Hind Jamal Al-Leil, for her understanding, cooperation and support.

I am also very thankful to Dr. Shadia Banjar. I have learnt a lot from her knowledge. Her continuous support and unfailing encouragement will never be forgotten. A special note of gratitude is due to Dr. Khadeeja Okbi, for being extremely supportive and co-operative at all times.

I would also like to acknowledge the help and support of my colleagues and friends in the Department, especially my friend Dr. Aisha Al-Harbi for her constant encouragement and tremendous care and for being there for me. I am also indebted to Dr. Noora Al-Malki, for providing me with valuable references and for being the kind and lovable person that she is.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank committee members, Professor Zuhair Al-Maalej and Dr. Fayza Kalakatawi for the time and effort they spent in reading my dissertation. I highly appreciate their thoughtful remarks and valuable views.

iii


by Salha Muhammed AI-Qarni

College of Arts and Humanities King Abdulaziz University JEDDAH-SAUDI ARABIA

Abstract

Motion is a central domain of human experience; it is a constant aspect of our daily lives. However, it has already been acknowledged that languages differ in the way they express motion linguistically. Talmy’s publications recognize two distinct types of languages in relation to the way the various components of a motion event are mapped onto linguistic items: satellite-framed and verb-framed languages. Satellite-framed languages express the core component of motion, i.e., the Path of motion, in satellites; either adverbs (e.g., forward, up) or prepositional phrases (e.g., into/along the garden), leaving the task of encoding Manner of motion to the main verb. In verb-framed languages, on the other hand, Path is expressed in the main verb while Manner is expressed using adjuncts. Talmy’s influential work has stimulated a great deal of research on motion descriptions crosslinguistically over the last twenty years. Yet, the linguistic investigation of motion expression has overlooked other important lexicalization patterns. Furthermore, the study of path verbs has been neglected in favor of the study of manner verbs, since the expression of Manner has been the point of divergence between satellite- and verb-framed languages. The present dissertation aims at enriching the existing literature by addressing the lexicalization patterns of motion in Arabic and the semantics of Arabic motion verbs. The first chapter of this dissertation is an introduction. The second chapter presents a systematic and detailed account of Talmy's "Figure-Ground-Move-Path" theory of motion conceptualization. The patterns of general conflations are surveyed and investigated. The third, fourth, and fifth chapters of this dissertation focus on the investigation of the grammatical realization of the concept of motion in Arabic within the specified framework presented in chapter two. For packaging Path and Manner of motion with Move, both the satellite-frame pattern and the verb-framed pattern are available in Arabic. But the two patterns exhibit differences with regard iv

to their construal, their communicative functions, and their applicability for expressing different types of motion events. The findings concerning motion conceptualization and representation in Arabic presented in chapter six in this dissertation clearly point to the basic tenets of cognitive linguistics, which views language as an experientially-based product of the human mind. This research has come to the following conclustions about the general characteristics of motion expression in Arabic: (1) the most characteristic pattern of motion lexicalization is the conflation of Motion with direction in the motion verb; (2) although Arabic Path verbs usually express different types of Path, some elements of Path are never realized linguistically; (3) Manner-of-motion verbs in Arabic constitute a small set which differ from Manner verbs in English. Their idiosyncrasy lies in their morphological structure since many of these Manner verbs conflate an additional semantic component which, sometimes, happens to be Path; and (4) Arabic motion verb lexicon is able to express various types of Paths and Manners just like any other language.

v


by Salha Muhammed AI-Qarni

College of Arts and Humanities King Abdulaziz University JEDDAH-SAUDI ARABIA

Synopsis Motion is a central domain of human experience; it is a constant aspect of our daily lives. However, it has already been acknowledged that languages differ in the way they express motion linguistically. Talmy’s publications recognize two distinct types of languages in relation to the way the various components of a motion event are mapped onto linguistic items: satellite-framed and verb-framed languages. Satellite-framed languages express the core component of motion, i.e., the Path of motion, in satellites; either adverbs (e.g., forward, up) or prepositional phrases (e.g., into/along the garden), leaving the task of encoding Manner of motion to the main verb. In verb-framed languages, on the other hand, Path is expressed in the main verb while Manner is expressed using adjuncts. Talmy’s influential work has stimulated a great deal of research on motion descriptions crosslinguistically over the last twenty years. Yet, the linguistic investigation of motion expression has overlooked other important lexicalization patterns. Furthermore, the study of path verbs has been neglected in favor of the study of manner verbs, since the expression of Manner has been the point of divergence between satellite- and verb-framed languages. The present dissertation aims at enriching the existing literature by addressing the lexicalization patterns of motion in Arabic and the semantics of Arabic motion verbs. The ultimate aim of the analysis is to discover how Arabic conforms to the typology that Talmy proposed for languages in relation to motion expression, i.e. whether it is a verb-framing language; a satellite-framing language or an equipollently-framing language. The data will be extracted from written texts usually involving descriptions of motion in the Standard Written Arabic variety. Extracted texts are taken from magazines, newspapers, children short stories, and some literary writings from the year 2000 onward. Those parts that involve verbs of motion are extracted for vi

analysis. The first chapter of this dissertation is an introduction. It introduces the main scope of the study, its objectives, the methodology that is going to be followed, the data, and some background information about the state of affairs in semantics in general. The second chapter presents a systematic and detailed account of Talmy's "Figure-Ground-Move-Path" theory of motion conceptualization. The components of the concept of motion will be discussed fully. The lexicalization types and the typology which he puts forward will be presented with examples from Arabic. The second part of the chapter reviews briefly Langacker's, and Jackendoff's theories of motion and their relation to Talmy's theory. Chapters three, four, and five will be devoted to the analysis of data according to the typology. Chapter three examines the most prominent components of motion; Figure and Ground. Their status as prototype categories, their characteristics and linguistic representation will be explained. Examples from Arabic will be presented to explore how these two components of the motion schema are realized in Arabic. Chapter four presents the different lexicalization patterns available in the language to encode motion. the second part concentrates on an important component of motion conceptualization, i.e., PATH. It expounds the different components of Path such as Vector, Conformation, Direction, etc. It also expounds the different syntactic forms used to lexicalize this concept with its different components. Chapter five is devoted to the discussion of the MANNER component of motion. Patterns of conflation and lexicalization of manner will be presented. Questions related to combining both Manner and Path in the same sentence will be answered. The last part of the chapter will deal with the nature of Arabic motion verbs, their features, and the reasons for their being elaborate or simple. Chapter six is a summary of the observations and findings made in this dissertation and the conclusions drawn from the analysis. It is found that for packaging Path and Manner of motion with Move, both the satellite-frame pattern and the verbframed pattern are available in Arabic. Yet, the two patterns exhibit differences with regard to their construal, their communicative functions, and their applicability for expressing different types of motion events. The findings concerning motion conceptualization and representation in Arabic presented in chapter six in this dissertation clearly point to the basic tenets of cognitive linguistics, which views language as an experientially-based product of the human mind. This research has come to the following conclustions about the general characteristics of motion expression in Arabic: (1) the most characteristic pattern of motion lexicalization is the conflation of Motion with direction in the motion verb; (2) although Arabic Path verbs usually express different types of Path, some elements of Path are never realized linguistically; (3) Manner-of-motion verbs in Arabic constitute a small set which differ from Manner verbs in English. Their idiosyncrasy lies in their morphological structure since many of these Manner verbs conflate an additional semantic component which, sometimes, happens to be Path; and (4) Arabic motion verb lexicon is able to express various types of Paths and Manners just like any other language. This chapter also concludes with some suggestions for further studies and touches briefly on some applications of this research on learning and acquisition of motion expressions. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Examination Committee Approval Dedication ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. xii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. xiv LIST OF PHONETIC SYMBOLS .........................................................................................xv CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................3 1.1.0 Theoretical Perspective .............................................................................................3 1.1.1 Cognitive Linguistics ......................................................................................................3 1.1.2 Language Categories and Structure ................................................................................4 1.1.3 Conceptual Universal Grammar.......................................................................................5 1.1.4 Cognitive Linguistics and the Formal Approach .............................................................6 1.2 Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................7 1.3 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................9 1.4 Objectives of the Study ...................................................................................................10 1.5 Research Questions .........................................................................................................11 1.6 Definitions of Terms Used ..............................................................................................11 1.7 Research Methodology ...................................................................................................12 1.8 Data .................................................................................................................................13 1.9 Organization of the Study ...............................................................................................14

CHAPTER TWO

COGNITIVE SEMANTICS AND THE THEORY OF MOTION

2.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................16 2.1 The Importance of the Concept of Motion to Cognition and Language .........................17 2.2 Talmy's Theory of Motion ..............................................................................................31 2.2.1 The verb .....................................................................................................................36 viii

2.2.1.1 Motion + Co-event ................................................................................. 36 2.2.1.1.1 The Patterns Underlying Co-event Conflation ..............................38 2.2.1.2 Motion + Path ....................................................................................... 41 2.2.1.2.1 The Patterns Underlying Path Conflation ......................................42 2.2.1.2.2 Components of Path ................................................................. 45 2.2.1.2.2.1 The Vector .............................................................. 45 2.2.1.2.2.2 The Conformation ........................................................47 2.2.1.2.2.3 The Deictic...................................................................51 2.2.1.3 Motion + Figure .................................................................................... 52 2.2.1.4 A Typology for Motion Verbs ................................................................ 54 2.2.1.4.1 Motion + Two Semantic Components ...........................................55 2.2.1.4.2 Motion Alone ................................................................................56 2.2.1.4.3 Motion + Minimally Differentiated Semantic Component ............57 2.2.1.4.4 A Split System of Conflation .........................................................58 2.2.1.4.5 A Parallel System of Conflation ....................................................59 2.2.2 The Satellite ...............................................................................................................59 2.2.2.1 Path ...................................................................................................... 62 2.2.2.2 Path + Ground ....................................................................................... 68 2.2.2.3 Manner ................................................................................................. 69 2.2.2.4 Cause .................................................................................................... 69 2.2.2.5 Summary .............................................................................................. 70 2.3 Other Accounts of Motion: Langacker and Jackendoff ..................................................71 2.3.1 Langacker's Framework for Motion Conceptualization ......................................... 72 2.3.2 Jackendoff's Framework of Conceptual Semantics ............................................... 74 2.3.2.1 The Organization of Conceptual Structure ................................................ 77 2.3.2.2 The Relation between Jackendoff's and Talmy's Account of Motion .......... 81 2.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................82

CHAPTER THREE COMPONENTS OF MOTION: FIGURE AND GROUND 3.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................85 3.1 Figure and Ground in Psychology ..................................................................................87 3.2 Characteristics of Figure and Ground .............................................................................91 3.2.1 Parts of the Spatial Scene ...........................................................................................95 3.2.2 Asymmetry of Figure/Ground Relations....................................................................98 3.2.3 Manipulation of Figure/Ground Relations ...............................................................104 3.2.4 The Movability Hierarchy: Implication for Figure/Ground Assignment .................105 ix

3.2.4.1 Categories of Movability ...........................................................................107 3.2.4.2 Effect of the Movability Hierarchy on Language Representation .............115 3.2.5 The Prototype Effect on Figure/Ground Assignment ..............................................121 3.2.5.1 The Prototype Theory ................................................................................121 3.2.5.2 Prototype Characteristics of Movability ....................................................124 3.2.6 Event-Dependent Characteristics of Figure and Ground .........................................130 3.2.6.1 Conceptual Prominence of Figure and Ground ...........................................131 3.2.6.2 Spatial Location of Figure and Ground .......................................................132 3.2.6.3 Geometrical Conformation of Figure and Ground ......................................134 3.3 Patterns of Linguistic Representation of Figure and Ground in Arabic ........................140 3.3.1 Syntactic Presence of Figure in Linguistic Representation in Arabic ......................140 3.3.2 Saliency Mapping and the Configuration of Figure and Ground ............................143 3.3.3 The Realization of the “Figure-over-Ground” Principle in Arabic .........................145 3.3.3.1 Autonomous Motion ....................................................................................146 3.3.3.1.1 The Figure as the subject, and the Ground as the Direct Object ......146 3.3.3.1.2 The Figure as the subject, and the Ground as an Oblique object (the complement of a preposition) ...................................................147 3.3.3.1.3 The Figure as the subject, and the Ground as the Specifier of the subject .......................................................................................148 3.3.3.1.4 Motion Sentences with more than one Ground ................................149 3.3.3.1.5 The Omission of the Ground ............................................................150 3.3.3.2 Caused Motion .............................................................................................151 3.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................157

CHAPTER FOUR PATH AND MOVE 4.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................161 4.1 Patterns of Packaging Meaning in Form .....................................................................162 4.1.1 Talmy's Lexicalization Patterns ..........................................................................162 4.1.2 The Parallel System of Lexicalization in Arabic ................................................168 4.2 Path as the Defining Property of Motion ......................................................................176 4.3 Path as the Representation of a Conceptual Complex ..................................................182 4.3.1 Vector.....................................................................................................................183 4.3.2 Conformation .........................................................................................................191 4.3.3 Deictic ....................................................................................................................199 4.3.4 Direction ................................................................................................................203 4.4 Path and Move: Patterns of Representation ..................................................................209 x

4.4.1 Prepositions ..........................................................................................................211 4.4.2 Path Verbs ............................................................................................................214 4.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................218 CHAPTER FIVE MANNER AND MOVE 5.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................223 5.1 The Conflation of Manner and Move ...........................................................................225 5.1.1 The Concept of Manner ...........................................................................................227 5.1.2 Lexicalization of Manner in Arabic .........................................................................230 5.2 Arabic [Manner + Move] Verbs....................................................................................244 5.3 Causes of variation in the expression of motion events (Path vs. Manner) .................246 5.4 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................251

CHAPTER SIX CLOSING REMARKS & Conclusions 6.1 Conclusions of the main points ....................................................................................253 6.2 Benefits of this research to linguistics and education ...................................................256 6.3 Suggestions for future research .....................................................................................257

REFRENCES

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

2-1

A comparison between Types of Motion.......................................................................20

2-2

Types of Self-Contained Motion ...................................................................................21

2.3 Examples of Other Secondary types of Motion .............................................................22 2.4 A Comparison between all Types of Motion .................................................................23 2.5 Conflated and Decompositional meanings (manner) .....................................................39 2.6 Conflated and Decompositional meanings (Cause) .......................................................40 2.7 Typological Differences between Languages ................................................................55 2.8 The Satellite as part of a verb complex ......................................................................... 61 2.9 Path Satellites in English ...............................................................................................64 2.10 Typology of Motion verbs and their Satellites...............................................................71 3.11 Associated Characteristics of Figure and Ground ..........................................................99 3.12 The Movability Hierarchy............................................................................................114 4.13 The Profiling of Individual Vector Components .........................................................187 4.14 The Different Combinations of Vector Components ..................................................189 4.15 The Conformation of Inside and Outside in Arabic ....................................................192 4.16 The Conformation categories of ON, BESIDE and ABOVE ......................................194 4.17 The Lexicalization of Past ...........................................................................................196 4.18 The Lexicalization of Across .......................................................................................197 4.19 The Lexicalization of Through ....................................................................................198 4.20 Arabic Path Prepositions ..............................................................................................212 4.21 Verbs conflating Move + Path in Arabic .....................................................................215 5.22 Different Types of Manner Information Conflated in Arabic verbs ........................... 245

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

2-1 The interplay of syntactic and conceptual structure ......................................................18 2-2

Interrelation between motion and other domains ..........................................................24

2-3 Co-event conflated in the Motion verb ..........................................................................37 2-4 Path conflated in the Motion verb .................................................................................41 2-5

Components of Path.......................................................................................................45

2.6 Subdivisions of the Path Component .............................................................................52 2.7 Figure Conflated in the Motion verb..............................................................................53 3.8 Motion Components.......................................................................................................85 3.9 Different conceptualizations of motion..........................................................................94 3.10 The Property of Movability..........................................................................................107 3.11 The Movability Hierarchy............................................................................................115 3.12 Prototypical Birds ........................................................................................................122 3.13 The Position of the Prototype Within the Category .....................................................123 3.14 The Figure-over-Ground Principle...............................................................................143 4.15 Two types of lexicalization for the Motion Components.............................................165 4.16 Components of Path .....................................................................................................183 4.17 Parts of Vector .............................................................................................................184 4.18 The Deictic notions ......................................................................................................200 4.19 Subcategories of Direction ...........................................................................................203 4.20 Components of Path .....................................................................................................209 4.21 Surface Forms used in Path Representation .................................................................217 5.22 Types of Lexicalization................................................................................................224 5.23 Conceptual Surface of the Macro-event.......................................................................229 5.24 Conceptual Surface of the Framing event ....................................................................229

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SWA F G A Sat MV PP

Standard Written Arabic Figure Ground Agentive Satellite Main Verb Prepositional Phrase

xiv

Conventions For Transcribed Arabic Forms I. Consonants:

/b/ a voiced bilabial plosive, e.g., /badr/ (moon) /t/ a voiceless denti-alveolar plosive, non-emphatic, e.g., /tiðka:r/ (a souvenir) /T/ a voiceless denti-alveolar plosive, emphatic, e.g., /Tabl/ (a drum) /d/ a voiced denti-alveolar plosive, non-emphatic, e.g., /daraj/ (stairs) /D/ a voiced denti-alveolar plosive, emphatic, e.g., /Dayf/

(a guest)

/k/ a voiceless velar plosive, e.g., /kahf/ (a cave) /q/ a voiced uvular plosive, e.g., /qabr/ (a grave) /?/ a voiceless glottal plosive, e.g., /?amal/ (hope) /f/ a voiceless labio-dental fricative, e.g., /fajr/ (down) /θ/ a voiceless dental fricative, e.g., /θa9lab/ (a fox) /ð/ a voiced dental fricative, non-emphatic, e.g., /ðahab/ (gold) /ð/ a voiced dental fricative, emphatic, e.g., /ðala:m/ (darkness) /s/ a voiceless alveolar fricative, non-emphatic, e.g., /saHa:b/ (clouds) /S/ a voiceless alveolar fricative, emphatic, e.g., /Saff/ (a queue) /z/ a voiced alveolar fricative, e.g., /zuhu:r/ (flowers) /Š/ a voiceless palatal fricative, e.g., /Šajarah/ (a tree) /j/ a voiced alveopalatal affricate, e.g., /jida:r/(a wall) /x/ a voiceless uvular fricative, e.g., /xawf/ (fear) /G/ a voiced uvular fricative, e.g., /Gadi::r/ (a pond) /H/ a voiceless pharyngeal fricative, e.g., /Habl/ (a rope) /9/ a voiced pharyngeal fricative, e.g., /9inab/ (grapes) /h/ a voiceless glottal fricative, e.g., /hawa:?/ (air) /r/ a voiced alveolar apical trill, e.g., /ru9b/ (terror) /l/ a voiced alveolar lateral, e.g., /lu9bah/ a toy) /m/ a voiced bilabial nasal, e.g., /ma9dan/ (a mineral)

xv

/n/ a voiced alveolar nasal, e.g., /nawm/ (sleep) /w/ a voiced labial semi-vowel, e.g., /wa:di/ (a valley) /y/ a voiced palatal semi-vowel, e.g., /yara:/ (he sees)

II. Vowels:

/i/ half-close to close front spread vowel, close when long or final, e.g., /qila:9/ (forts) /a/ front open vowel, short and long, e.g., /9adl/ (justice) /u/ half-close back to central rounded vowel, close rounded when long or final, e.g., /burj/ (a tower)

III. Diphthongs:

/ay/ a short front open vowel followed by a palatal semivowel, e.g., /bayna/ (between) /aw/ a short front open vowel followed by a labial semivowel, e.g., /mawt/ (death)

Notes:

1. Doubled consonants as in /ta?ammul/ (meditation) denote gemination. 2. /:/ denotes a long vowel. 3. (-) denotes a connected bound morpheme.

xvi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

The cognitive structures in our minds are connected to our perceptual mechanisms. This means that meanings are, at least partly, perceptually grounded. It also means that we can talk about what we see and hear. Conversely, we can create pictures, mental or real, of what we read or listen to. This means that we can translate the visual form of representation into the linguistic code and vice versa (Wildgen 2004). This mapping between conceptual representation and linguistic representation is at the heart of this research. It is studied in relation to the concept of motion.

The concept of motion refers to everyday experiences in locomotion, event perception, and action. Motion is a basic category in the physics of the real world as well as in the cognitive processes of perception, control, memory, and in our linguistic conceptualization (Wildgen 2004).

It is obvious that there must be a mapping from our perception of motion to linguistic entities like lexemes (verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc.), and to 1

grammatical morphemes (suffixes and prefixes). When different languages are compared, it becomes apparent that motion is mapped differently because linguistic categorization is not universal (Wildgen 2004).

Motion is one of the most extensively studied concepts in cognitive linguistics. Many, if not all, cognitive linguists have proposed different models of representation or image-schemas for understanding the semantics of motion in language such as Fillmore (1968), Fillmore et al. (2006), Lakoff (1987), Johnson (1987), Jackendoff (1983, 1990), Wierzbicka (1996) and Talmy (1985-2000).

Nevertheless, Talmy's image-like representations of motion verbs are among the most prominent and widely known in the world today. Therefore, though this research will definitely benefit from the works of other linguists in the cognitive paradigm, it will be mainly directed to the application of Talmy's description of motion schematization. Talmy's descriptive analysis of verbs of motion can be considered as an example of spatial and dynamic aspects of natural language, which show a plausible dependence on perceptual processes in our everyday experience.

It is within such framework that this study will proceed in describing the conceptualization of motion and the way Arabic lexicalizes these various but connected notions of motion and space.

2

1.1 Theoretical Framework:

1.1.0 Theoretical Perspective

This study adopts the theoretical perspective of what has come to be known as "Cognitive linguistics", viewing language as both a product of the human mind and an instrument for construing experience and conveying information.

1.1.1 Cognitive Linguistics

From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, the relationship between language and reality is mediated by human cognition. Human categories and constructions as realized in language are neither objectively manifested in the physical world nor external to human beings. They are largely motivated by our bodily and mental experiences of the world and the ways we perceive and conceptualize the world. There is not a direct correlation between language and the physical or objective world, as assumed in traditional truth-conditional semantics (Lakoff & Johnson 1980).

Furthermore, cognitive linguistics views language as an integral facet of human cognition sharing certain fundamental organizational properties with all other cognitive systems, such as perception, reasoning, attention, and affect. Linguistic categories and structural patterns reflect human “general conceptual organization, categorization principles, processing mechanisms, and experiential and environmental influence” (Geeraerts, 1997: 7). Therefore, there is no need or

3

justification for positing a separate module of language or autonomous syntax in the human brain, as postulated in contemporary generative linguistics.

1.1.2 Language Categories and Structure

As for the mediation of human cognition between language and the physical world, cognitive linguistics views language categories and structures as inherently embodied and schematic. First, language categories and structures are embodied in nature. Consequently, based on these embodied experiences, our conceptual imagination plays a central role in establishing linguistic categories and structures. As noted in much recent literature, the conceptual imagination constitutes a fundamental part of the human language capacity. Imaginative conceptualizations, such as metaphorical projections, prototype and radial categorizations, windowing of attention, mappings between mental spaces, and conceptual blending are pervasive in language categories constructions (see, for example, Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999, Johnson 1987, Lakoff 1987, Talmy 1996, Fauconnier and Turner 1996, 1998, and Fauconnier 1997).

Second, language categories and structures are schematic in representing things and events in the physical world. It is neither necessary nor possible for a conceptualizer to perceive, or for language to render every detail of any referred thing event in the real world. On the contrary, what the conceptualizer perceived and the language expressed is a schematized version of the thing or event. That is to say, the language speaker's conceptualization is selective. It systematically selects certain aspects of the referent thing or event and overtly rendered with certain language

4

categories and structures, while disregarding the remaining aspects (Talmy 2000a: 177, Langacker 1987: 68, Taylor 2002: 23). The schematization is based on our daily experience. Aspects which are prominent, repetitively occurring, or currently relevant in communication are prone to being perceived in cognition or focused in attention and overtly expressed in language. Repetitively co-occurring aspects of experienced things or events form patterns in conceptualization and become language speakers' mental image schemas for those things or events, and are rendered in language as corresponding categories or constructions (Johnson 1987, Lakoff and Johnson 1999, Goldberg 1998).

1.1.3 Conceptual Universal Grammar

Because of its conceptual grounding in bodily experience, grammar is not an autonomous module consisting of a set of formal rules. It functions as the core means for the construal of experience and the organization and communication of that experience. All valid grammatical constructs, including lexical, morphological, and syntactic categories and constructions have conceptual import. They are assemblies of symbolic structures (form-meaning pairings), “consisting of patterns for imposing and symbolizing particular schemas of conceptual structuring” (Langacker 1998:2; see also Lakoff and Johnson 1999). Correspondingly, grammatical universals are more than just universals of form: they are universals of the symbolic relations pairing form and meaning. Moreover, conceptual universals such as primitive spatial relations, universal conceptual metaphors, and distribution patterns of attention constitute an important part of human language universals (see Lakoff and Johnson 1999: 506, Talmy 2000a and b).

5

Fundamental to cognitive linguistics is its recognition of our capacity for conceiving and portraying the same objective situation in alternate ways. It claims that the ways in which we conceptualize situations substantially determine the structures of grammar and the meaning of linguistic units. We are able, for example, to conceptualize the same situation from different perspectives at varying levels of specificity with different deployments of attention over different parts of the situation (cf. Talmy 1988: 194-195, Langacker 1998: 3-11). Different languages demonstrate typological differences (and universals, of course) in conventional patterns of construal.

A particular language may provide different options for presenting a given situation. There is no purely formal rule and no completely objective meaning in language, since there is no completely neutral or objective way of construing a situation. "Our concepts cannot be a direct reflection of external, objective, mind-free reality because our sensorimotor system plays a crucial role in shaping them." (Lakoff and Johnson 1999:44)

1.1.4 Cognitive Linguistics and the Formal Approach

With the conception of language briefly outlined above, cognitive linguistics rejects notions of syntactic autonomy and any purely formal treatment of an assumed narrow core of language structure. It rejects the traditional objectivist paradigm which assumes a direct correspondence between real world entities and linguistic categories. Instead, it treats as central to linguistic study the analysis of the experiential and conceptual basis of linguistic categories and structures. Cognitive

6

linguists seek to explain grammar in terms of basic human cognitive systems and abilities such as perception, attention, and categorization (see, for example, Lakoff 1987, Langacker 1987, Talmy 2000, vol. I and II). Since the experiential and conceptual basis of language structures determines that the formal structural patterns of language are themselves imbued with meanings (Goldberg 1998, Kay and Fillmore 1999), meaning plays a central role in the cognitive treatment of language structure. To “show how aspects of form can follow from aspects of meaning” is thus one primary goal of cognitive linguistics (Lakoff 1987: 491).

1.2 Statement of the problem

The main statement of this research focuses on investigating the semantic/conceptual components of motion events within a cognitive framework. As such, it seeks to reveal how these components are lexicalized and how they reflect a general cognitive patterning that may be shared by all human beings. It also seeks to contribute to the international efforts in establishing the universality of meanings cross-linguistically and to add to the previous studies on Arabic motion events.

Due to the central position that a verb occupies in the structure of sentences and in human cognition in general, semanticists, since the 1970s, have tried to come up with different criteria for classifying verbs in English (EAGLES: 1996). Their classifications of verbs contributed to a better organization and a more comprehensive description of the semantics of verbs and to a precise identification of their meaning components. Yet, little has been done in this field in modern Arabic semantics.

7

Despite the great achievements in the field of Arabic semantics in the past (Ibn Jinni (934-1002), Al-Jurjani (-1078), AI-Amidi (-1233) among many others and the distinguished development in the works of Omar (1988), Haydar (1999), Hassan (2000), and Al-Khuli (2001) to mention but a few, there are still many areas that have not yet been investigated and many recent approaches that have not been studied or applied to Arabic such as the cognitive approach that this study draws on. These recent theories and approaches can, in fact, enrich and revolutionize this branch of Arabic linguistics. In relation to verbs, in particular, the efforts of many Arab linguists through centuries and up to the present time have concentrated on treating them in formal terms (see among others, Sibawayh (760-796), Ibn Jinni (934-1002), Hasan (1974), Al-Ghalayyeeni (1986). Verbs have been classified according to their morphological form and/or their syntactic behavior. Studies in Arabic semantics have either neglected the semantic content and classes of these verbs or have focused on the semantic differences between the different morphological forms of the same verb (see among others, Abu Hilal Al-Askari (920-1005), Ibn Faris (940-1004), AlZamakhshari (1074-1143), Al-Saamuraa'i (1983), Al-DaHdaaH (1991)). There are different theories in the literature which have dealt with the concept of motion and extensive studies that have focused on the semantic conceptualization of motion in English and other languages. On the other hand, there is a noticeable lack in the studies that investigate the semantics of Arabic verbs in general and motion verbs in particular. Consequently, this research originates from the necessity to fill up this gap. It is meant to be a contribution to the field of modem Arabic semantics and especially to the study of semantic classifications and motion conceptualization.

8

1.3 Significance of the study

This study concentrates on an essential area of lexical semantics which is the semantics of verbs. Although verbs have been extensively studied in Arabic linguistics from different angles, a few studies have tackled semantic classes of verbs, (see among others Hamdan (1998), Fayyad (2000), Ibrahim (2001), Dawood (2002), Mahmood (2003). However, the class of motion verbs was not tackled before. This reveals the need for research in this area which is the aim of this study.

This study is also significant in one more respect. It examines motion events from a cognitive semantic perspective which is not only a new approach introduced into Arabic linguistics but also a newly-formed field of interest in semantics in general. By implementing a cognitive semantic framework, the study paves the way for future researches to put this theory into practice and for more studies to deal with other semantic classes from different perspectives. Moreover, this study derives particular importance from its subject matter, which is the semantic concept of motion. This concept has particularly been chosen to be the topic of this research for two reasons. Firstly, motion and location have been the focus of intensive investigation in lexical semantics, psycholinguistics and other disciplines as well (Talmy (1985), Jackendoff (1990), Choi and Bowerman (1991), Levin (1993), Bloom et al. (1996), Slobin (1996-2005)). Secondly, numerous researchers now agree that motion and space provide both an empirically rich and a discernible field of investigation of the language-thought relations (see Levinson (1996), Gentner and Boroditsky (2001)).

9

This study aspires to contribute to the ongoing research in the domain of semantics, linguistic typology, language universals, cognitive linguistics as well as other related disciplines.

1.4 Objectives of the study

The ultimate aim of the analysis is to discover how Arabic conforms to the typology that Talmy proposed for languages in relation to motion expression, i.e. whether it is a verb-framing language; a satellite-framing language or an equipollently-framing language. Accordingly, this research is addressed to fulfill the following specific objectives: 

To analyze the Arabic motion events and explore the semantic components of meaning found in them,



To investigate the different patterns of lexicalization of the semantic components of motion and whether they conform with the universal linguistic patterns presented by Talmy,



To examine how patterns of lexicalization and the conflation processes that follow are manifested in the semantics of Arabic verbs.

10

1.5 Research Questions

The following are some of the questions that this research is trying to answer: 

How are the main universal semantic components of motion lexicalized in Arabic motion events?



Does path appear with manner of motion verbs?



Can the pervasiveness of path and manner conflation be attributed to language-specific principles related to Arabic?



What are the different patterns of lexicalization available to encode motion in Arabic?

1.6 Definitions of Terms Used

The most important terms used in this study are presented below (the internet has been consulted for the definitions. The following sites are useful: Glossary of linguistic terms, Lexicon of linguistics, Linguistic Terms, etc.):

A concept is an abstract, universal idea, notion, or entity that serves to designate a category or class of entities, events, or relations.

.

Conceptualization: means inventing or contriving an idea or explanation and formulating it mentally. Conceptual domain: is a coherent area of conceptualization ( as meals, space, the body, etc.) Lexicalization: is the process of making a word to express a concept. Semantic component: a potentially contrastive part of the meaning of a lexical unit.

11

Motion Event: is a situation containing motion and the continuation of a stationary location.

Manner of motion: refers to a type of distinct motion described by a particular verb, e.g., running, tumbling, sliding, walking, crawling, etc. Path of motion: refers to the direction of the movement, e.g., movement into, out of, across, etc. These two concepts can be encoded in the in the verb as part of its root meaning or in a separate particle associated to the verb (a satellite). A verb-framed language: is one in which the verb root encodes path of motion whereas the manner is expressed by a separate compliment like Spanish. A satellite framed language: is one in which the verb root encodes the manner of the motion whereas the path is expressed by separate particles like English. An equipollently-framed language: is one in which some verbs encode path while other verbs encode manner of motion.

1.7 Research Methodology

The study adopts a cognitive semantic framework to the study of motion events in Standard Written Arabic (henceforth SWA). There are many approaches that can be identified within this broad framework. Although each of these approaches has contributed something to the study of motion events, yet, this study will be primarily based on Talmy's theory (1985, 1991,2000a and b).

12

The cognitive theory of Talmy is chosen to be the basis of analysis in this study for the following reasons. First, Talmy's typological works are considered as the most influential in the field of cognitive semantics due to their application on many languages of the world. Second, his outstanding views have helped to clearly establish the relation between language and cognition and brought languages closer to one another. Third, he brought many insightful contributions into the field of semantics such as his views on force dynamics and event integration.

The study basically follows these general steps: 1. The cognitive framework followed in this study will be described. 2. The meaning components of the concept of motion will be discussed separately along with application examples, analysis, and observations. 3. Lexical representations for Arabic motion events will be established and variation in the grammatical encoding of meaning components will be explained.

1.8 Data Since the focus of the present study is motion events in SWA, the data will be extracted from written texts usually involving descriptions of motion. Those parts that involve verbs of motion are extracted for analysis. The main purpose of the various types of texts that are selected for our study is to include SWA variety. An equal proportion of extracted SWA takes place to ensure objectivity. Written texts are those found in the Gulf countries, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and other Arab 13

countries. Extracted texts are taken from magazines, newspapers, children short stories, and some literary writings from the year 2000 onward. The purpose is to make the examples a true reflection of Arabic as used in the Arab world and to find a variety of different contexts and usages for motion verbs. (Asharqalawsat newspaper, Alarabi magazine, Arab Writers union website containing various novels, short stories, children stories, etc.)

1.9 Organization of the study

The dissertation consists of an introduction, five chapters, a conclusion, and a bibliography. It is structured along these lines:

Chapter one presents the main scope of the study, its objectives, the methodology that is going to be followed, the data, in addition to some background information about the state of affairs in semantics in general and the key terms and notions used in the analysis.

The second chapter reviews the major trends in semantics in relation to motion. The focus in the first section is on expanding the theory that is to be applied to Arabic verbs of motion, i.e. Talmy's theory of motion. The components of the concept of motion will be discussed fully. The lexicalization types and the typology which he puts forward will be presented with examples from Arabic. The second part of the chapter reviews briefly Langacker's, and Jackendoff's theories of motion and their relation to Talmy's theory.

14

Chapters three, four, and five will be devoted to the analysis of data according to the typology. Chapter three examines the most prominent components of motion; Figure and Ground. Their status as prototype categories, their characteristics and linguistic representation will be explained. Examples from Arabic will be presented to explore how these two components of the motion schema are realized in Arabic.

Chapter four presents the different lexicalization patterns available in the language to encode motion. the second part concentrates on an important component of motion conceptualization, i.e., PATH. It expounds the different components of Path such as Vector, Conformation, Direction, etc. It also expounds the different syntactic forms used to lexicalize this concept with its different components.

Chapter five is devoted to the discussion of the MANNER component of motion. Patterns of conflation and lexicalization of manner will be presented. Questions related to combining both Manner and Path in the same sentence will be answered. The last part of the chapter will deal with the nature of Arabic motion verbs, their features, and the reasons for their being elaborate or simple.

Chapter six is a summary of the observations and findings made in this dissertation and the conclusions drawn from the analysis. This chapter also concludes with some suggestions for further studies and touches briefly on some applications of this research on learning and acquisition of motion expressions.

15

CHAPTER TWO

COGNITIVE SEMANTICS AND THE THEORY OF MOTION

2.0 Introduction

This chapter examines how motion is addressed within cognitive semantics as a concept in the real world and how its linguistic expression mirrors human general cognition of the real world. There is much literature on the theory of motion and how it is tackled by different linguists and within different theoretical stands. The frameworks presented in this chapter are all within the cognitive linguistic tradition. The first of these is Talmy's theory of motion and his most celebrated typology which he based on the findings of his theory (1975, 1985, 2000a & b). This is followed by two other accounts of motion conceptualization and these are Langacker's and Jackendoff's. Although they are not the focus of this research, they are mentioned here to show how they are relevant to Talmy’s theory and yet, different from it. Another reason for introducing these frameworks is to justify the researcher’s choice of Talmy’s theory over the others. The various proposals of motion representation within cognitive semantics are organized and presented according to the depth of analysis given to motion representation by each framework.

16

2.1 The Importance of the Concept of Motion to Cognition and Language

We live in a structured world that is essentially the same for almost all humans. The force of gravity, the interaction with physical objects, the sequential shift of night and day, etc., provide a universal experiential basis for the growth of conceptual and therefore semantic structure (Langacker 1999).

Motion is a basic physical phenomenon in human experience of the world. Since motion is an important part of the universe as we see it and of our physical being, it is also a significant and indispensable building block in human mental cognition and conceptualization. Therefore, it is not surprising that motion constitutes a major part of our conceptual and semantic structures of language. It has a huge impact on our way of thinking and expression. Therefore, the goal of cognitive semantics has been to investigate the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure encoded by language. Scholars working in cognitive semantics investigate knowledge representation (conceptual structure), and meaning construction (conceptualization) (Langacker 1999, Croft 1999, JAckendoff 1997).

Much research has proved that motion-event semantics mirrors cognition. Recent theories of embodied cognition suggest that our ability to represent objects and events is developed by the sensory-motor systems that govern acting on these objects and in the events in question. This embodied viewpoint refutes the distinction between perception and action and finds support across multiple levels of psychological inquiry from behavioral work to neuro-physiological research (Holt, L. E. & Beilock, S. L. (2006), Beilock, S. L. & Holt, L. E. (2007), Beilock, S. L., &

17

Gonso, S. (2008), Beilock, S. L. 2008, 2009, N. Green and H. R. Heekeren (2009), J.G. Johnson, M. Raab, H.R. Heekeren (2009). McCune also asserts the fact that motion-event semantics reflects early cognition in children as young as 18 months (2007).

The Cognitive Semantics enterprise advocates that the syntactic structures of a language must be related to the concepts they express by a set of rules of correspondence, where concepts include all the richness and interplay of human knowledge (sometimes called "encyclopedic knowledge). The relation between the two is direct as postulated by cognitive semanticists. Figure 2-1 below represents this relation (Jackendoff 1997):

syntactic structures

semantic/conceptual structures mapping

Figure 2-1: The interplay of syntactic and conceptual structures

Trying to separate purely "semantic" relations from world knowledge has proven to be impossible without massively losing generalizations (Jackendoff 1981, 1983; Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1987). Therefore, the variability among languages in this respect is due to the variability in the conceptual factors to which the mapping is sensitive, i.e., mapping is only sensitive to a limited set of conceptual distinctions, so that the rest are automatically invisible to syntax. As a result, no extra level of

18

strictly linguistic semantics is necessary. The mapping between levels of representation is only a partial homology, not a one-to-one correspondence of every element of the structures (Jackendoff 1997).

Motion is a general term which covers a wide range of situations which imply movement. It is also defined by the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia as a "change in position of a body relative to another body or with respect to a frame of reference or coordinate system. Motion occurs along a definite path, the nature of which determines the character of the motion." In its archetypal sense, motion is understood as "a change of location of an object with respect to other object(s) successively from one point to another along a spatial extent over a period of time" (Chu 2004). Motion as reflected in language is illustrated by the following sentences in Arabic:

1 kunna we-were

naðhab min ?al-jišša ?ila ?al-hafu:f1 go

from Al-Jisha to Al-Hufoof

(We used to go from Jisha to Hufoof.)

2 daxala ?al-baSra baHran min ?al-kuwayt2 entered Al-Basra

by-sea from Al-Kuwait

(He sailed to Basra from Kuwait.)

This type of motion is referred to by Talmy as "translational motion" (2000b: 25) because the movement results in changing the location of the whole body of the entity in the time period under consideration. However, not all descriptions of

19

movement entail displacement in space or translational motion. There are situations in which motion does not lead to a change in the location of the moving entity. This kind of movement is labeled "self-contained" motion (2000b 25-6). The subsequent sentences express the self-contained motion in Arabic:

3 rafrafa ?al-9alam ?al-falasTi:niy fawqa funduq mi:nahaws3 fluttered the-flag the-Palestinian above hotel Mina House (The Palestinian flag fluttered over Mina House Hotel.)

4 ?ihtazza baytu-na 9iddata marra:t4 shook house-our many times (Our house shook many times.)

Table 2-1: A comparison between Types of Motion Talmy's Types of Motion Translational Motion The

object

changes

location in space. daxala (entered) naðhab (go)

Self-Contained Motion its The

object

maintains

its

basic location. rafrafa (fluttered) ?ihtazza (shook)

In "self-contained motion", a moving object typically maintains its basic location, without the displacement through space of its whole body (Talmy 2000b: 35). In this type of motion, the object reveals "dynamic spatial properties in the entity itself such

20

as 1. changes in orientation, e.g. rotary movement or rotation as in da:ra (circle), Ta:fa (to rove), laffa (to spin), to-and-fro movement or oscillation sway or shudder as in ta?arjaHa (to swing), taraqraqa (to stir gently), tarannaHa (to stagger), 2. changes in shape

or size such as expansion and contraction or dilation as in taqallaSa (to contract), tamaddada (to expand), ða:ba (to melt), 3. local wandering, e.g. hovering, lingering as in rafrafa (to flutter), Ha:Sara (to surround), tasakka9a (to hang around) (cf. Talmy 2000b: 35,

Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976:529, Fillmore 1982 and Chu 2004: 7).

Table 2-2: Types of Self-Contained Motion Types of Self-Contained Motion Rotation

Oscillation

Contraction & Expansion

Local Wandering

da:ra (circle)

ta?arjaHa(to swing)

taqallaSa(tocontract)

rafrafa (to flutter)

Ta:fa (to rove)

taraqraqa (to stir

tamaddada (to expand)

Ha:Sara(to

Laffa (to spin)

gently)

ða:ba (to melt)

surround)

tarannaHa

tasakka9a(to hang

(to stagger)

around)

Two more types of motion are considered as secondary and these are bodilyinternal movements and changes of posture. The first type is illustrated by raka9a (to bow on one's knees), Ta?Ta?a (to stoop or bow the head), rafa9a (to raise or lift), faGara (to open the mouth), and the second is exemplified by waqafa (to stand up), ?istalqa: (to lie down), and jalasa (to sit down).

21

Table 2-3: Examples of Other Secondary types of Motion Secondary Types of Motion Bodily-Internal Movements

Changes of Posture

raka9a (to bow on one's knees) waqafa (to stand up) Ta?Ta?a (to stoop or bow)

?istalqa: (to lie down)

rafa9a (to raise or lift)

jalasa (to sit down)

Among the four types of motion mentioned above, translational motion is usually the most basic type that immediately comes to mind rather than the other three types. It represents the central case or the standard member in the category of motion. In comparison with the other types of motion, translational motion is characteristically spatio-directional in nature. It reveals a clear and well- defined structure (Lakoff 1987a: 277-78). According to him, a translational motion event has a starting point for beginning the motion, an end point to stop the motion, a clear path in between consisting of a sequence of locations to follow in the motion, and an intrinsic direction pointing from the stating point to the intended end point. This structure is unique to translational motion.

22

Table 2-4: A Comparison between all types of Motion Type of

Translational Self-

Motion

Bodily-

Changes

Contained Internal

of Posture









Displacement 























Standard member

SpatioDirectional Well-defined structure

As a result, the way we perceive this structure has an important consequence on our conceptualization of the world. Translational motion is not just an essential conceptual domain of human cognition and experience, it also forms the grounds for understanding other more abstract conceptual domains such as time, change of state, life, possession, argumentation, etc (Lakoff 1980, Chu 2004). This is what came to be called conceptual metaphor (see, for example, Jackendoff 1978, 1990; Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999; Johnson 1987; Lakoff 1987, 1993; Langacker 1990; Talmy 1996b, 2000a, ch.5; Matsumoto 1996).

23

Argumentation Domain Time Life Domain Domain

Motion Domain

Change of State

Possession

Domain

Domain

Figure 2-2: Interrelation between Motion and other domains

In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain in terms of another. The following are a few instances of conceptual metaphor: understanding life in terms of journeys (e.g. I'm at a crossroads in my life.); arguments in terms of war (e.g. He shot down all my arguments); theories in terms of buildings (e.g. Is this the foundation of your theory?), etc. A conceptual metaphor consists of two domains. The first is the conceptual domain from which metaphorical expressions are drawn to understand another domain. It is called the source domain. The second conceptual domain is the target domain which is understood in light of the first. A conceptual domain is any coherent organization of experience. (Kövecses 2002: 3-13) (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999, Lakoff 1987a, 1990, 1992, 2002).

24

Earlier work on conceptual metaphor theory has shown that English pervasively structures a wide range of abstract domains using motion in space, including time (e.g., moments slip by), ideas (e.g., the idea sprang back into his mind ), emotions (e.g., she felt a sudden surge of emotions), the economy (e.g., prices plummet, inflation skyrockets), and so forth (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999; Ozcalıskan 2002, 2003). Moreover, theoretical work on the linguistic organization of motion events has shown it to be a domain that can be construed in radically different ways in different languages, but which at the same time can be described by a limited set of underlying universal patterns (Talmy 1985, 2000). Metaphor is defined as a conceptual-linguistic mapping between two conceptual domains: the source domain, which serves as the source of vocabulary and conceptual inferences, and the target domain, to which vocabulary and inferences are extended metaphorically (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999). Metaphorical motion is defined as any verb of motion— self or caused—with a non-motion interpretation and metaphorical change of location (Lakoff 1987, Ozcaliskan 2005). The following Arabic sentences illustrate metaphors that use motion in space as the source domain:

5 a. qabla ?an natruka -l-buHayra marar-na 9ala minTaqat Sa:bu:ri5 before

leave-we the-lake passed-we on area-of

Sabouri

(Before we leave the lake, we passed by the Sabure area.)

b. yamurru- l-fa?r passes

bi-mara:Hili- T-Tufu:la

the-mouse by-stages-of

wa -Š-Šba:b wa

the-childhood and the-youth and

-Š-Šayxu:xa6 the-old age (The mouse passes through the stages of childhood, youth and old age.) [ time]

25

mina- l-madi:na7

6 a. ?iqtaraba- r-ru:su

approached the-Russians from the-city (The Russians approached the city.)

b. ?iqtaraba mawsimu- zira:9ati- l-qamH8 approached season

planting the-wheat

(The wheat-growing season approached.) [ time ]

7 a. yaxruju – l-jumhu:ru mina- l-?ista:d9 come-out the-audience from the-stadium (The audience is coming out of the stadium.)

b. ?al-marDa: yaxruju:na min The-patients

go out

from

?azama:ti-him ?aS-SiHHiyya10 problems-their the-healthy

(The patients come over their health problems.) [ change of state ]

8 a. 9a:da

?as-sayyidu Gaza:li ?ila ja:karta11

came back Mr.

Ghazali to Jakarta

(Mr. Ghazali came back to Jakarta.)

b. 9a:da

?al-hudu:?u ?ila-yna12

came back the-calmness to-us (Calm has returned to us.) [ change of state ]

26

9 a. ka:na ?a:ndi yasi:ru bi-ja:nibi jadwali ma:?in ?a:sin13 was Andy walk by-side stream

water sluggish

(Andy was walking next to a steam of sluggish water.)

b. wa biha:ða

tasi:ru- l-Haya:tu fi: Šakl-iha- T-Tabi:9i14

and in-this-way walk the-life

in state-its the-normal

(And in this way, life goes on in its normal course.) [ Life ]

10 a. ka:na mina-l-muqarrar ?an yaðhaba 9ali ?ila- l-madrasah15 was

supposed

to

go

Ali to the-school

(Ali was supposed to go to school.)

b. sa-taðhabu- l-ka?su li-l-fari:q will-go

the-cup to-the-team

?allaði: yastaHiqqu-ha16 that deserve-it

(The cup will go to the most deserving team.) [ possession ]

The structure of physical or literal motion is demonstrated by the (a) sentences in each group of examples above, while the metaphorical mappings are given in the (b) sentences. The metaphorical mappings cover the abstract conceptual domains of time, change of state, and other domains using the same motion verb.

The above examples not only show that motion is one of the basic human concepts in

MWA in particular, but in all languages in general, which have ways of representing it, and projecting it into other conceptual domains through metaphor. Motion is an essential domain to study human cognition and language. This is confirmed in the

27

ground-breaking work of Talmy (1975, 1983, 1985, 1991) and many other crosslinguistic studies such as Slobin 1996 and Svorou 1994. These studies and many others confirm that languages of the world demonstrate interesting typological similarities and differences in the way motion is perceived and represented linguistically (see the following chapters of this thesis for some of the differences between English and Arabic).

Self-contained motion, on the other hand, is less suited to serve as a source domain for conceptual mapping. This is because it does "not imply traversal of a path" (Jackendoff 1990: 88). The sentences below quoted from Jackendoff illustrate some motion verbs that describe the motion of the figure:

11 a. Willy wiggled. b. Debbie danced. c. The flag waved.

12 a. Emma entered. b. Aaron approached. c. Leon left.

In such sentences as 11a, b, and c, the underlined verbs reveal the fact of motion but not the path of motion. This type of motion implies a MOVE component in their meaning but without specifying directionality. Group 12a, b, and c, on the other hand imply a Go function and thus a direction. Thus, group 11, above, demonstrate the self-contained motion while the sentences in 13 specify the translational motion type.

28

The following sentences illustrate the existence of the Self-contained type of motion in Arabic:

13 θala:θatu- infija:ra:t tahuzzu mujamma9a- l-muHayya Garba- r-riya:D17 three

explosions

shake compound Al-Muhayya west-of Riyadh.

(Three explosions shake Al-Muhayya compound west of Riyadh.)

14

turafrifu ra:yatu- l-?isla:mi 9ala ?aswa:ri- l-masjidi- l-?aqSa:18 flutter

flag-of the-Islam

on walls-of the-mosque Al-Aqsa

(The Muslim flag flutters over the walls of Al-Aqsa Mosque.)

15

huna: bada?at ?aT-Ta:?iratu tata?arjaH19 here started-to the-plane

swing

(At that point, the plane started to swing.)

The underlined verbs in the Arabic examples above, are consistent with their English counterparts with respect to their semantic meaning as instances of Move or Selfcontained motion without any specification of Path. The set of such verbs in Arabic is very wide.

Self-contained motion is less fundamental in the study of human conception and language for the following reasons. Firstly, it has restricted use in comparison with translational motion which is most widely employed in motion descriptions. Secondly, its internal change with regard to spatial relations is less obvious for perception (Chu 2004). Therefore, this study revolves mainly around translational

29

motion. The term "motion" is used to refer to translational motion unless otherwise indicated. Other types of motion may occasionally be tackled whenever appropriate.

As a result of the importance of the concept of motion in the exploration of human cognition and the mappings between cognition and linguistic organization, motion conceptualization and its linguistic representation has been the focus of intensive research in the past three decades. Some of the leading works in the cognitive linguistic paradigm are represented by Talmy (1975, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1996a, 1996b, 2000a and b), Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976), Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999, Johnson 1987, Lakoff 1987), Jackendoff (1983, 1990, 1991), Langacker (1987, 1991), Svorou (1994) and many others. The present study on motion conceptualization and its linguistic realization in MWA greatly benefits from those pioneering studies.

For a more formal account of the image schema of motion, it is necessary to find out the structuring of the conceptual content of motion. To be specific, the kinds of recurring aspects and patterns of motion that are perceived through human cognition need to be identified. It is also essential to discover how those aspects and patterns are schematically construed and represented in language.

Traditionally, the motion schema has been characterized as a Source-Path-Goal configuration (Fillmore 1968, Fillmore et al. 2006, Lakoff 1987a, Johnson 1987, Lakoff and Johnson 1999, Radden 1988, among others). Talmy rejects this characterization and replaces it with his own which consists of a Figure-Move-PathGround formula. Talmy's many cognitive semantics publications offer probably the

30

most fully specified treatment of motion (1975, 1983, 1985b, 2000a ch. 1,3, & 5). Two more proposals have also been presented. One is offered by Jackendoff (1983, 1990), who argues for a function-argument organization in his conceptual semantic framework, and the other is advocated by Langacker (1987, 1991), who provides a specified characterization of motion within the framework of his cognitive grammar. In this chapter, these three proposals are reviewed, their plausibility and applicability for analyzing motion in Arabic is examined. The purpose is to show that Talmy’s formulation of motion schema presents a more comprehensive view on motion and is cross-linguistically more applicable. Therefore, it should be adopted as a good reference framework for the study of motion conceptualization and representation in Arabic.

2.2 Talmy's Theory of Motion

Talmy's publications have focused on examining the form and processes of semantic/ conceptual structure. One theme that has continued from his dissertation on is the examination of the conceptual structure of events. One type of event structure that he has thoroughly scrutinized is the motion event. In his investigation of motion events, he assigned a general form of this structure consisting of a basic "Motion event"- that is an event of motion or location- plus a "Co-event" that is linked to it as its Manner or Cause, all within a larger "Motion situation" or "Macroevent". (Talmy 2000b: 8)

31

Talmy presents a comprehensive formal account of motion developed within his cognitive semantics framework (1975, 1983, 1985b, 2000a ch. 2, 3, & 5; 2000b ch. 1). According to him, the conceptualization of a motion event can be analyzed as integrating a set of different conceptual components. Talmy's formulation comprises four

"internal" components of a motion event which he identifies as Figure, Move, Path, and Ground. The Figure and Ground are a conceptual pair: "The Figure is a moving or conceptually movable object whose path or site is at issue. The Ground is a reference frame, or a reference object stationary within a reference frame, with respect to which the Figure's path or site is characterized" (2000b: 26).20 The component Move "refers to the presence per se of motion or locatedness in the event", i.e., the fact of motion or locatedness. The Path component stands for “the path followed or site occupied by the Figure object with respect to the Ground object” (2000b: 25).

Talmy treats "locatedness", i.e., maintenance of a stationary location as a type of “motion event”. According to Talmy, this treatment is motivated by the fact that a located state fits into the same "Figure-Move-Path-Ground" conceptual schema of motion. This dissertation departs from Talmy's broad definition of motion in ruling out "locatedness" and in restricting the analysis to motion .

While located state shares with motion the rough "skeleton" of the conceptual structure, motion differs from location in significant respects such as the directional and deictic properties of Path, the reference objects involved, and the mapping effect on abstract domains. Since the inclusion of location is expected to involve different

32

analysis, it seems suitable to avoid complicating the analysis and, as a result, location is excluded.

Besides the four internal components of motion, a motion event can be associated with some "external co-event" components, most frequently the Manner or Cause of the motion.21 The following examples illustrate Talmy's notions of these motion elements:

16 a. The pencil rolled off the table. b. The pencil blew off the table. (Talmy 2000b: 26)

17 a. tadaHrajat ?al-kuratu ?ila ?aT-Tari:q22 rolled

the-ball

to the-road

(The ball rolled to the street.)

b. taTa:yarat ?ajjza:?un mina- s-sayya:ra ?ila-l-maqlabi-l-?a:xar mina-Š-Ša:ri923 flew

parts

from- the-car

to the-side the-other of the-street

(Parts of the car flew away to the other side of the street.)

In 16, the pencil is the Figure that moves. The table is the Ground, which remains stationary. The pencil's motion is located against the ground of the table's motionlessness. Off indicates the Path of the pencil's motion. The fact of motion is expressed by the verbs rolled in 16a and blew in 16b, with rolled also describing the Manner of motion in 16a while blew indicates the Cause of the motion in 16b.

33

Similarly, in the Arabic examples in 17, the Figure is the subject ?al-kuratu (the ball) in (a) and the subject ?ajjza:?un mina- s-ayya:ra (parts of the car) in (b). ?aT-Tari:q

(the street) functions as the Ground in (a) while the Ground is ?al-maqlabi-l-?a:xar mina-Š-Ša:ri9 (the other side of the street) in (b). The verbs tadaHraja (rolled) in 17a and taTayarat (flew away) in 17b specify the Move. Furthermore, tadaHrajat (rolled)

describes the Manner as well as taTa:yarat (flew away) which specifies the medium. The word ?ila (toward) indicates the Path.

According to Talmy, languages draw on these universal "building blocks" in representing motion events. Nevertheless, individual languages differ both in the elements they select out of the available stock of motion "primitives" and in the way they conflate them into specific lexical and clausal structures (Talmy, 1985; Slobin, 1996a; Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Jackendoff, 1990; and many others).

Talmy (1985, 2000) has maintained that languages can generally be divided into two categories according to their preferred patterns of lexicalization to encode motion: verb-framed languages and satellite-framed languages. In verb-framed languages, like French or Spanish, the path of the motion event is encoded in the main verb and, if the manner of motion is encoded, it is in a dependent verb. In satellite-framed languages, such as English or Chinese, the manner of motion is usually encoded in the main verb while the path of motion is encoded in a satellite.

The typology proposed by Talmy (1983, 1985, 1991), which motivated many recent studies of the linguistic organization and expression of path and manner of motion, is based on conflation patterns or mappings from conceptualization to

34

expression. Specifically, Talmy’s typology is based on the observation that in verbframed languages, path is typically conflated into the motion verb, whereas in satellite-framed languages it is typically expressed by a satellite particle, while manner is typically conflated into the motion verb (see also Slobin; 2000 and 2004).

In analyzing motion events, an important goal is to determine how the semantic components of the motion event (motion, figure, ground, path, manner, and/or cause) are distributed across a sentence. It is important to identify which semantic elements are incorporated along with motion into the verb (conflation) and which are expressed by independent morphemes in the sentence (lexicalization). Conflation is only one of the mapping phenomena characterizing the semantics and morpho-syntax of space and motion.

According to Talmy (1985: 59), "...lexicalization is involved where a particular meaning component is found to be in regular association with a particular morpheme". Talmy is mainly interested in pervasive patterns of lexicalization rather than individual cases of concept-expression mapping (see ch. 4 of this dissertation).

Talmy distinguishes in his patterns of lexicalization between verb (or verb stem) and satellite. He defines satellite as a "grammatical category of any constituent other than a nominal complement that is in a sister relation to the verb root" (1991: 486), such as English verb particles.

35

2.2.1 The Verb

Talmy examined first verb roots alone, then satellites in isolation to determine the patterns of lexicalization that are involved in single morphemes and to be able to compare lexicalization patterns across languages with very different word structure. For example, the verb root in Chinese generally stands alone as an entire word, whereas in Atsugewi it is attached to many affixes that all together constitute a polysynthetic verbal word. But these two languages are equal as regards their verb roots (2000b:28).

Below are the three typologically principal lexicalization patterns for verb roots that Talmy put forward. Usually, a language uses only one of these patterns for the verb in its most characteristic expression of Motion.

2.2.1.1 Motion + Co-event

In some languages of the world, the motion sentence consists of a verb that conveys both the fact of Motion and a Co-event all at once- the Co-event being usually either the manner or the cause of the Motion. Languages utilizing this motion sentence pattern usually have a large set of verbs that express motion "occurring in various manners or by various causes." Language families that uses this type are Indo-European (except for Romance languages), Finno-Ugric, Chinese, Ojibwa, Warlbiri and English. The following diagram represents this meaning-to-form relationship (adopted from Talmy 2000b: 28):

36

[Figure

Motion

Path

Ground] Motion event

Relation

[Event]Co-

event

Move BELOC

Precursion Enablement Cause Manner Concomitance Subsequence :

V roots

Diagram 2-3: Co-event conflated in the Motion verb

The examples below are taken from Talmy to characterize this type of lexicalization pattern in English:

18. a. The rock slid/rolled/bounced down the hill. Nonagentive b. The gate swung/creaked shut on its rusty hinges. Nonagentive c. I slid/rolled/bounced the keg into the storeroom. Agentive d. I twisted/popped the cork out of the bottle. Agentive e. I ran/limped/jumped/stumbled/rushed/groped my way down the stairs. Self-agentive f. She wore a green dress to the party. Self-agentive 19. g. The napkin blew off the table. Nonagentive h. The bone pulled loose from its socket. Nonagentive i. I pushed/threw/kicked the keg into the storeroom. Agentive j. I chopped the tree down to the ground at the base. Agentive

37

The above sentences contain English expressions of Motion with conflated Manner or Cause. The Co-event is conflated in the Motion verb. In 18, the MOVE element is conflated with Manner while in 19, it is conflated with Cause. In order to determine the type of Co-event that is conflated in the verb- whether it is Manner or Cause- one needs to know the verb's basic reference. If the Co-event refers to what the Figure does, then it describes the manner of the movement. If it refers to what the Agent or Instrument does, then it describes the cause of the movement. For instance, in sentence (c) above, rolled basically refers to what the keg did and so expresses Manner, whereas in sentence (i), pushed refers to what the agent did, and so gives the Cause of the event (Talmy 2000b: 27).

2.2.1.1.1

The Patterns Underlying Co-event Conflation

Talmy characterizes the type of conflation pattern involved in the above sentences by using a construction that reveals the individual semantic components or decomposes the sentences. He represents the notion (either Manner or Cause) conflated in the main verb by a separate subordinate clause that indicates the Coevent. The relation that the Co-event bears to the main Motion event in such a construction is designated by a form like WITH-THE-MANNER-OF or WITH-THECAUSE-OF. Such forms function semantically like the subordinating preposition or conjunction of a complex sentence. Thus, the form WITH-THE-CAUSE-OF functions like the English subordinator by in an agentive construction (as in I moved the keg into the storeroom by kicking it), or like the subordinators from or as a result of in a nonagentive construction (as in The napkin came off the table from/as a result

38

of the wind blowing on it). The symbol "A" is also used in the sentences below and placed before a verb to indicate that the verb is agentive (thus, AMOVE = CAUSE to MOVE). The form GO is used to represent self-agentive motion. These sentences are taken from Talmy (2000b: 30):

20. MOVE + Manner

Table 2-5: Conflated and Decompositional meanings (Manner) The conflated sentence

The decompositional meaning

a'. The rock rolled down the hill.

= [the rock MOVED down the hill] WITHTHE-MANNER-OF [the rock rolled]

Nonagentive b'. The gate swung shut on its

= [the gate MOVED shut (= the gate

rusty hinges.

shut)] WITH-THE-MANNER-OF [the gate swung on its rusty hinges]

Agentive

d'. 1 bounced the keg into the

= [I AMOVED the keg into the storeroom]

storeroom.

WITH-THE-MANNER-OF [I bounced the keg]

Self-agentive

e'. I ran down the stairs.

= [I WENT down the stairs] WITH-THE-MANNER-OF [I ran]

39

21. MOVE + Cause

Table 2-6: Conflated and Decompositional meanings (Cause) The conflated sentence

The decompositional meaning

g'. The napkin blew off the table.

= [the napkin MOVED off the table] WITH-THE-CAUSE-OF [(something)

Nonagentive

blew on the napkin] h'. The bone pulled loose from its

= [the bone MOVED loose from its

socket.

socket]

WITH-THE-CAUSE-OF

[(something) pulled on the bone]

Agentive

i'. I kicked the keg into the

= [I AMOVED the keg into the storeroom]

storeroom.

WITH-THE-CAUSE-OF [I kicked the keg]

j'. I chopped the tree down to the

= [I AMOVED the tree down to the

ground at the base.

ground] WITH-THE-CAUSE-OF [I chopped on the tree at the base]

The decompositional constructions above have a direct relation to sentences without conflation, which can paraphrase the original conflated sentences as shown below:

22 a". The rock rolled down the hill. The rock went down the hill, rolling in the process/the while. h". The napkin blew off the table. The napkin moved off the table from (the wind) blowing on it. k". I kicked the keg into the storeroom. I moved the keg into the storeroom by kicking it.

40

2.2.1.2 Motion + Path

This is the second typological pattern for the expression of motion. The verb root in this pattern expresses both the fact of Motion and the Path. The Co-event of Manner or Cause, if at all expressed in the same sentence, is realized as an independent, usually adverbial or gerundive type of constituent. In the languages that use this pattern of lexicalization, such as Spanish, information about Manner or Cause is often either provided in the surrounding discourse or omitted altogether. Moreover, languages that use this pattern of lexicalization have a good number of verbs that express motion along various paths. This conflation pattern is schematized in the accompanying diagram taken from Talmy (2000b: 49):

[Figure

Motion

Path

Ground]Motion event

Move BELOC

Relation Precursion Enablement Cause Manner Concomitance Subsequence :

V roots

Diagram 2-4: Path conflated in the Motion verb

41

[Event]Co-event

2.2.1.2.1 The Patterns Underlying Path Conflation

Language that belong to this type are Romance, Semitic, Japanese, Korean, Turkish, Tamil, Polynesian, Nez Perce, and Caddo. Spanish is used by Talmy to illustrate this type of conflation as follows:

23. a. La botella entró

a la cueva (f1otando)

the bottle MOVED-in to the cave (floating) (The bottle floated into the cave.) b. La botella salió

de la cueva (f1otando)

the bottle MOVED-out from the cave (floating) (The bottle floated out of the cave.) c. La botella pasó

por la piedra (f1otando)

the bottle MOVED-by past the rock (floating) (The bottle floated past the rock.) d. La botella pasó

por

el tubo (f1otando)

the bottle MOVED-through through the pipe (floating) (The bottle floated through the pipe.) e. El globo subió

por

la chimenea (f1otando)

the balloon MOVED-up through the chimney (floating) (The balloon floated up the chimney.) f. El globo

bajó

por

la chimenea (f1otando)

the balloon MOVED-down through the chimney (floating) (The balloon floated down the chimney.) g. La botella se fué

de la orilla (f1otando)

the bottle MOVED-away from the bank (floating) (The bottle floated away from the bank.)

42

h. La botella volvió

a la orilla (f1otando)

the bottle MOVED-back to the bank (floating) (The bottle floated back to the bank.) i. La botella le

dió vuelta a la isla (flotando)

the bottle to-it gave turn to the island (floating) (= 'MOVED around') (The bottle floated around the island.) j. La botella cruzó

el canal (f1otando)

the bottle MOVED-across the canal (floating) (The bottle floated across the canal.) k. La botella iba

por el canal (f1otando)

the bottle MOVED-along along the canal (floating) (The bottle floated along the canal.) l. La botella andaba

en el canal (flotando)

the bottle MOVED-about in the canal (floating) (The bottle floated around the canal.) m. Las dos botellas se juntaron

(f1otando)

the two bottles MOVED-together (floating) (The two bottles floated together.) n. La dos botellas se separaron

(f1otando)

the two bottles MOVED-apart (floating) (The two bottles floated apart.)

Other Spanish nonagentive verbs that conflate Path with Motion in the verb root are avanzar (MOVE ahead/forward), regresar (MOVE in the reverse direction), acercarse (MOVE closer to (approach)), llegar (MOVE to the point of (arrive at)), seguir (MOVE along after (follow)).

43

The previous sentences contain Spanish expressions of Motion that illustrate the pattern of conflating Path in the main verb. It is also clear from the examples that the Co-event (whether Manner or Cause) if expressed in the sentence, is conveyed in an independent constituent usually a gerund at the end of the sentence. The coming examples illustrate the conflation of Path in the main verb while expressing Manner at the end:

24. a. Metí

el barril a la bodega

rodándolo

I-AMOVED-in the keg to the storeroom rol1ing-it (I rolled the keg into the storeroom.) b. Saqué

el corcho de la botella retorciéndolo

I-AMOVED-out the cork from the bottle twisting-it Retorci el corcho y lo saqué

de la botella

I-twisted the cork and it I-AMOVED-out from the bottle (I twisted the cork out of the bottle.)

The subsequent sentences in 25 exemplify the conflation of Path in the main verb while expressing Cause at the end:

25. c. Tumbé el árbol serruchándolo// a hachazos/ con una hacha I-felled the tree sawing-it//

by ax-chops/ with an ax

(I sawed//chopped the tree down.) d. Quité

el papel del

paquete cortándolo

I-AMOVED-off the paper from-the package cutting-it (I cut the wrapper off the package.)

44

2.2.1.2.2 Components of Path

Path is an essential part of the schema of motion. It is not as simple notion as it seems. This notion is in fact a complex comprising several structurally distinct components. The three main components of Path for spoken languages are the Vector, the Conformation, and the Deictic (Talmy 2000b: 53).

Figure 2-5: Components of Path

2.2.1.2.2.1 The Vector

The Vector can be visualized as a horizontal line connecting the Figure schema to the Ground schema. As such, it typically consists of three parts: arrival, traversal, and departure depending on the role that a Figure performs in relation to a Ground. Talmy represents these Vector parts in the form of "Motion-aspect formulas" that he puts forward and advocates as universal formulas. These formulas are given below with the Vectors shown as capitalized prepositions. In these formulas, the Figure and the Ground are shown as abstract fundamental schemas. The fundamental Figure schema appears as "a point." So does the fundamental Ground schema which 45

follows the Vector. Each formula is illustrated by a sentence whose specific spatial reference is based on and helps to clarify the formula (Talmy 2000b: 53):

26. a. A point BE LOC AT a point, for a bounded extent of time. The napkin lay on the bed/in the box for three hours.

b. A point MOVE TO a point, at a point of time. The napkin blew onto the bed/into the box at exactly 3:05.

c. A point MOVE FROM a point, at a point of time. The napkin blew off the bed/out of the box at exactly 3:05.

d. A point MOVE VIA a point, at a point of time. The ball rolled across the crack/past the lamp at exactly 3:05.

e. A point MOVE ALONG an unbounded extent, for a bounded extent of time. The ball rolled down the slope/along the ledge/around the tree for 10 seconds.

e'. A point MOVE TOWARD a point, for a bounded extent of time. The ball rolled toward the lamp for 10 seconds.

e". A point MOVE AWAY-FROM a point, for a bounded extent of time. The ball rolled away from the lamp for 10 seconds.

f. A point MOVE ALENGTH a bounded extent, in a bounded extent of time. The ball rolled across the rug/through the tube in 10 seconds. The ball rolled 20 feet in 10 seconds.

46

f'. A point MOVE FROM-TO a point-pair, in a bounded extent of time. The ball rolled from the lamp to the door/from one side of the rug to the other in 10 seconds.

g. A point MOVE ALONG-TO an extent bounded at a terminating point, at a point of time/in a bounded extent of time. The car reached the house at 3:05/in three hours.

h. A point MOVE FROM-ALONG an extent bounded at a beginning point, since a point of time/for a bounded extent of time. The car has been driving from Chicago since 12:05/for three hours.

2.2.1.2.2.2 The Conformation

The Conformation component of the Path "is a geometric complex" that specifies the spatial relation of the path to the Ground. In other words, it extends the fundamental

Ground schema into a full Ground object. To explain this further, Talmy's "motionaspect formulas" for the conformation component are provided in 27 below. These formulas characterize the Ground object as "a point". To this fundamental Ground schema, the particular Conformation notion: "which is of the inside of [an enclosure]" can be added. Another Conformation notion can also be added: "which is of the surface of [a volume]".

47

27 a. a point which is of the inside of [ an enclosure] = in [an enclosure] a point which is of the surface of [a volume] = on [a volume]

b. a point which is of the inside of [ an enclosure] = in (to) [an enclosure] a point which is of the surface of [ a volume] = on (to) [a volume]

c. a point which is of the inside of [an enclosure] = out of [an enclosure] a point which is of the surface of [a volume] = off (of) [a volume].

Each language lexicalizes its own set of such geometric complexes. In motion constructions in English, for instance, a particular Conformation notion of the landmark is added to the fundamental Ground schema that makes "He steps off the carpet (a volume)", different from "He walks out of the room (an enclosure)". (Talmy 2000b: 53).

For the three formulas of (a) to (c) above, the combination of the Vector and the fundamental Ground schema with these Conformations is to follow. In each, the schema for the full Ground object is indicated in brackets. (Talmy 2000b: 54).

28. a. AT a point which is of the inside of [ an enclosure] = in [an enclosure] AT a point which is of the surface of [a volume] = on [a volume]

b. TO a point which is of the inside of [ an enclosure] = in (to) [an enclosure] TO a point which is of the surface of [ a volume] = on (to) [a volume]

c. FROM a point which is of the inside of [an enclosure] = out of [an enclosure] FROM a point which is of the surface of [a volume] = off (of) [a volume].

48

The full formulas of (a) to (c) together with the "inside" Conformation are shown in the coming lines along with sentences built on the entire complexes. The same procedure is followed for the "surface" conformation.

29. a. i. A point BELOC AT a point which is of the inside of an enclosure for a bounded extent of time. The ball was in the box for three hours.

ii. A point MOVE TO a point which is of the inside of an enclosure at a point of time. The ball rolled into the box at exactly 3:05.

iii. A point MOVE FROM a point which is of the inside of an enclosure at a point of time. The ball rolled out of the box at exactly 3:05.

b. i. A point BELOC AT a point which is of the surface of a volume for a bounded extent of time. The napkin lay on the bed for three hours.

ii. A point MOVE TO a point which is of the surface of a volume at a point of time. The napkin blew onto the bed at exactly 3:05.

iii. A point MOVE FROM a point which is of the surface of a volume a at a point of time. The napkin blew off of the bed at exactly 3:05.

49

In a comparable manner, the Vector plus the fundamental Ground schema in 26d, "VIA a point," can be combined with the Conformation "which is to one side of [a point]" to yield past (The ball rolled past the lamp at exactly 3:05). It can also be combined with the Conformation "which is (one of the points) of [a line]" to yield across (The ball rolled across the crack at exactly 3:05). It can also be combined with the Conformation "which is (one of the points) of [a plane]" to yield through (The ball sailed through the pane of glass at exactly 3:05). (Talmy 2000b: 55)

Similarly, the Vector and the fundamental Ground schema of 26e, "ALONG an unbounded extent," can be combined with the Conformation "which is to one side of and parallel to [an unbounded extent]" to yield alongside (I walked alongside the base of the cliff for an hour). Moreover, the Vector plus the fundamental Ground schema of 26f, "ALENGTH a bounded extent," can be combined with the Conformation "which is coterminous and coaxial with [a bounded cylinder]" to yield through (I walked through the tunnel in 10 minutes). (Talmy 2000b: 56)

For Verb-framed languages (languages that conflate Path and Fact-of-Motion in the verb root) such as Spanish, as has been said earlier, Talmy maintains that the pattern for representing a Motion event is characterized by a conflation of the Fact-of Motion and the Vector and Conformation components of the Path together in the verb root. The preposition that can occur with a Ground nominal represents the Vector alone. Hence, in the form "F salir de G," the verb means "MOVE FROM a point of the inside (of an enclosure)", while the preposition simply represents the Vector "FROM". Comparably, in the form "F pasar por G," the verb means "MOVE

50

VIA a point that is to one side (of a point)", while the preposition represents solely the Vector "VIA". (Talmy 2000b: 56)

2.2.1.2.2.3 The Deictic

Talmy believes that the Deictic is not a semantically distinct component but just "a special choice of Vector, Conformation, and Ground", yet its constant occurrence across languages warrants for a separate structural status(138).

The Deictic component of Path characteristically has only two member notions in the languages that incorporate it in their representation of Motion events and these are "toward the speaker" and "in a direction other than toward the speaker". Languages with a Path conflating verb system can differ in their treatment of the Deictic component. Spanish largely classes its Deictic verbs-venir (come) and ir (go) -together with its "Conformation verbs" (a term for the verbs that incorporate Factof-Motion + Vector + Conformation)-for example, entrar (enter). Thus, in a typical motion sentence, the main verb slot will be occupied by one or the other of these Path verb types, while any gerundive verb form will express Manner. (Talmy 2000b: 56)

51

Figure 2-6: The subdivisions of the Path component

The blue box stand for Path, whereas the green ones illustrate the main divisions of this component of motion. The purple boxes show the finer details related to each of the Path components.

2.2.1.3 Motion + Figure

This is the third main typological pattern for the expression of Motion. In this pattern, the verb expresses both the fact of Motion and the Figure at once. Languages which are characterized by using this pattern have an entire group of verbs that conflate various kinds of objects or materials as moving or located together with the fact of motion. This type of conflation is represented by the subsequent diagram taken from Talmy (2000 b: 57). 52

[Figure

Motion

Path

Ground]Motion event

Move BELOC

Relation

[Event]Co-event

Precursion Enablement Cause Manner Concomitance Subsequence :

V roots

Diagram 2-7: Figure conflated in the Motion verb

In order to clarify this pattern, some examples from English can illustrate the point since English does have a few forms that are consistent with this type. Therefore, the non-agentive verb (to) rain refers to rain moving, and the agentive verb (to) spit refers to causing spit to move, as seen in the subsequent sentences (Talmy 2000b: 57)

30 a. It rained in through the bedroom window. b. I spat into the cuspidor.

But, of course, languages that employ this pattern have a good number of verbs that conflate Motion plus Figure. Talmy found Atsugewi, a Hokan language of northern California, to be a perfect example of this type. He exemplifies the verb roots in this language in (31) below:

53

Atsugewi verb roots of motion with conflated Figure

31 a. -lup-

"for a small shiny spherical object (e.g., a round candy, an eyeball, a hailstone) to move/be-located"

b. -ť-

"for a smallish planar object that can be functionally affixed (e.g., a stamp, a clothing patch, a button, a shingle) to move/be-located"

c. -caq-

"for a slimy lumpish object (e.g., a toad, a cow dropping) to move/be-located"

d. -swal-

"for a limp linear object suspended by one end (e.g., a shirt on a clothesline, a hanging dead rabbit) to move/be-located"

e. -qput-

"for loose dry dirt to move/be-located"

f. -sťaq-

"for runny icky material (e.g., mud, manure, rotten tomatoes, guts) to move/be-located" (2000b:58)

2.2.1.4 A Typology for Motion Verbs

The three main typological types for Motion expression involving verb roots are Motion + Co-Event, Path, or Figure as summarized in the following table:

54

Table 2-7: Typological Differences between languages

Language/ Language

Motion Components in the Verb root

Family Motion + Path

Romance Semitic Polynesian Nez Perce Caddo Japanese Korean

Motion + Co-event

Indo-European (not Romance) Chinese Finno-Ugric Ojibwa Warlpiri

Motion + Figure

Atsugewi Navaho

Besides these combinatorial possibilities mentioned above, there are others that are considered in the subsequent sections:

2.2.1.4.1

Motion + Two Semantic Components

Two components of a Motion event can be conflated with the fact-of-Motion in the verb root. For instance, the Ground and Path components are conflated with

55

Motion in a small group agentive verbs in English such as shelve "AMOVE onto a shelf" and box "AMOVE into a box" as shown in the sentences in 32:

32. a. I shelved the books. b. I boxed the apples.

Another group of agentive verbs in English conflates the Figure and Path together with Motion as in powder "AMOVE facial powder onto" and scale "AMOVE the scales off of":

33. a. She powdered her nose. b. I scaled the fish.

This multi-component conflation pattern does not seem to constitute any language's principal system for expressing Motion. The reason behind this is that any such system that makes these fine semantic distinctions, requires an enormous lexicon. "There would have to be a distinct lexical verb for each fine-grained semantic combination." Such a system would not be practical for language organization which relies not on large numbers of distinct elements but on its combinatorial devices that function with a small set of elements (Talmy 2000b: 62).

2.2.1.4.2

Motion Alone

This is another combinatorial option in which the verb root conveys the fact-of Motion alone, without conflating any of the other components of the Motion event. This pattern frequently takes place in representing the locative type of Motion event. 56

The languages which exploit this possibility, usually single verb forms to represent the deep verb BELOC and do not conflate it with any other Paths, Figures, or Coevents (Talmy 2000b: 62).

2.2.1.4.3

Motion + A Minimally Differentiated Semantic Component

There are certain major systems in which Motion does conflate with another component of the Motion event, but where only two or three features related to that component are represented, rather than all the features. The Southwest Pomo, for instance, conflates MOVE with the Figure, but not with that feature of the Figure that concerns the type of object or material that the Figure is, as in Atsugewi, but rather with the multiplicity of the Figure, and thus it marks only three distinctions. Therefore, the Southwest Pomo verb roots –w/-?da/-phil mean, respectively, "for one/two or three/several together ... to move", and these three roots appear regularly in verbs expressing Motion events. Any description of the Figure's object type or material characteristics is not incorporated in the verb root but in the subject nominal (Talmy 2000b: 63).

Similarly, Talmy gives another example from Hindi, in its expression of nonagentive motion. The Hindi verb root conflates MOVE with Path, but only with the deictic component of Path, not with the other components that pertain to geometric configurations. Moreover, only the two-valued "hither/thither" distinction within deixis is conflated with MOVE to produce two verb roots-basically, "come" and "go" -that appear repeatedly in constructions of non-agentive motion events. The

57

Conformation part of Path is conveyed in a separate Path satellite or prepositional complex (63).

2.2.1.4.4 A Split System of Conflation

Typically a language has one characteristic conflation type, together with some minor systems and occasional instances of a different conflation type. Conversely, a language can preferably use one conflation type for one type of Motion event, and a different conflation type for another type of Motion event. This is called by Talmy a "split" or "complementary" system of conflation (Talmy2000b: 64).

Spanish is a perfect example of this split system. It has such a split system as regards state of Motion. For locative situations with an underlying BELOC, Spanish naturally employs the zero-conflation pattern. But for an actual motion event with an underlying MOVE, Spanish typically uses Path conflation. But, even within Motion Events of this MOVE type, an additional split can be observed. If the Path component of motion is conceptualized as crossing a boundary, such as "into" and "out of", then, it is conflated in the verb root together with the fact-of-motion. But when there is no crossing of a boundary in Path conceptualization, such as "from", "to", and "toward", then it is the Co-event that is conflated in the verb root along with the fact-of-motion while the Path is represented by a satellite, just like English, as in Corri de mi casa a la escuela, "I ran from my house to the school" (Talmy 2000b: 65).

58

2.2.1.4.5

A Parallel System of Conflation

In a split system, a language uses different conflation types for different types of Motion event. Conversely, in a parallel system of conflation, a language may use different conflation types to express the same type of Motion event. For example, English has been classified as belonging to the Co-event conflation type with motion sentences like (The bottle floated out of the cave). But, if the other alternative construction (The bottle exited the cave floating)- which demonstrates the Path conflation type- were also possible and as frequent as the first construction, then, English would exemplify a parallel type system. This is not the case in English but it is in modern Greek. Modern Greek uses precisely the two types of conflation mentioned above and with comparable frequency to represent most events of motion. Consequently, for most Path notions, Greek has both a Path satellite for use with a Manner-Cause verb, and a Path verb that can be accompanied by a Manner/Cause gerund (Talmy 2000b: 66).

2.2.2

The Satellite

The previous section examined a set of connected semantic categories that can be lexicalized in an open-class type of surface element, the verb root. This section, however, will examine the same set of semantic categories, but here they are lexicalized in a closed-class type of surface element, that is the satellite. It is a grammatical category that has been introduced into semantic analysis by Talmy to refer to "any constituent other than a noun phrase or prepositional-phrase

59

complement that is in a sister relation to the verb root." The verb root is the head in a dependency relation and the satellite is the dependent (Talmy: 2000a: 102).

The satellite category includes both bound affixes and free words. The following grammatical forms which have traditionally been treated independently of one another, are included under the satellite category: verb particles, separable and inseparable verb prefixes, verb complements, incorporated nouns, and polysynthetic affixes around the verb root.

In every language, the set of forms that function as satellites often overlaps to some extent, with the other grammatical categories in that language, usually the category of prepositions, verbs, or nouns. For example, English satellites mainly overlap with prepositions. But there are exceptions such as together, apart, and forth which function only as satellites, while of, from, and toward function only as prepositions.

The justification that Talmy provides for identifying the satellite as a separate grammatical category is that "it captures an observable commonality, both syntactic and semantic, across all these forms-for example, its common function across one typological category of languages as the characteristic site in construction with the verb for the expression of Path or, more generally, of the "core schema" (Talmy 2000b: 102, cf. Talmy 2000b ch.3).

60

A verb root together with its satellites forms a constituent in its own right that Talmy labels the verb complex. It is this constituent as a whole that relates to such other constituents as a direct object noun phrase (103).

The satellite in English is illustrated by Talmy in 34 below. The satellite as shown in the examples can take the form of either a free word or an affix.

34. a. The record started over. b. The engine misfired.

Table 2-8: The Satellite as part of a verb complex

Satellite over

Verb Complex

Example Sentence

start over

The

record

started

over. mis-

fire

mis-

The engine misfired.

The verb complex may contain as many as four such satellites, as in (35).

35 Come ~right24 ~back ~down ~out from up in there! (said, for example, by a parent to a child in a tree house)

The above elements in English have traditionally been termed "verb particles". The term satellite has been introduced by Talmy to pinpoint the commonality between such particles and comparable forms in other languages (103). 61

The following is an examination of the types of semantic categories that are conveyed by satellites:

2.2.2.1 Path

The main function of satellites in English is the expression of Path. Typically, the semantic category of Path is expressed fully by the combination of a satellite and a preposition, as in (36a). But usually the satellite can also be used alone, as in (36b) (Talmy 2000b: 104):

36 a. I ran out of the house. b. (After rifling through the house,) I ran out [i.e., ... of it].

The ellipsis of the prepositional phrase in (36b) requires that its nominal be either a deictic or an anaphoric pronoun (i.e., that the Ground object be uniquely identifiable by the hearer.)

To clarify the semantic and grammatical relations in the above sentences, the symbol > is placed after the preposition pointing toward its nominal object. This symbol, together with (

), encloses the full surface expression (the satellite plus

preposition) that specifies Path, as illustrated in (37a). The parentheses are used to mark off the portion that can be optionally omitted, and F and G indicate the locations of the nominals that function as Figure and Ground, as shown in (37b).

62

37 a. ~out of > b. F ... ~out (of > G)

English has quite a few Path satellites. Some are presented in the sentences in (38) below, without any final Ground-containing phrase.

38 Some Path satellites in English

I ran in.

He ran across.

It flew up.

I ran out.

He ran along.

It flew down.

I climbed on.

He ran through.

I went above.

I stepped off.

He ran past/by.

I went below.

He drove off .

She came over.

I ran up (to her).

I stepped aside.

It toppled over.

She followed along (after us).

She came forth.

She spun around.

They slammed together.

She walked away.

She walked around.

She went ahead.

She walked (all) about. It shrank in.

He came back.

They rolled apart.

It spread out.

In addition, Talmy presents a number of Path satellites in English that would not be generally recognized as such-that is, as being in the same semantic category as those illustrated in (38) above (105):

39 More Path satellites in English

63

Table 2-9: Path Satellites in English

F ... ~loose

(from> G)

The bone pulled loose (from its socket).

F ... ~free

(from> G)

The coin melted free (from the ice).

F ... ~clear

(of> G)

She swam clear (of the oncoming ship).

F ... ~stuck

(to> G)

The twig froze stuck (to the window).

F ... ~fast

(to> G)

The glaze baked fast (to the clay).

F ... ~un-

(from> G)

The bolt must have unscrewed (from the plate).

F ... ~over-

Ø>G

The eaves of the roof over-hung the garden.

F ... ~under- Ø > G

Gold leaf underlay the enamel.

G ... ~full

The tub quickly poured full (of hot water).

(of > F)

For all these Path examples, Talmy emphasizes that satellites are well distinguished from prepositions. There is no confusion between the two categories in most Indo-European languages because the two forms have rather different positional and grammatical characteristics. He gives examples from Latin, Classical Greek, and Russian, where the satellite is bound prefixally to the verb, while the preposition accompanies the noun (wherever it occurs in the sentence) and governs its case. Nonetheless, when a satellite and a preposition with the same phonetic shape are both used together in a sentence to convey a particular Path notion-as often happens in Latin, Greek, and Russian- the two forms are still formally distinct.

For English, however, Talmy asserts that English has come to regularly position a satellite and a preposition next to each other in a sentence. Nevertheless, there are 64

ways in which the two kinds of forms-satellites and prepositions- can be distinguished (Talmy 2000b: 106):

First, the two kinds of forms do not have identical memberships. There are forms with only one function or the other. Consequently, the form: together, apart, away, back, and forth are satellites that never function as prepositions, while of, at, from, and toward are prepositions that can never be used as satellites. Moreover, forms that can act both as prepositions and satellites often have different senses in each. For instance, the form to as a preposition (I went to the store) is different from to as a satellite (I came to), and satellite form over in its sense of "rotation around a horizontal axis" (It fell/toppled/turned/flipped over) is completely distinct semantically from its prepositional counterpart with its "above" or "covering" senses (over the treetop, over the wall).

Second, there are differences in characteristics regarding phrase structure and cooccurrence. A satellite is actually in construction with the verb, while a preposition is in construction with an object nominal. Therefore, when a Ground nominal is omitted-as it generally may be when its referent is known or inferable-the preposition that is in construction with that nominal is also omitted, while the satellite remains. If it is omitted in the sentence "He was sitting in his room and then suddenly ran out (of it)", the preposition of that is in construction with it must also be omitted. But the satellite out, which is in construction with the verb ran, stays in place. Furthermore, a sentence can contain a satellite in construction with the verb without any object nominal, even an omitted one, as in "The log burned up." But a preposition is always

65

in need of some object nominal-though this might have been moved or omitted, as in "This bed was slept in", or "This bed is good to sleep in."

Third, concerning positional properties, a preposition precedes its nominal (unless this has been moved or omitted), as in 40a. But a free satellite (i.e., one not prefixal to the verb) has these more complex characteristics: it precedes a preposition if one is present, as in 40b. It either precedes or follows a full NP that lacks a preposition, as in 40c, though it tends to follow the NP if that location places it directly before a subsequent preposition, as in 40d. And it must follow a pronominal NP that lacks a preposition, as in 40e.

40. a. I ran from the house/it. b. I ran away from the house/it. c. I dragged away the trash./ I dragged the trash away. d. ?I dragged away the trash from the house./ I dragged the trash away from the house. e. *1 dragged away it (from the house)./ I dragged it away (from the house).

Finally, the English Path system has a special set of forms like past that behave like ordinary satellites when there is no final nominal, as in 41a, but if there is a final nominal, even a pronominal one, they appear directly before it and get heavy stress. That is to say, they have the prepositioning property of a preposition but the stress of a satellite.

66

41 a. (I saw him on the comer but) I just drove past. b. I drove past him.

Due to its distinctive dual behavior, the second use of a form like past can be regarded as an example of a new grammatical category-a combination of a satellite plus a preposition that may be called a satellite-preposition or "satprep" -as represented symbolically in 42a. Instead, it can be considered an ordinary satellite that happens to be coupled with a zero preposition as symbolized in 42b.

42 a. F ~past > G b. F ~past Ø> G

Other satpreps in English are through, and up as in "The sword ran through him", and "I climbed up it". The form into also behaves like a satprep that is phonologically different from the combination of the satellite in followed by the preposition to, as seen in "The bee's sting went into him", versus "Carrying the breakfast tray, the butler went in to him." On this phonological basis, out of also functions like a single satprep unit, in contrast to the sequence out from, as in "She ran out-of it." opposed to "She ran out from behind it." English may have developed the satprep form because it has come to regularly juxtapose its satellite and preposition forms (Talmy 2000b: 108).

67

The following is a summary of the various satellite and preposition distinctions in English:

43 a. Preposition + N P b. Satellite

(Mary invited me to her party.) I went to it. (I heard music on the second floor.) I went up.

c. Satellite + preposition (There was a door set in the wall.) I went up to it. +NP d. Satprep + NP e. Satellite + NP

(There was a stairway to the second floor.) I went up it. (They wanted the phone on the second floor.) I took it up.

2.2.2.1 Path + Ground

There is another conflation pattern, different from the preceding one, in which the satellite can express both a specific Path and the type of object that functions as Ground for the Path. This sort of satellites seem to be rare in the languages of the world. However, they amount to a major type in certain Amerindian languages. There are a few examples in English which demonstrate the type. One is the form home in its use as a satellite, where it has the meaning "to his/her/...home". Another is the form shut, also in its satellite use, where it means "to (a position) across its/...associated opening". These forms are illustrated in (44) in sentences, optionally followed by prepositional phrases (Talmy 2000b: 110).

44 a. She drove home (to her cottage in the suburbs). b. The gate swung shut (across the entryway).

Atsugewi is one language that has such Path + Ground satellites as it major system.

68

2.2.2.2 Manner

In some languages of the world, a rare type of satellite is used for expressing Manner. An extensive system of such satellites is found in Nez Perce, a polysynthetic language of North America. In Motion sentences, the verb root in this language is like that of Spanish: it expresses Motion plus Path. But at the same time, a prefix is added to the root to specify the specific Manner in which the Motion is carried out. The sentence in 45 below is an example (Talmy 2000b:113):

45

hi-

quqú·-

láhsa -e

3rd person galloping go-up PAST Literally: "He/she ascended galloping." Loosely: "He galloped uphill."

2.2.2.3 Cause

There is a kind of satellite found in a number of languages that is used for expressing "Instrument." Talmy believes that such forms tend to express the whole of a Cause event. The reason for this belief is that these forms do not only designate the kind of instrumental object that is involved but also the way in which this object has acted on a Patient (to cause an effect). Specifically, this kind of satellite is equivalent to a whole subordinate clause expressing causation in English. A satellite that occurs in a nonagentive verb complex is equivalent to a from-clause, as in "The sack burst from a long thin object poking endwise into it'" Moreover, the same satellite can

69

occur in an agentive verb complex, and thus, is equivalent to a by-clause, as in "I burst the sack by poking a long thin object endwise into it" (Talmy 2000b: 115).

The best example to demonstrate this satellite type is Atsugewi having some 30 forms in addition to other Hokan languages of northern California. In such languages, Talmy states, most verb roots must take one or another of the Cause satellites, so that there is obligatory indication of the cause of the action expressed by the verb root. The whole collection of these satellites fully covers the semantic domain of possible causes. To be precise, any perceived or conceived causal condition is certainly represented by one or another of these satellites which appear as short prefixes immediately preceding the verb root.

2.2.2.4 Summary

The table below shows the three major categories to which languages belong according to their way of expressing Motion. The typology summarized below is based on looking at selected syntactic constituents-first the verb root and then the satellite-to see which components of a Motion event are typically revealed in them. In the next chapters the exact opposite approach will be followed. That is to say, the basic components of a Motion event will be presented first to see how they are realized linguistically. In other words, which syntactic constituents they characteristically show up in. As can be observed from the table, the typologically most diagnostic component to trace is the Path. Path appears in the verb root in "verb-

70

framed" languages such as Spanish, and it appears in the satellite in "satelliteframed" languages such as English and Atsugewi.

Table 2-10: Typology of Motion verbs and their satellites

Language/ language family Romance/ Semitic/ Polynesian Nez Perce Caddo Indo- European/ Chinese Atsugewi (most northern Hokan)

The components of Motion characteristically represented in the: Verb root Satellite Ø Motion + Path Manner (Figure/)Ground [Patient] Motion + Co-event Path Motion + Figure Path + Ground and Cause

2.3 Other Accounts of Motion: Langacker and Jackendoff

This section expounds on two more points of view on motion conceptualization within the cognitive tradition. These are Langacker's and Jackendoff's accounts of motion. These two theories are presented and discussed, here, to show their contribution to the ongoing research on motion and conceptualization in general, although their accounts do not offer a comprehensive configuration of motion conceptualization in particular. It is also intended to prove their unsuitability for linguistic analysis of motion conceptualization in Arabic.

71

2.3.1 Langacker’s Framework for Motion Conceptualization

Langacker believes that the analysis of motion conceptualization is essential for linguistic semantics. He states that the conception of spatial motion involves a composite sequence of cognitive events (1987: 166). He focuses on the relation between the conceptualizer symbolized as C and his conceptualization:

46

Si C Ti

In the above formula, C is the conceptualizer and Si is the situation he/she conceptualizes and Ti is the time of conceptualization or the processing time. This formula describes the conception of a single static configuration. The conceptualization of movement is highly structured and complex since it involves series of transformations or changes from one configuration into another.

The following formula illustrates, according to Langacker, the transformation from one configuration into another or from one cognitive event into another. In this formula, the > points to the sequenced occurrence of cognitive events while T0 > T1 >T2 represents the series of processing time during which the conceptualizer performs the sequence of cognitive events S0 > S1>S2 so that each event Si represents the specific configuration conceived at moment Ti . Langacker refers to this cognitive operation as “sequential scanning” (1987: 145) :

47

S0 C

T0 >

S1

S2

C

T1 > C

T2 > …

72

Langacker defines spatial motion as “a change through time in the location of some entity.” By doing so, he focuses on the importance of the notions of time and location as key concepts in the conceptualization of movement as well as the entity moving or the mover which he symbolizes as m in the following formula:

48 [m/l0] t0 C

>

[m/l1] t1

>

T0

C

T1

[m/l2] t2 C

>… T2

The “l” refers to the location and the “t” to the conceived time while the slash represents the correspondence between m (mover) and l (location). Therefore, the formula [[m/li] ti] stands for the conception of m coinciding with li at moment ti.(time) (Langacker 1987: 167). The preceding formulas confirm Langacker’s preoccupation with time as an important component of any motion event. But regrettably he doesn’t give any details on how to analyze motion events from this temporal perspective. However, he does not employ the notions of Source, Path, Goal or Direction to illustrate the spatial-directional properties of motion (Chu 2004: 42).

Langacker’s framework centers around a significant aspect of motion conceptualization which is the temporal dimension of motion. Motion takes place in time which Langacker designates as conceived time. The conceptualizer of a motion situation needs time to conceptualize motion in the form of a series of cognitive events situated in time. Langacker characterizes “time” as processing time, then “time” is an exceptional perspective in observing motion configuration in language.

73

It is not difficult to realize that it is the spatial-directional characteristics and not the temporal nature of motion that is the cornerstone or the most distinctive feature in any investigation of motion. The temporal feature is not restricted only to motion events; i.e. motion events are not the only events that evolve within a temporal dimension. Almost all other types of events share this quality with motion events. In contrast, spatial-directional characteristics are exclusively restricted to motion events. Moreover, motion is usually conceived as movement through space rather than through time.(Chu 2004: 43)

Although Langacker’s proposal emphasizes a significant aspect of the understanding of motion, it is not adequate for a full analysis of motion conceptualization which is the purpose of this thesis. It is more likely to be a reflection on the cognitive processes involved in motion cognition rather than on motion conceptualization or the linguistic realization of motion patterning in language.

2.3.2. Jackendoff’s Framework of Conceptual Semantics

The main premise of Jackendoff’s framework of Conceptual Semantics is that the investigation of conceptual knowledge has rules or principles comparable to those for generative linguistics. He asserts that his characterization of the mental resources that constitute human knowledge and experience of the world is an extension of Chomsky’s goals and that his theory is compatible with the view of generative linguistics in all respects. (Jackendoff 1990: 7-8)

74

He uses the term conceptual to refer to a mental level at which concepts are formed and manipulated. He states that concepts are either lexical, that is, expressed by a word like DOG, or sentential, that is, encoded by a syntactic structure constructed of a number of lexical concepts, i.e. words like (Dogs are animals.). There are as many sentential concepts as there are sentences in the language. Therefore, Jackendoff maintains that these concepts cannot be exhaustively listed but must be mentally generated on the basis of a finite set of primitives and rules for combination. Lexical concepts, also, are not simply acquired on the basis of lists of representative instances or best exemplars alone but must consist of finite schemas that can be creatively and unconsciously encoded and developed in the human mind. On the basis of these schemas, new inputs are compared (Jackendoff 1990: 9-10)

Jackendoff defines a concept as “a mental representation that can serve as the meaning of a linguistic expression.” So, meaning is a kind of mental representation for Jackendoff (1990: 11-12).

The basic venture of the theory of Conceptual Semantics is to find out how human beings actually “encode their construal of the world”. In other words, how we can express our understanding of the world. This is believed to take place at a level of mental representation that Jackendoff calls conceptual structure (Jackendoff 1990: 12). This level is comparable to the other levels of linguistic organization, i.e. the syntactic or the phonological. It is also important to mention that not only linguistic information is processed at this level but also sensory and motor

75

information as well. In other words, all kinds of information related to cognition is dealt with at this level.(Jackendoff 1983: 17)

Conceptual Semanticists are most unequivocally involved in elucidating “the form of the internal mental representations that constitute conceptual structure and with the formal relations between this level and other levels of representation”. The relation between the conceptual structure level and other levels is one of correspondence and not derivation. .(Jackendoff 1990: 15)

In Jackendoff’s the Conceptual Structure Hypothesis, there is only one unified level of mental representation onto which and from which all types of information are mapped. This means that semantic structures are simply a subset of conceptual structures. To put it differently, semantic structures are conceptual structures that can be expressed verbally (Jackendoff 1983: 19, 95). It means that the level of conceptual structure does not entirely depend on language. It rather functions as an interface between linguistic and nonlinguistic information, i.e. information related to other faculties such as vision and action since these types of information are mutually compatible (Jackendoff 1990: 18).

76

2.3.2.1 The Organization of Conceptual Structure

The overall organization of conceptual structure, Jackendoff argues, consists of basic units called conceptual constituents each belongs to one of the principal ontological categories or “conceptual parts of speech” such as Thing, Event, State, Action, Place, Path, Property, and Amount. Each conceptual category can essentially be decomposed into a function-argument structure. Each argument is by itself a conceptual constituent of one of the major categories (Jackendoff 1990: 22). This can be illustrated by the following phrases and sentences taken from Jackendoff (24):

49 a. John is tall. b. John loves Mary. c. father of the bride d. from under the table e. ready to leave

The first sentence expresses a State-function with two arguments John (Thing) and tall (Property). The second is an Event-function with two arguments John and Mary and both are Things. A Thing may have a Thing as its argument as in (49c). A Path may have a Place as its argument as in (49d) and a Property as ready in (49e) may take an Action/or Event as an argument.

This is similar to the typical notion of predicate in syntax. Further, it also closely corresponds to the practice of x-bar theory in which each tree has certain subordinate and superordinate nodes. Jackendoff states this fact in many parts of his book (1990).

77

In the lines that follow, the most important formation rules for the spatial domain are going to be presented and explained:

50. a. [PLACE]

[Place PLACE-FUNCTION ([THING] ) ] TO FROM

b. [PATH]

THING

TOWARD PATH

([

AWAY-FROM

PLACE

VIA [Event GO ([THING], [PATH])] } c. [EVENT]

[Event STAY ([THING], (PLACE])]

[State BE ([THING], [PLACE])] d. [STATE]

[State ORIENT ([THING], [PATH])] [State EXT ([THING], [PATH])] THING

e. [EVENT]

Event CAUSE([

EVENT ],[EVENT])

These rules show that the most prominent entities related to the spatial domain are Place, Path, State, and Event. Each of these entities can be elaborated further as the rules show above. The first rule states that the category Place can be expanded as a Place-function and an argument belonging to the category Thing. The argument serves as a reference point in terms of which the Place-function characterizes a region. In (b), a Path can likewise be developed as any one of five functions that map a reference Thing or Place into a related trajectory. The third schema reveals that a 78

conceptual constituent of the category Event can be conceptualized either as a GOfunction or as a STAY-function, with two arguments for each. The arguments of Go which denotes motion along a path, are the Thing in motion and the Path it traverses. The arguments of STAY which means to continue being in one place over a period of time, are the Thing standing still and its location. (d) gives three State-functions. The first is BE which specifies the location of objects, the second, ORIENT, is for specifying the orientation of objects, and the third, EXT, for the spatial extension of linear objects along a path. The last schema elaborates an Event as the Eventfunction CAUSE plus two arguments. The first argument, if a Thing, is Agent; if an Event, is Cause. The second argument, an Event, is the Effect. Below are some examples taken from Jackendoff to illustrate each of the above formulas.

51. a. The mouse ran under the table.

52. a. He ran to the house. b. It came from under the table.

53. a. The businessman went to California. b. The businessman stayed in LA.

54. a. The boy is at school. b. The sign points toward Las Vegas. c. The road reaches to New Orleans.

Since by hypothesis, the conceptual structure is universal (Jackendoff 1990: 90), then these schemas are also universal. Evidence can be in favor of this hypothesis or 79

against it. It is also important to mention that Jackendoff following Gruber (1965) believes that the formalisms encoding concepts of spatial location and motion can be generalized to many other semantic fields, (cf. Jackendoff (1983: 188) and (1990: 25, 87)). Motion, therefore, is considered to be a primitive in human cognition. Accordingly, it is one of the basic conceptual functions declared by Jackendoff (1990: 26). The group of sentences in 55, below, illustrate these basic formulas. They are adopted from Jackendoff (1983):

55. a. The highway extends from Denver to Indianapolis. b. The mouse is under the table. c. The books stayed on the shelf.

The preceding examples are analyzed using Jackendoff's function-argument account in 56 below:

FROM ([ Denver ]) 56. a. [Event Go ([highway ],

)] Path TO

([Indianapolis ])

b. [State BE ([ the mouse ], [Place under the table ])] c. [Event STAY ([ the books ], [Place on the shelf ])]

Jackendoff emphasizes that the Path category, the Go function and other constituents in the conceptual structure are to be considered as general categories that can be mapped into other conceptual fields besides the field of physical motion. 80

2.3.2.2 The Relation between Jackendoff’s and Talmy’s Account of Motion

It seems that the general GO function Jackendoff assumes (and its cross-field applications or mappings is the most distinguishing feature of Jackendoff’s description of motion. Putting aside the existence of this general function in Jackendoff's analysis, then his function-argument structure account of motion is basically very similar to Talmy's account. Jackendoff’s GO event corresponds to Talmy's Move (or “the fact of motion”), Jackendoff's Thing is labeled as Figure in Talmy’s system, and Jackendoff’s Path is essentially the same as Talmy's Path. The only difference between the two systems is that Jackendoff highlights the subcategories of Path (such as FROM and TO) and takes Talmy's Ground elements as arguments of those subcategories. This difference is not mainly significant. It seems to be imposed into the analysis by Jackendoff to support his endeavor of representing the conceptual relations of an event in hierarchical function-argument structures. In contrast, Talmy's analysis bears a more straightforward relation to motion expressions in natural language.

The similarities between Jackendoff’s and Ta1my's characterizations of motion have been distinguished by Jackendoff himself as well as other linguists. Jackendoff indicates that he has been “deeply influenced by Ta1my's (1978, 1980, 1983, 1985 [1988)) views on space, 1exicalization patterns, and force dynamics” (1996: 97). Goddard has also stated that “many of Talmy's ideas have been incorporated in the treatment of motion adopted by Ray Jackendoff ” (1998: 199).

81

This section has introduced two different approaches to motion conceptualization. Each account draws attention to certain properties of motion characterization. Langacker, for instance, highlights the temporal feature of motion while Jackendoff lays emphasis on a set of general conceptual functions along with cross-field applications. However, none of these approaches presents a thorough representation of motion in actual application.

2.4 Conclusion

In this chapter, three different approaches to the analysis of motion in language and conception have been reviewed, namely, Talmy’s Figure-Move-Path-Ground characterization, Langacker’s temporal perspective on mover’s sequential change of location, and Jackendoff’s view of motion as a mapping of a general functionargument conceptual organization. Each highlights certain properties in characterizing motion. Langacker gives emphasis to the temporal feature of motion. Jackendoff tries to a come up with a set of general conceptual functions along with cross-field parallelisms. Although all these approaches share the common view that language is an instrument for encoding human mind and experience, they differ in the level of their descriptive adequacy, consistency, and straightforwardness in analysis as well as cross-linguistic applicability.

Talmy’s framework is found to provide a more fully-specified analysis of motion. It presents a more comprehensive view of motion conceptualization and language expressions. Talmy undertakes to account for all conceptual elements of a motion

82

event. In addition, he observes that a conceptual element of motion may either be overtly realized as a language form or be unspecified. When overtly represented, the conceptual element can either be realized as a separate language form or be conflated with other elements in one form; this form can be either the main verb or another part of the expression. Hence, Talmy’s system provides a more precise tool to fully describe the nature of motion conceptualization and to maintain consistency in crosslinguistic applications.

83

Endnotes

1

Alyawm newspaper , 2002. Issue no. 10611. Arabic magazine 2000. Issue no. 279. 3 Dar Al-Hayat newspaper from London, May 25th, 2005. 4 Almustaqbal newspaper, July 4th, 2003. Issue no. 1338. 5 Alarabi magazine, 2002. Issue no. 527. 6 Arabic magazine 1999. Iissue no. 271. 7 Alriyadh newspaper, May 12th, 2001. 8 Alwatan , an Omani Newspaper, February 2nd, 2004. Issue no. 7503. 9 Alwasat newspaper from Bahrain, October 10th, 2002. Issue no. 34. 10 Arabic magazine, 1999. Issue no. 271 11 "Mahma Ghala Al-Thaman” novel by Dr. Abdullah Al-Erainy, 3rd edition, 2003. p. 28. 12 Alarabi Magazine, 2002. Issue no 527. 13 "Mahma Ghala Al-Thaman” novel by Dr. Abdullah Al-Erainy, 3rd edition, 2003. p. 16. 14 Alyawm newspaper, August 27th, 2002. Issue no. 10696. 15 Al-yawm newspaper, 2002. Issue no. 10775. 16 Alyawm newspaper, 2003. Issue no. 10792. 17 Al-jazirah newspaper, December 9th, 2003. Issue no. 11364. 18 Alwasat newspaper from Bahrain, November 18th, 2002. Issue no. 73. 19 “Mawaaqif Tayyar: Qisas waqi’yyia”, Anas Al-Qawz. 2005, 7th edition. p. 302. 20 Talmy's notions of Figure and Ground originated from Gestalt psychology which recognizes the figure/ground segregation of objects in a situation in terms of their prominence in human perception. 21 Talmy does not formally define the components of Manner and Cause in his discussions of motion. But it seems clear that he uses the two terms in accordance with the conventional understanding of the terms, i.e., Manner is the way in which the Figure object moves, and Cause is the force that makes the Figure object move. 22 Alyawm newspaper, March, 26th, 2003. Issue no.11029. 23 Alriyadh newspaper, March 20th, 2005. Issue no. 13418. 24 (Here, right-belonging to a morpheme set that also includes way and just-is semantically dependent on the following satellite as its modifier, but it fills a syntactic slot and behaves phonologically like a prototypical satellite (Talmy 2000b:103). 2

84

CHAPTER THREE

COMPONENTS OF MOTION: FIGURE AND GROUND

3.0 Introduction Talmy’s motion system comprises four internal elements which constitute a motion event and these are Figure, Ground, Move, and Path. Along with these internal elements, Manner and Cause are the two most frequently associated external co-event elements. The internal elements are usually evoked together or co-evoke each other in motion conceptualization, whereas external elements are secondary in the sense that they may or may not be evoked in perception (Talmy 1996). The following diagram demonstrates the components of motion:

Motion Components

External

Cause

Internal

Manner

Path

Move

Figure 3-8: Motion Components 85

Ground

Figure

This chapter focuses on the concepts of Figure and Ground-two internal elements in the conceptualization of motion. Other elements of motion are discussed in the subsequent chapters.

As cognitive-semantic concepts, the two internal elements of motion, Figure and Ground, are discussed together in this chapter because they pair together as opposites in cognition as well as in perception. As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, Talmy defines Figure and Ground as follows: “The Figure is a moving or conceptually movable object whose path or site is at issue. The Ground is a reference frame, or a reference object stationary within a reference frame, with respect to which the Figure's path or site is characterized.” (Talmy 2000b: 26) (see also Talmy 2000a: ch3 and 5).

This pair of cognitive-semantic concepts surface mainly in relation to a semantic event of motion which is conceptualized as involving one physical object moving or located with respect to another1. The subsequent sentence shows both the Figure and the Ground:

57. daxala ?al-yahu:d qaryat deer yasi:n2 entered the-Jews village Deir Yassin (The Jews entered the Deir Yassin village.)

The underlined words in sentence 57 specify the two cognitive functions of Figure and Ground. ?al-yahu:d (the Jews) refers to the moving entity and thus is the Figure. The word

86

qaryat deer yasi:n (Deir Yassin village) denotes the Ground which is the reference entity

with respect to which the Figure's movement is characterized. However, the next example below illustrates the location of the Figure with respect to the Ground:

58. Taqa9u –l-quds

fi: qalb-i

falasTi:n3

located the-Jerusalem in heart-of Palestine (Jerusalem lies at the heart of Palestine.)

The above sentence indicates the location of the Figure entity ?al-quds (Jerusalem) in relation to the reference point or the Ground which, in this case, is qalb-i falasTi:n (the heart of Palestine).

3.1 Figure and Ground in Psychology

Because Figure and Ground have initially been introduced and studied in psychology, it has been found relevant to touch upon their psychological origins. The concepts of Figure and Ground were first introduced by the Danish psychologist, Edgar Rubin, in 1915, within the framework of the Gestalt psychology. (Beardslee 1958: 194-203)

The Gestalt theory in psychology was essentially formulated at the level of sensory perception, essentially at the level of visual perception. Perception is "a mental process in which we select, organize, and interpret the many stimuli that impinge upon us at any given moment."( Butter 1968: 39). One of the most significant phenomena of visual

87

perception is the appearance of a Figure object against a Background. This cognitive operation means that our visual system simplifies the visual scene and divides it into Figure, i.e. the object that we look at, and Ground which is everything else and thus forms the background. The study of the Figure-Ground distinction has been one of the chief concerns of the school of Gestalt psychology (see, e.g. Kohler (1947), Beardslee (1958), Spiegelberg (1972) and Jackendoff (1987: 89-114).

The Gestalt principles were found to be relevant not only to perception but also to other cognitive procedures such as language processing and the determination of meaning. Therefore, a clear convergence between Gestalt theory and Linguistics has developed since the 1970s within the fields of Cognitive Semantics and Meaning Theory. Among the linguists who contributed to this field are Lakoff (1987), Johnson (1987), Lakoff &Johnson (1980, 1999), Lakoff & Turner (1989), Shieber & Johnson (1993), Talmy (1975, 1976, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1996, 2000), Langacker (1987, 1991, 1993, 2000), Croft (2003), Cruse (1986), Slobin (1981, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2005) and many others (Evans et al 2006). In his influential paper, Lakoff (1987b) not only discusses the relationship between Gestalt theory and semantics but also explains Gestalt principles (and the Gestalt concept) in terms of Linguistics. These recent researches within Cognitive Semantics have definitely demonstrated the convergence of Gestalt and semantic processes in the expression and comprehension of meaning. The concepts of "Gestalt", "Figure", "Ground", and "Structure", appeared originally in psychology and, then, came to be used in cognitive semantics. They generally have the same meaning in both Gestalt and Semantics.

88

The Figure-Ground distinction found its way into cognitive linguistics by Talmy (1972, 1983, 2000) who uses this Figure-Ground contrast to account for the expression of spatial relations in natural language. All spatial relations in language-both location or motion-are expressed by identifying the position of one object, the Figure, relative to another object, the Ground (Croft & Cruse 2004: 56). The next examples confirm the Figure-Ground contrast:

59 ka:nat ?as-sfi:natu qad

9abarat qana:ta s-suways ?akθar min marrah4

was the-ship already crossed canal the-Swiss more than once (The ship has already crossed the Swiss Canal more than once.)

60 Hallaqat ?asra:bu l-jara:d

fwaqa dakkar ba9da ðuhri ?ams5

Hovered swarms the-locust over Dakar after noon yesterday (The locust swarms hovered over Dakar yesterday afternoon.)

In both sentences above, the Figure and the Ground form opposites either in size between the smaller moving object and the bigger land mark or in the ability to move between the movable object and the stable unmovable land mark. The Figure in 59 is the word ?as-safi:natu (the ship) whose motion is described in contrast with the Ground which is the land mark qana:ta s-suways (the Swiss Canal). The difference between the

89

two is evident in size as well as in movability. The same is true of 60 in which the Figure is ?asra:bu l-jara:d (locust swarms) and the Ground is dakkar (Dakar).

Sometimes more than one ground object are involved in the motion expression as in 61a and b:

61 a. ka:na ?alfrid faraj yatanaqqalu bayna ?al-qa:hirati wa lundun6 was Alfred Faraj

move

between

Cairo

and London

(Alfred Faraj was traveling between Cairo and London.)

b. yaka:du

yanqul maktaba-hu min maqar

about to transfer office-his

?as-sifa:rah

from headquarters the-embassy

?ila maTa:r larnaka7 to airport Larnaca (He is about to transfer his office from the embassy headquarters to the Larnaca Airport.)

The Figure in example 61a above, is represented by the word ?alfrid (Alfred) and the two Grounds pertaining to the motion verb yatanaqqalu (move around) are ?al-qa:hirati (Cairo) and lundun (London). Sentence 61b, on the other hand, contains two Grounds

specified by two prepositions which show the start and goal of motion. The first Ground is maqar ?as-sifa:rah (the embassy headquarters) which conveys with the preceding preposition the beginning of the motion. The second Ground is maTa:r larnaka (Larnaca airport) which expresses along with the preceding preposition the goal of the Figure's

90

movement. The Figure, itself in this sentence, is an implied pronoun referred to in the root of the motion verb yanqul ( transfer).

Figure and Ground reveal regular contrasts in both perception and language representation. These contrasts are interestingly represented in human conceptualization of motion8.

In the first section of this chapter the regular contrasts between Figure and Ground are discussed in relation to the semantic event of motion. The contrast between Figure and ground is also shown as regards Movability, a fundamental and intrinsic property of moving entities.

The following section will further examine the concept of Movability from the perspective of prototype theory. The third section is a discussion of event dependent and temporary characteristics of Figure and Ground, while the fourth section is concerned with the ways these conceptual properties (the information associated to a concept in the mental lexicon.) are reflected in the linguistic structure of Arabic.

3. 2 Characteristics of Figure and Ground A conceptualized semantic event of motion, as stated by Talmy (2000a: 311, 2000b: ch. 1), implies the existence of one physical object moving or located with respect to another. Each object is linked to the whole event in a vital and distinctive relation, that of Figure and that of Ground. Talmy gives this general conceptualization of the term 91

Figure in language as “a moving or conceptually movable entity whose path, site, or orientation is conceived as a variable”. The term Ground denotes “a reference entity, one that has a stationary setting relative to a reference frame, with respect to which the Figure’s path, site, or orientation is characterized”. In order to be able to conceptualize the notion of motion of an object (a Figure), there must be a reference object (a Ground) relative to which the Figure object moves, and also a reference frame which is the framework or the background against which the Figure’s movement relative to the Ground is conceived or viewed. The reference frame helps the conceiver to see both objects (the Figure and the Ground) within a framework (Talmy 2000a: 313). The following examples can make this point clear:

62. a. ?inTalqat ?as-sayya:ra9 set out the-car (The car set out.)

b. ?inTalqat ?as-sayya:ratu min burθ10 set out the-car

from Berth

(The car started from Perth.)

c. ?inTalqat ?as-sayya:ratu min burθ 9ala s-sa:Hili- l-Garrbi li-?ustra:lya: set out the-car ?ila sidni

from Perth on the-coast

the-west of-Australia

9ala- s-sa:Hili- Š-Šarqiy11

to Sydney on the-coast

the-east

(The car started from Perth on the west coast of Australia to Sydney on the east

92

coast.)

The first example shows the Figure ?as-say:ra (the car) and describes its movement but without relating it to any landmark or a starting point. Therefore, the only thing that language reflects in this example is our conceptualization of the Figure object which is not enough for a full spatial scene of motion because the Figure needs a reference Ground. The second example, 62b, on the other hand adds the missing Ground min birθ (from Berth) which serves as reference for the motion of the Figure. Still, the spatial scene of motion is not clear to our conceptualization unless we have a grasp of the big picture or the full scene, i.e. the part where we conceptualize Berth and Sidney as points on a map, that is, the framework or the reference frame of our understanding of the spatial dimensions of motion.

The following are pictures which stand for the possible conceptualizations behind the three linguistic representations above 62a, b, and c respectively:

93

62a.

62b.

62c.

94

Figure 2-9 Different conceptualizations of motion The first picture characterizes our line of vision as manifested in ?inTalqat ?as-sayya:rah (The car set out). The Figure surfaces as the most prominent object in the scene. In the second picture, the two prominent objects are the Figure ?as-sayya:rah (the car) and the Ground burθ (Perth). The preposition min (from) indicates Path as well.

The last picture corresponds to the third linguistic representation of the same scene. This linguistic representation supposedly contains plus the Figure ?as-sayya:rah (the car) two Grounds and a reference frame symbolized in the picture as a map which is meant to refer to the mental map against which both Figure and Ground are identified. The two Grounds are burθ (Perth) and sidni (Sydney) respectively.

3. 2.1 Parts of the Spatial Scene

Any spatial scene can be divided into three parts as follows; a Figure object, a Ground object, and a reference frame or a background. The way we choose to represent this conceptual space linguistically may differ, however. We may focus our attention on the relation between a Figure object and a Ground object, apart from any consideration of the background. In such a case, the linguistic Figure and Ground will exactly coincide with the psychological figure and ground. This conceptualization of the spatial scene can be illustrated by the sentences below:

95

63. ?axaða l-qaTi:9u ya9buru l-xaTTa t-tura:biy12 started the-herd to-cross the-line the-earthy (The herd started to cross the line on the ground.)

64. ?abHara l-9uma:niyu:na sailed

9abra baHri l-9arab13

the-Omani people across sea-of the-Arab

(The Omani people have sailed across the Arabian Sea.)

The linguistic Figure in sentence 63 is l-qaTi:9u (the herd) and the linguistic Ground is lxaTTa t-tura:biy (the line on the ground). The linguistic Figure in sentence 64 is l9uma:niyu:n (the Omanis) and the linguistic Ground is baHri l-9arab (the Arabian Sea).

In such linguistic representations, our conceptualization partitions the visual scene into two parts. The Figure object and the Ground object in both sentences above, are considered only with respect to their relation to each other, apart from any background. Therefore, the former object is the psychological Figure and the latter object is the psychological Ground.

On the other hand, the reference frame or the background may in fact be considered and represented linguistically with the result that the three parts of the spatial

96

configuration are expressed. In this case a combination of both the linguistic Figure and Ground serves as the psychological Figure while the reference frame or the background functions as the psychological Ground. This second linguistic option is represented by the next sentences below:

65. ?alfa la:ji?in burundiy

ya9buru:na l-Hudu:da ?ila tanza:niya14

1000 refugee Burundian crossing

the-borders to Tanzania

(1000 Burundian refugees are crossing the borders to Tanzania.)

66. ?abHara l-9uma:niyu:na sailed

the-Omanis

9abra baHri l-9arab ?ila bila:di r-ra:fidayn wa across sea-of the-Arab to Mesopotamia

and

s-sind15 the-Indus (The Omanis have sailed across the Arabian Sea to Mesopotamia and the Indus river.)

In sentences 63-64 earlier, there are only the Figure and the Ground to reflect on. In 65 and 66, however, in addition to Figure and Ground, the area around the Ground, through which the Figure continues to move far beyond the Ground, is also considered . Accordingly, in sentence 65, in addition to the Figure ?alfa la:ji?in burundiy (one thousand Burundian refugees) and the Ground l-Hudu:da (the borders), it is necessary to consider the area tanza:niya (Tanzanya) around the Ground l-Hudu:d (the borders) through which the Figure ?alfa la:ji?in burundiy (one thousand Burundian refugees) continues to move far beyond the Ground. The same is true of 66, above, in which the

97

Figure l-9uma:niyu:n (the Omanis) and the Ground baHri l-9arab (the Arabian Sea) constitute, in effect, the psychological Figure while the psychological Ground is ?ila bila:di r-ra:fidayn wa s-sind (to Mesopotamia and the Indus river) to which the Figure l9uma:niyu:n continues to move far beyond the Ground baHri l-9arab .

3. 2.2 Asymmetry of Figure/Ground Relations:

One of the characteristics of the Figure and Ground is that they are asymmetrical. That is to say that the relation between Figure and Ground is not reversible. Therefore, a sentence like 67, below is not synonymous with its reverse version in 68:

67. tuHalliqu T-Ta:?iratu fawqa l-9aqabah16 flies

the-plane over the-Aqaba

(The plane flies over Aqaba.)

68.* tuHalliqu l-9aqaba flies

fawqa T-Ta:?irati

the-Aqaba over the-plane

(Aqaba flies over the plane.)

This is because 67 makes the “nonsymmetrical specifications” that one of the two objects specified by the sentence, namely, Aqaba , has a fixed location within a reference frame (which is understood to be the country, the world, etc.) and is to be used

98

as a reference object by which to describe the other object’s location (i.e. the plane’s location). On the other hand, 68 makes the opposite specifications. In short, these two sentences are not synonymous owing to the fact that they differ in the assignment of the semantic functions of variable point (Figure) and reference point (Ground) ( see Talmy 2000a: 214, 2000b: ch. 1). The above remarks prove the existence of some further characteristics that render an entity more appropriate to be the Figure or the Ground. These characteristics are labeled as “associated characteristics”. The properties of objects that are found to give preferentiality to figure or ground reading in the domain of spatial relations are numerated in the following table: (see Talmy 1983: 230-31, 2000b :315-16, Croft & Cruse 2004: 56):

Figure

Ground

99

Associated

 More movable

 more permanently

Characteristics

located  smaller  geometrically simpler (often point-like) in its treatment  more recently on the scene/in awareness  of greater concern/ relevance

 larger  geometrically more complex in its treatment  more familiar/ expected  of lesser concern/ relevance

Table 3-11: Associated characteris tics

of

Figure and Ground

 more immediately perceivable

 less immediately perceivable  more prominent, once perceived

 more ackgrounded, once Figure is perceived

The subsequent examples illustrate the differences between Figure and Ground that the table above summarizes. In the sentences below, the Figure and Ground are underlined:

69. ?awal 9arabiyy yatasallaqu qimmata ifirist17 First

Arab

climb

mount Everest

(The first Arab climbs Mount Everest.)

100

The contrast that sentence 69 reveals between Figure and Ground is realized at the level of physical properties. The Figure is essentially a movable object while the Ground is conceivably unmovable or to some extent stable. The Figure ?awal 9arabiyy (the first Arab) is a human that is classified as being able to move or movable. The Ground is qimmata ifirist (Mount Everest) which is a mountain and mountains are conceptually unmovable.

The next sentence shows another physical property which is the contrast in size; the Figure is usually smaller while the Ground is larger. Both Figure and Ground below are underlined:

70. daxala rajulun ?aHada l-maqa:hi: 18 entered a-man

one the-cafe

(A man entered a cafe.)

The figure rajulun (a man) is, intuitively smaller than the place or the Ground ?aHada l-maqa:hi (a cafe) into which the Figure entered. Moreover, example 71 establishes yet another contrast in the physical or geometrical characteristics related to our conceptualization of both Figure and Ground. The Figure is always conceived of as a bounded point-like object no matter how big it is. The Ground, on the other hand, is conceived of as an unbounded plane or surface (Osherson et al 1995:41, 307):

71. ja:bat

?az-zawa:riq ?al-Harbiyyah ?al-?isra?i:liyyah 9arDa l-baHar19

scouted the-boats

the-military

the-Israeli

(The Israeli military boats scouted the sea.)

101

the-sea

The ?az-zawa:riq (the boats) are to be conceived in this sentence as small dots in the big 9arDa l-baHar (the sea) no matter how big these boats are. This is a proportional matter.

The human mind simplifies motion scenes and partitions them in different ways. This Figure-Ground contrast or point-plane contrast is one way of this simplification process.

The forth difference between Figure and Ground is in attention or awareness. The Ground is usually known or more familiar to the conceiver than the Figure which recently arrives at the scene or comes into attention, i.e. its appearance comes later physically or in attention. This is illustrated in the following example:

72. ha:ðihi l-9uqba:n tazu:ru bila:da-na Šita:?an20 these the-vultures visit country-our winter (These vultures visit our country in winter.)

The subsequent example reveals that the Figure can be more important or of greater concern than the Ground:

73. ka:na l-?ami:r qad qadima ?ila: maTa:r

say?u:n bi- l-mirwaHiyya21

was the-prince has come to airport-of Sayun

by-the-helicopter

(The prince has come to Sayun Airport by helicopter.)

102

This example shows that conceivers are more interested in the Figure's movements than in the Ground. The Figure's movements are being followed, recorded and celebrated. The Ground in this sentence is only one landmark among many with respect to which the Figure's movements are described.

The following two sentences illustrate two more differences between Figure and Ground and that is the fact that the Figure is less immediately perceived than the Ground, but more prominent once perceived. These two attributes of the Figure are, in fact, related to the previous ones. The Figure is more movable, smaller in size, geometrically simpler, more recent on the scene, and more important than the Ground. All these characteristics make the Figure less immediately conceivable. Yet, once it is perceived, it comes to the center of attention as being more prominent:

74. sa:fara banda wa qad ?aSbaHa Tabi:ban ?ila: briTa:nya22 traveled Banda after has became a-doctor to Britain (After Banda has become a doctor, he traveled to Britain.)

75. daxala- D-Dayfa:ni-

l-ya:ba:niyya:n ?ila- s-su:qi-

l-Hurrah fi: maTa:ri-

entered the-guest-two the-Japanese-two to the-market the-free l-?uqSur23

103

in airport

Al-Uqsur (The Japanese guests came to the free market at the airport in Luxor.)

The Figure in 74 is a person named banda (Banda). Compared to the Ground briTa:nya (Britain), which is a well-known landmark, the Figure is not immediately perceivable. But is more movable, smaller in size, geometrically simpler, more recent on the scene, and more important since it is the topic of the sentence. Therefore, it attracts our attention to know more about its location and movements. So it become more prominent once the conceiver sees it.

The same is true of the Figure in sentence 75. The Figure D-Dayfa:n (The two guests) is not immediately perceivable at least not as maTa:r l-?uqSur (the airport in Luxor) is. But since it has all the other characteristics of a Figure in contrast to the Ground maTa:r l-?uqSur (the airport in Luxor), it becomes more prominent.

3. 2.3 Manipulation of Figure/Ground Relations:

Another important feature of the Figure-ground relations is that they can be manipulated. The same entity can function either as the figure or the ground depending on the context (Croft& Cruise: 56-7). The following examples demonstrate that the same entity can function as Figure in one sentence and as Ground in another sentence:

104

Figure 76. a. ?abHarat ?as-safi:na min brist fi: Garbi sailed

the-ship

faransa24

from Brest in west-of France

(The ship sailed from Brest in the west of France.)

Ground b. ?inTalaqat zawa:riq Turbi:d min mina:? ?au:d started

naHwa s-safi:na25

boats Torpedo from port Ashdod toward the-liner

(Torpedo boats were launched from the port of Ashdod toward the ship.)

The Figure in sentence 76a is ?as-safi:na (the ship) and the Ground is brist fi: Garbi faransa (Brest in the west of France). The same object ?as-safi:na (the ship) can also

appear as the Ground in another sentence illustrated here by 76b in which the Figure is zawa:riq Turbi:d (torpedo boats) while the Ground is ?as-safi:na (the ship) .

3. 2.4 The Movability Hierarchy: Implications for Figure/Ground assignment

It is worth mentioning that an inherent property does exist that distinguishes Figure from Ground. This property is related to what Chu calls the Movability hierarchy (Chu 2004: 62). This Movability hierarchy is extremely crucial in the assignment of Figure and Ground in motion conceptualization. 105

In motion conceptualization, the Figure is the moving object while the Ground is the landmark entity by reference to which the Figure's motion is perceived . According to this understanding, it seems reasonable to assume that a prototypical Figure must has the ability to move easily by itself through space. In contrast, a good Ground serving as the reference landmark of the Figure's motion should be something that stays in a fixed position. The next example serves to show the contrast in movability:

77 tuha:jiru ha:ðihi ?aT-Tuyu:r min ?amri:ka ?aŠ-Šama:liyyah ?ila juzuri emigrate these the-birds l-ha:wa:y

from America the-north

to islands-of

wa ta:hi:ti26

the-Hawaii and Tahiti (These birds emigrate from north America to the islands of Hawaii and Tahiti.)

The entities that serve as Ground in the previous sentence are ?amri:ka ?aŠ-Šama:liyyah (north America), and l-ha:wa:y wa ta:hi:ti (Hawaii and Tahiti). These are fixed geographical landmarks. Their main physical feature is their stationary status at variance with the Figure ha:ðihi ?aT-Tuyu:r (these birds) which has the ability to move easily by itself through space.

The sentence below presents another instance of the movability effect on assigning Figure-Ground functions as follows:

106

78 qafaza ?al-kalbu wa -ndafa9a naHwa s-sayya:ra27 jumped the-dog and rushed towards the-car (The dog jumped and rushed towards the car.)

The Figure and the Ground in the above sentence are both entities that have the ability to move easily by themselves through space. The Figure is the word ?al-kalbu (the dog) which is a movable entity. The Ground, as well, is another moving entity s-sayya:rah (the car). Although both entities have this movability feature, there are differences between them regarding their ontological properties. The Figure has the property (+ living) while the Ground (- living). Motion is more expected from the first group than from the second which will be termed later (man-made entities).

The two sentences, above, point out that the more movable an entity is, the more suitable it is to serve as the Figure; the more stationary an entity is, the more appropriate it is to function as the Ground. Thus, what is involved for judging the appropriateness for an entity to be a Figure or a Ground is its property of movability.

107

Figure 3-10: The Property of Movability

3. 2.4.1 Categories of Movability

In terms of movability, everything in the world can be roughly divided into six distinct categories forming a movability hierarchy. The first category consists of human beings and animals. As volitional movers, they can intentionally move to different places. Members of this category have the strongest capacity for movability. Examples belonging to this category are as follows:

79 rakaDat maryam na:Hiyata zuhriyyatin fi:- S-Sa:la28 ran-she Maryam towards

a-vase

in the-hall

(Maryam ran towards a vase in the hall.)

80 ?iqtarabat approached

?as-sulHufa:tu mina- Š-Šajara29 the-turtle

from the-tree

108

(The turtle approached the tree.)

The Figure in 79 is a word that belongs to the category human. This the first level in the hierarchy of movability. As such, it has the strongest aptitude for moving at different times and into different directions and locations. Moreover, the second sentence contains a Figure entity that belongs to this same first level. The Figure ?as-sulHufa:tu (the turtle) belongs to the category of animals which, like the human category, has the

capacity to move at different times and into different directions and locations.

The second level in the hierarchy includes man-made transportation vehicles, such as ?aT-Ta:?irah (the plane) and ?as-sayy:ara (the car). Vehicles are not volitional objects.

They cannot move volitionally, but as transportation vehicles they can move and adjust their course and destination via guidance and control devices. In other words, vehicles can undergo self-controlled motion. The following instances demonstrate transportation vehicles functioning as the Figure:

81 ka:nat ?as-sayya:ra qad was

the-car

waSalat ?ila manzili- s-sa:?iq du:no30

already arrived to house-of the-driver Duno

(The car has already arrived at the house of Duno, the driver.)

The Figure in the sentence above is the word ?as-sayya:ra (the car) which belongs to the second category in the hierarchy of movability. As such, it has the capacity for moving 109

at different times and into different directions but with a human control. Though it is not evident from the sentence structure, the human factor is controlling the movement of the car.

82 ka:nati –T-Ta:?iratu taTi:r fawqa –l-qal9ati –l-?aθariyyati was

the-plane

flying over the-castle the-ancient

?al-maŠhu:rati fi: jiza:n31 the-famous

in Jizan

(The plane was flying over the famous ancient castle in Jizan.)

Sentence 82 presents another instance of the movement of transportation vehicles. In this case, it is the plane, ?aT-Ta:?iratu, that functions as the Figure in this sentence. Again, here, there is no indication of the human control over the plane. Yet, it is understood to be the case that human beings fly airplanes not that they fly by themselves. That's why transportation vehicles are assigned the second level in the hierarchy.

The third category consists of natural autonomous movers, such as ?al-?amTa:r (rain) or ?ar-riya:H (wind) or ?ad-duxa:n (smoke). In our experience, these phenomena are always moving. However, their movement is neither volitional nor self-controlled. They move in a way governed by nature's laws, especially gravity. Thus ?al-?amTa:r (rain) moves downward all the time, and ?ad-duxa:n (smoke) always moves upward (unless the movement is influenced by other physical factors). While ?ar-riya:H (wind) can move in different directions. The following examples demonstrate two of these functioning as

110

Figure of motion:

83 ?al-?amTa:r ?al-?istiwa:?iyyah tahTul biŠaklin dawriy kulla yawm32 the-rain

the-tropical

fall

like

regular every day

(The tropical rain falls regularly everyday.)

84 taSa:9ada ?ad-duxa:nu fawqa siyaku – rose

the-smoke

l-wa:qi9ati 9ala bu9di

over Sīāh Khoh

located

on distance-of

naHwi θala:θi ki:lumitra:t Šarqiyyi bagra:m33 about

three kilometers east-of

Bagram

(Smoke rose over Sīāh Khoh about three kilometers east of Bagram.)

The objects serving as Figure in the previous examples are ?al-?amTa:r ?al-?istiwa:?iyyah (the tropical rain) and ?ad-duxa:nu (smoke) respectively. Both are natural phenomena with autonomous movement. This qualifies them to be in the third level in the hierarchy.

The fourth category includes non-self-mobile individual inanimate objects, such as baDa:?i9 (merchandise) and Hija:rah (stones). If an external force acts upon them, these

kinds of objects can move through space. For instance, Hija:rah (stones) can be pushed so that they can roll down from a hill to a valley, and someone can carry baDa:?i9 (merchandise) from one city to another. Yet, unlike members of the third category, movement is not the intrinsic tendency of objects in this category. Without external causal agents, they cannot move autonomously. Below are two instances of non-self111

mobile individual inanimate objects serving as Figure in motion sentences: 85 ?axaða sukka:nu

–l-miTaqati yarmu:na –l-Hija:rah 9ala –l-qita:r34

started inhabitants-of the-area

throw

the-stones on the- train

(Residents of the area started to throw stones at the train.)

86 yanqulu –l-jisru

–l- barriyy kammiya:tin kabi:rattin mina -l-baDa:?i9

transport the-bridge the-overland amounts 9abra muduni

–l-mamlakah35

across cities-of

the-kingdom

huge

of

the- merchandise

(The land bridge transports large quantities of goods through the cities of the kingdom.)

The Figure in example 85 is –l-Hija:rah (stones) while it is kammiya:tin kabi:rattin mina -lbaDa:?i9 (large quantities of goods) in example 86. Both Figures refer to non-self-mobile

inanimate objects. Although they are moving, the cause of such movement comes from external agents. The agent of movement is 85 is sukka:nu -l-miTaqati (residents of the area) while it is ?al-jisru –l- barriyy (the land bridge) in 86. Although these external agents do not move by themselves, they cause the movements of the inanimate Figure in each case.

The fifth category consists of various dependent but detachable objects. These kinds of objects are not physically independent, but are typically attached to other entities. Normally these kinds of entities remain in the same location all the time. However, when a strong external force acts upon them, such objects can be moved from one place to another. For example, Šajarah (a tree) is a plant that is rooted in the earth. Physically, it 112

is not independent of the earth. It is not able to move by itself like ?as-sulHufa:h (the turtle), ?as-sayyara (the car), and ?al-?amTa:r (rain) can, and it is not as easily or frequently

moved, like ?al-baDa:?i9 (merchandise) and Hija:rah (stones) by an external agent. However, with the application of a strong external force, it is possible to move Šajarah (a tree) to a different location. This is the case when a tree is transplanted, or a hurricane

whirls it into the air. The same is true of manzil (a house) as will be shown in the subsequent sentences:

9aŠara:ti ?aŠja:ri –z-zaytu:ni

87 ?iqtala9a mustawTinu:na ?ams uprooted

settlers

yesterday

wa –l-lawziya:ti min ?ara:Di and the-nuts

tens-of

trees

the-olives

-l-muwa:Tini:n36

off lands-of the-citizens

(Settlers uprooted dozens of olive and almond trees of the citizens' lands.)

The Figure in the above sentence is 9aŠara:ti ?aŠja:ri –z-zaytu:ni wa –l-lawziya:ti (dozens of olive and almond trees). Although we said that Šajarah (a tree) is not independent of the

earth and cannot move by itself. The external forces, here, that cause the trees to move are the human agents that uproot them away from their natural attachment to earth. The next sentence shows the movement of houses away from their original places:

88 fayaDa:na:tun 9a:rimah Floods

jarafat

mi?a:ti

overflowing swept away hundreds-of

113

–l-mana:zil37 the-houses

(Overflowing floods swept away hundreds of houses.)

The Figure in 88 above refers to this non-self-mobile inanimate object that is dependent for its being on earth which is mi?a:ti–l-mana:zil (hundreds of houses). The cause of the movement of mi?a:ti –l-mana:zil (hundreds of houses) comes from external agents. These agents are fayaDa:na:tun 9a:rimah (overflowing floods). These external agents do not move by themselves but they are the real cause of the movement of the Figure.

The sixth rank in the hierarchy is the category of dependent and non-detachable entities. Entities of this category are basically tightly attached to other entities, such as wa:di (valley) to a mountain or the earth, wajh (face) to a person, and Ša:Šah (screen) to a

computer. They are intrinsically an inseparable part of the entity. Due to their inseparability, these kinds of entities cannot move or be moved to locations relative to the entities they are attached to. They remain perpetually in a fixed position.

The movability hierarchy consisting of the six ranks of entities in the world is summarized in table 12 below(Chu 2004):

114

Table 3-12: Movability Hierarchy 38 Rank and Category 1. Human and animal

Examples ?al-wald (the-boy), xa:lid (Khalid),?al-fa?r (the-mouse), ?as-samakah (the-fish)

2. Transportation vehicle

?ad-dabbaba:t (the-tanks), ?al-qiTa:r (the-train)

3.Natural autonomous mover

?al-?amwa:j

(the-waves),

?al-madd (the-tide) 4.Non-autonomously-movable but independent inanimate 5. Dependent but detachable entities

?aT-Tawilah (the-desk), ?al-ka?s (the-glass) ?a9mida (posts), ?aŠ-Šajara (the-tree)

6. Dependent and non-

?aŠ-ŠaTi? (the-beach),

detachable entities

?al-muntazah (the-park)

It should be clear that the more volitional, self-controllable, and independent an entity is, the more movable it is. In contrast, the more dependent, less self-controllable, and less volitional the entity is, the less movable it is. Below is a figure summing up the 115

afore-mentioned hierarchy:

Human & Animal Transportation Vehicles

Natural Autonomous Movers

Non-autonomously-movable but Independent inanimate entities

Dependent but Detachable entities Dependent but Non-detachable entities

Figure 3-11: The Movability Hierarchy

3. 2.4.2 Effect of the Movability Hierarchy on Language Representation

The movability hierarchy for Figure/Ground assignment has a pervasive effect on language representation. This effect is characterized as the "movability effect" . If any

116

entity belongs to a high category in the hierarchical rank, it is appropriately and likely to be assigned as the Figure of motion but less appropriately and likely to act as a Ground. The following examples demonstrate this fact:

89. a. waSala waHi:du ?ila –r-riya:D39 arrived Waheed

to Riyadg

(Waheed arrived at Riyadh.)

b. ?al-kalbu ?ittajaha muba:sharatan na:Hiyata ki:sin mawju:din the-dog

headed

directly

towards a-bag

exists

fi: Sundu:qin SaGi:rr fi:- d-darra:jah40 in

a-box

small

in the-bicycle

(The dog headed directly towards a bag in a small box in the bicycle.)

The Figure position in the previous examples is occupied by objects that belong to the first level of movability. In 89a, the Figure is waHi:d (Waheed)- a name that refers to a human being- while it is ?al-kalb (the dog) in 89b which is, of course, an animal. Thus, members of rank 1- human beings and animals- which stand at the top of the hierarchy are characterized by the highest movability and are therefore the best candidates for being the Figure, but the worst for being the Ground41.

In contrast, if an entity is a member of a low category then it is more likely to be conceptualized as the Ground rather than the Figure. Entities belonging to rank 6 dependent and non-detachable- such as ?aŠ-ŠaTi? (the beach), and ?al-muntazah (the park) 117

are the most ideal entities for being the Ground, but it is hardly possible for them to be the Figure: 90. a. fi –l-masa:?

naðhabu ?ila: muntazah-in 9ala Ša:Ti?i – n-nahr42

kunna

in the-evening were-we

go

to

a-park

on shore-of the-river

(and in the evening, we used to go to a park on the river shore.)

b. ?ijta:Hat –l-?amwa:ju –l-9a:tiyah ?aŠ-ŠaTi? yawma –l-?aHadi –l-ma:Di:43 swept

the-waves

the-huge

the-shore

day

the-Sunday the past

(The huge waves swept the shore last Sunday.)

The sentences in 90 above prove that entities belonging to rank 6 in the hierarchy naturally serve as the Ground for motion events. There are no instances of these entities functioning as Figure.

For those categories in the middle of the hierarchy, their members also demonstrate different levels of suitability for the Figure/Ground assignment corresponding to their ranking in the hierarchy. The next examples prove that member belonging to the categories in the middle of the hierarchy can perform a dual function in the representation of motion events:

91. a. ra:Hat

tadfa9u –l-kursiyya ?ila –l-?Hadi:qah44

started-she pushing the-chair

to

the-garden

(She started to push the chair into the garden.)

b. rakaDa naHwa –l-kursiyy45

118

ran-he towards the-chair (He ran towards the chair.)

The entity l-kursiyy (the chair) belongs to the fourth level in the hierarchy. It is a nonautonomously-movable but independent inanimate object. The sentences in 91 above show that it can act as the Figure of motion as in 91a which is compliant with its size and status as an object that can be movable with external causes. In 91b, on the other hand, it acts as the Ground for the motion of the Figure (He).

The next group of examples demonstrate another entity in the second level of the hierarchy and that is the word darrajun na:riyyah (motorcycle):

92. a. darrajatun na:riyya ?iSTdamat mubaŠaratan bi-qaTi:9in mina –l-Hami:ri cycle

motor

crashed

directly

into-a-herd of the-donkeys

-s-sa:?ibah 9ala –T-Tar:qi-r-ra?i:si:y46 the-loose on the-road the-main (A motorcycle ran directly into a herd of loose donkeys on the main road.)

b. ?iqtaraba

Dubba:Tun mina –d-darra:jati – n-na:rriyyah47

approached officers

from the- cycle

the-motor

(Officers approached the motorcycle.)

These sentences prove that entities in this level can perform the functions of the Figure and Ground. In 92a, the word functions as the Figure, i.e., the moving entity. In contrast, it functions as the Ground for the movement of the Figure Dubba:Tun (officers) in 92b. 119

Therefore, level 2 entities may act as Figure as well as Ground.

The examples in 93 below signify entities of the fifth level of the hierarchy:

93. a. ?iqtala9at (miya:h nahr 9araqah) ?al-9adi:d min ?a9midati –l-kahraba:? wa pull out

(water river Araqah) the-many of

posts

the-electricity and

fi: sahli 9aka:r48

–l-ha:tif

The-telephone in valley Akar (The water of the Araqah river pulled out many of the electricity and telephone posts in the Akar valley.)

b. ?inHarafat ?as-sayya:ra wa ?artaTamat biqu:wah fi: ?aHadi ?a9midati swerved

the-car

and

collided strongly in one-of

posts

–l-kahraba:?49 the-electricity (The car swerved and collided into one of the electricity posts.)

In 93a, above, the word ?a9midati –l-kahraba:? (electricity posts) functions as the Figure of the motion while miya:h nahr 9araqah (the water of Araqa river) is the cause of that motion. The motion of electricity posts is seen against the Ground of the sahli 9aka:r (the Akar valley). In 193b, on the other hand, ?a9midati –l-kahraba:? (electricity posts) serves as the

Ground for the movement of the Figure ?as-sayya:ra (the car).

120

The following group, however, presents examples containing the word "fire" which is a natural phenomenon like the wind, smoke, waves and tides. This means that it is a natural autonomous mover that comes in the third level in the hierarchy of movable objects:

94. a. tataqaddamu move-forward

–l-Hara:?iq min –l-jiba:l the-fires

bi-tt-ja:h –l-mana:Tiqi

from the-mountains towards the-areas

–s- sakaniyyah50 the-populated (The fires are moving forward from the mountains to the populated areas.)

b. faj?ah suddenly

yandafi9u ?insa:nun dash

naHwa –l-Hari:q wa yulqi binafsihi

a-human being toward the-fire and throw himself

da:xila-hu51 into-it

(Suddenly, a man dashes into the fire and throws himself in it.)

The preceding sentences demonstrate that natural autonomous movers function as Figure of motion as in 94a. Yet, sometimes, they may function as Ground of motions as in 94b.

The preceding examples represent different levels of movability. The entity with the 121

higher movability is always the Figure and the entity with lower movability is always the Ground.

3. 2.5 The Prototype Effect on Figure/Ground assignment 3. 2.5.1 The Prototype Theory

Over the past three decades, abundant evidence from cognitive studies in psychology and linguistics shows that human conceptual categories do not have clearly-definable boundaries. Instead, they are represented by "fuzzy" collections with no distinct boundaries (Evans and Green 20006: 250).

Prototype Theory was developed by cognitive psychologist Eleanor Rosch in the 1970s as a way of explaining how people categorize experience. Rosch was especially interested in what she called natural categories—categories that occur in nature or that are a familiar part of our daily life. So, Prototype Theory is a model of how the mind assigns things to categories

based on "direct sensory engagement" with the external world plus cultural information. The Prototype theory suggests that people form categories based on "prototypes" (Wright 2007:30). A Prototype is a relatively abstract mental representation that corresponds "to an exemplar: a specific category member or 'best example' of a category." (Evans and Green 20006: 249) Instances of a natural concept are defined by their resemblance to a prototype that is the best or most typical example of the concept, sharing the maximum number of features with other instances of the concept. According to

122

Prototype Theory, all members of a natural category are not created equal in the perceptual sense. Some are seen as more central or typical than others.

Conceptual categories are typically organized around these central exemplars or

prototypes. Prototypical members function as the cognitive reference point for identifying the "peripheral or marginal" members of its category. The prototypical members of a category are firmly established and clear, while the boundaries of a category are usually fuzzy, tending to overlap with the boundaries of other categories. With the prototypes at the center, members of a category exhibit varying degrees of typicality and are linked by their family resemblance.

The following pictures are representations of birds. They are a penguin, a robin, and an ostrich respectively. Only one of these images can be chosen as the best example of a bird or as a Prototype for the category bird. Other instances that belong to this category will be compared to the Prototype:

123

Figure 3-12: Prototypical birds The second image ?al-kanari (the canary) represents the best example or the most typical example of a bird. It is similar in size and shape to most other kinds of birds. It flies, eats worms, constructs ordinary-looking nests, lives in trees, etc. ?al-baTri:q (the penguin) belongs

to the bird category but it cannot do any of these things. ?an-na9a:ma (the ostrich) is taller than most other birds and cannot fly. As a result, canaries seem more “bird-like” than penguins or ostriches.

The Prototype theory also suggests that we have an innate disposition toward categories and an ability to identify levels of gradation within these categories. This ability to recognize that things may be both different and similar a the same time is the key to our capacity for hierarchical organization (Wright 2007:31). The next figure reveals the levels of gradation between a Prototype- at the center- of a category and other peripheral members on the outer circles around the Prototype:

124

?al-kana:ri (the canary) ?ad-daja:ja (the hen)

?an-na9a:ma (the ostrich) ?al-baTri:q (thr penguin)

Figure 3-13: The Position of the Prototype Within the Category

3. 2.5.2 Prototype Characteristics of Movability

Based on this understanding of conceptual categories, the movability hierarchy and its constituent categories exhibit three prototype characteristics:

First, with regard to the whole hierarchy, its members demonstrate degrees of movability, and form a gradually transitional continuum consisting of six ranks. At the top of the continuum, we have entities like waHi:d (Waheed) in 89a, above, who as a person belongs to the category that has the strongest movability. waHi:d (Waheed) is thus a prototypical candidate for the Figure of motion. At the other end of the continuum, we find entities like ?aŠ-ŠaTi? (the beach), which appears among those having the least or no movability; thus, it is one of the most peripheral candidates for being the Figure, but one of the most prototypical members for the Ground. Between the two extremes, there are

125

categories consisting of members with different degrees of movability, such as –lkursiyya (the chair), . darrajun na:riyyah (motorcycle), ?a9midati –l-kahraba:? (electricity posts),

and l-Hara:?iq (the fires).

Second, between two neighboring categories in the hierarchy, the boundaries are not always clear. Some entities share certain attributes with members of one category, and also demonstrate some attributes of the other category. They stand on the border of two categories. For instance, the entity Šajara (a tree) is obviously a dependent object attached to the earth. But we may find difficulty in deciding whether it is detachable like ?a9mida (posts) and movable to other locations or non-detachable like Ša:Ti? (beach) and thus

cannot be moved to other locations. Šajara (a tree) can be regarded as one object that stands on the boundary between the dependent but detachable entities category and the dependent and non-detachable entities category. The fuzzy nature of Šajara (a tree) can be seen in 95 below:

95 a. ?iqtala9at (miya:h nahr 9araqah) ?al-9adi:d min pull out

(water river Araqah) the-many of

?a9midati –l-kahraba:? posts

wa – l-ha:tif

fi: sahli 9aka:r

the-electricity and the-telephone in valley Akar

(The water of the Araqah river pulled out many of the electricity and telephone posts in the Akar valley.)

b. ?iqtala9a mustawTinu:na ?ams

126

9aŠara:ti ?aŠja:ri –z-zaytu:ni

uprooted

settlers

yesterday

tens-of

trees

the-olives

wa –l-lawziya:ti min ?ara:Di -l-muwa:Tini:n and the-nuts

off lands-of the-citizens

(Settlers uprooted dozens of olive and almond trees of the citizens' lands.)

c. *?iqtala9a mustawTinu:na ?ams uprooted

settlers

yesterday

?aŠ-Ša:Ti? the-beach

*(Settlers uprooted the beach.)

The entities ?a9mida (posts) in 95a and ?aŠja:r (trees) in 95b both belong to the fifth level in the hierarchy of movability. The above examples reveal the fact that they are equal with regard to their movability and corresponding suitability as the Figure of caused-motion events. The entity ?a9mida (posts) or 9amu:d (a post), as a prototypical “dependent but detachable” entity is movable by an external power such as miya:h nahr 9araqah (water of the Araqah river) in 95a. The entity ?aŠja:r (trees) or Šajara (a tree), is also a prototypical

“dependent but detachable” entity that is movable by an external power such as mustawTinu:na (settlers) in 95b. Therefore, both are entitled to be the Figure in the motion

events expressed in 95a and b. In contrast, the word ?aŠ-Ša:Ti? (the beach) is a typical “dependent but non-detachable” object and conceptually cannot be moved to a different place. Thus, ?aŠ-Ša:Ti? (the beach) is ineligible to be the Figure of a caused-motion event, as sentence 95c confirms.

127

The following set of examples, however, confirms the fact that in spite of the clear equivalence in the status of 9amu:d (a post) and Šajara (a tree) as shown in the previous sentences with regard to their movability, yet they diverge as the subsequent sentences in 96

below prove:

96 a. tatakarram kahraba:?u –l-ba:Ha bi-naqli kindly

electricity

9amu:din min ?arDi-hi

the-Baha to-transfer

a-post

from land-his

?ila –Š-Ša:ri9i –l-muja:wir52 to the-street the-adjacent (The Al-Baha electricity company is kindly requested to transfer a post from his land to the adjacent street.) b. *tatakarram kahraba:?u –l-ba:Ha bi-naqli kindly

electricity

Šajaratin min ?arDi-hi

the-Baha to-transfer

a-tree

from land-his

?ila –Š-Ša:ri9i –l-muja:wir to the-street the-adjacent *(The Al-Baha electricity company is kindly requested to transfer a tree from his land to the adjacent street.)

c. *tatakarram kahraba:?u –l-ba:Ha bi-naqli kindly

?Š-ŠaTi? min ?arDi-hi

electricity the-Baha to-transfer the-beach from land-his

*(The Al-Baha electricity company is kindly requested to transfer the-beach from his land.)

128

Examples 96a , b, and c above compare the same three previous entities; Šajara (a tree), 9amu:d (a post), and ?aŠ-Ša:Ti? (the beach) with regard to their movability and

corresponding suitability as the Figure of caused-motion events. The entities Šajara (a tree) and 9amu:d (a post) belong to the “dependent but detachable” level in the hierarchy

of movable objects. They can only be caused to move by an external power such as kahraba:?u –l-ba:Ha (Al-baha electricity company) in 96 above. The sentences show that 9amu:d (a post) is suitable to be the Figure in the motion event expressed in 96a. The

unacceptability of the sentence in 96b, on the other hand, proves that Šajaratin (a tree) cannot be transferred from one place to another like 9amu:din (a post) by an external force. In this respect, then, it is more like ?Š-ŠaTi? (the beach) which is a dependent but non-detachable object in the sixth rank in the hierarchy. It is evident, then, that Šajara (a tree) is marginal in nature compared to 9amu:d (a post) and ?aŠ-Ša:Ti? (the beach). Its

movability property overlaps with both "detachable" and "non-detachable" entities, and it has certain family resemblances with members of both categories.

Thirdly, even within one category in the movability hierarchy, members will also demonstrate different degrees of typicality. For instance, both sayya:ra (car) and darra:ja (bike) are “transportation vehicles”, i.e., members of the second category in the

hierarchy. However, sayya:ra (car) is a typical self-controllable moving machine, while darra:ja (bike) is peripheral with regard to its self-controllability in motion. Thus, the two

present an obvious contrast in sentences expressing self-motion, like 97 below:

97 a. tataHarraku ?as-sayya:ratu muHammalatan mina –d-damma:m

129

move

the-car

loaded

from the-Dammam

?ila manfaði –l-xafji53 to

port

the-Kafji

(The loaded car moves from Dammam to Al-Kafji port.)

b. ??ka:nat ?akθar min darraj na:riyya tataHarraku fi –tija:hi-hi54 was

more than bike motor

move

in direction-his

??(More than one motorbike was moving in his direction.)

The preceding examples demonstrate the behavior of the two transportation vehicles; sayya:ra (car) and daraja (bike). The two sentences in 97a and b confirm that both entities

behave similarly with regard to self-propelled motion. But the motion verb in both instances has somewhat general reference, i.e. not specific about either path or manner. Moreover, the data reveals a shortage in the instances of bikes moving of their own free will. Unlike bikes, cars have more flexibility in their self-propelled motion. They usually act as Figures of numerous motion verbs. The following group of instances point up a few cases:

98 a. ?ina

–s-sayya:rata ?indafa9at wasaTa –l-HaŠd55

actually the-car

rushed

middle the-crowd

(The car actually rushed in the middle of the crowd.)

b. *?ina

–d-darajata ?indafa9at wasaTa –l-HaŠd

actually the-bike

rushed

middle the-crowd

(The bike actually rushed in the middle of the crowd.)

130

The sentence in 98a describes the movement of the Figure car with the verb ?indafa9at (rushed). Besides motion, the verb also conflates manner. This motion verb is typically

used with cars not with bikes as the sentence in 98b shows. There are no instances in the data that show daraja (bike) as Figure of such verbs as ?indafa9at (rushed). Below is another example of a motion verb that is used only with car as Figure of motion:

99 a. farrat sayya:ratun ka:nat mutawaqqifatan fi: Hayyi- n-nasi:m56 escaped

a-car

was

stopping

in district Annaseem

(A car which was stopping in Annaseem district escaped.)

b. *farrat escaped

darrajatun ka:nat mutawaqqifatan fi: Hayyi- n-nasi:m a-bike

was

stopping

in district Annaseem

*(A bike which was stopping in Annaseem district escaped.)

The preceding pair of sentences in 99 above further proves that car is more typical as Figure of self-controlled motion in contrast to bike which is less typical in this respect.

To summarize, categories in the movability hierarchy for Figure/Ground assignment and members of each individual category exhibit different degrees of typicality. They are connected through family resemblance. Additionally, between two neighboring categories, there are fuzzy borders. Therefore, like other human conceptual categories, Figure and Ground in the context of motion are also prototype categories in nature.

131

3. 2.6 Event-Dependent Characteristics of Figure and Ground

The movability feature is a permanent intrinsic characteristic of an entity. Yet, there are some conceptual properties that are only conceptualized or realized when the entity participates in an event of motion, for example, geometrical conformation. These properties are event-dependent and temporary. The event is a necessary conceptual frame for understanding those properties. Without the event, these kinds of properties do not exist. In this section, we consider the event-dependent properties of Figure and Ground of motion in three respects: conceptual prominence, familiarity of location, and awareness of geometrical conformation (see Talmy 2000b and Chu 2004). As a contrastive conceptual pair, Figure and Ground demonstrate clear contrasts in these three respects.

3. 2.6.1 Conceptual Prominence of Figure and Ground

First, with respect to conceptual prominence, the participants of a motion scene are not equally salient in the speaker's awareness. The Figure is usually the focus of attention. It is usually the most prominently conceptualized element, standing out from other participants as the one being characterized or located. Correspondingly, with the Figure being more salient in the conceptualizer's attention, the Ground object becomes conceptually less prominent. It stays in the background, serving as the reference point for characterizing or locating the Figure. The following is an example of a motion event involving jismun Gari:b (a strange object) as the mover or the Figure:

132

100 jismun Gari:b yatadaHraju 9ala –l-?arD body strange

rolling

bayna

?aqda:mi-l-ma:rah57

on the-ground between feet-of the-passers-by

(A strange object was rolling on the ground under the feet of passers-by.)

The reference point for the moving object in the instance above is 9ala –l-?arD bayna ?aqda:mi-l-ma:rah (on the ground under the feet of passers by). The Figure, which is jismun Gari:b (a strange object), will naturally become more predominant in our understanding

than is the Ground 9ala –l-?arD bayna ?aqda:mi-l-ma:rah (on the ground under the feet of passers by) and we automatically focus our attention on it as being more important rather

than on the reference point or the Ground. In short, in a motion event, the Figure object is more prominent in conceptualization than is the Ground object.

3. 2.6.2 Spatial Location of Figure and Ground

With regard to their spatial locations, Figure and Ground are naturally in contrast. Being the movable or moving object in an event of motion, the Figure's spatial location is not pre-determined in our conceptualization and is (assumed to be) the unknown part of the event to the addressee. It is dynamic and changes (or has changed) over time. This property is clarified in the subsequent sentence in which the Figure is a moving entity, ?as-sayya:ra (the car), that changes its location away from its natural path on the road to enter into another new location which is fina:? ?aHadi- l-maŠa:ri:9 (the yard of one of the projects) :

133

101 ?inHarafat-s-sayya:ra ?ila da:xil fina:? ?aHadi- l-maŠa:ri:958 swerved the-car

to inside yard one-of the-projects

(The car swerved into the yard of one of the projects.)

The car’s location is a variable. Its movement into the Ground fina:? ?aHadi- lmaŠa:ri:9 (the yard of one of the projects) is understood as new information. By contrast, the

Ground's location, fina:? ?aHadi- l-maŠa:ri:9 (the yard of one of the projects), is taken for granted as a known place or location to a listener tracking the Figure’s movement.

By contrast, The Ground, on the other hand, not only is stationary, but its location is also (assumed to be) known to the addressee. Since the Ground's location is known and pre-determined, the Figure's shift in location is consequently described in relation to it. The following sentence explains the Figure's motion in relation to a stationary Ground object(s).

102 ka:nati-T-Ta:?iratu qad ?aqla9at min maTa:ri maharbad janu:bi was

the-plane

already flown from airport-of Mahrabad south-of

Tahra:n fi: Tari:qi-ha ?ila Šira:z59 Tehran on way-its

to Shiraz

(The plane has already left from the Mahrabad Airport south of Tehran

134

on its way to Shiraz.)

The Figure in 102, above, is the entity ?aT-Ta:?iratu (the plane). The plane’s location in the air is variable and changing over time. Its location in the sky is described according to two stationary reference points which together form the Ground of motion. These two points are min maTa:ri maharbad (from Mehrabad airport) and ?ila Šira:z (to Shiraz). The location of these two Ground entities is a well known place to the

conceptualizer who is tracking the Figure’s movement.

As a result of what has gone so far, it seems that Figure and Ground reveal a second aspect of contrast in event-dependent properties.

3. 2.6.3 Geometrical Conformation of Figure and Ground

This is the third aspect of contrast between Figure and Ground when they are viewed in relation to the event of motion. This feature indicates that speakers normally assign different levels of attention to the geometrical conformations of Figure and Ground in the motion event. Usually, the Figure is conceptualized as a one-piece object that moves and is treated as geometrically unanalyzed zero-dimensional unit- a “pointlike” object in Talmy’s words - although it usually has a multi-dimensional conformation and an

135

intrinsic orientation( Talmy 2000a: 183). The conceptual difference between Figure and Ground is demonstrated in sentence 103 below:

103 sayya:ratu daf9in ruba:9iy car

taqtaHimu madxala funduq hiltun Ta:ba60

pushing four-wheel storm

entrance hotel

Hiton Taba

(A four-wheel car storms the entrance to the Hilton hotel in Taba.)

The figure in the preceding example is sayya:ratu daf9in ruba:9iy (A four-wheel car), while the Ground is madxala funduq hiltun Ta:ba (the entrance to the Hilton hotel in Taba). From experience, it is known that car is an enclosure-like object with an enclosed interior space and an outside surface. Furthermore, its external space is typically mentally subdivided into six areas in the mind: the front, the back, left side, right side, top, and base. However, in sentence 103, above, these geometrical specifications of the car are not in the speaker’s awareness. What is relevant is only where ?as-ssayya:ra (the car) as a whole unit is in relation to the hotel entrance madxala funduq hiltun Ta:ba. The Figure, ?as-ssayya:ra (the car), is thus simply conceptualized as a moving point that changes its

location from an open plane outside the hotel into an enclosed space represented by the Ground madxala funduq hiltun Ta:ba (the entrance to the Hilton hotel in Taba).

In contrast, the Ground object(s)’ geometrical properties tend to be profiled in certain specifics. In order to express the Figure’s spatial relation to it, the Ground is

136

usually conceptualized as a two-dimensional or three-dimensional object. If the same entity in sentence 103, above, is used as the Ground in a different motion sentence, a change in its geometrical specifications will definitely occur. Consider the following sentence in which the entity ?as-ssayya:ra (the car) functions as the Ground:

104 qafaza namirun ?ila: da:xili sayya:rati-hima61 jumped a-tiger

to

inside car-their(two)

(A tiger jumped into their car.)

The motion verb qafaza (jumped) shows that ?as-ssayya:ra (the car) is conceptualized not as a point-like object but rather as an enclosure with an internal space. Furthermore, the location word da:xil (inside) in the Arabic sentence highlights this enclosure-like geometrical conformation of the Ground ?as-ssayya:ra (the car) suggesting that it has an inner part and presumably it also has an outer part.

There is another important conceptual characteristic related to Figure and Ground and that is size. Talmy suggests that the actual size of an entity influences its Figure/Ground assignment (2000a: 183,314-16). He observes that the Figure entity is typically smaller than the Ground entity. This observation is probably true for locative events for which the static relationship between the Figure and Ground is of concern. The contrast between 105a and b ref1ects this difference:

137

105 a. ?as-sayya:ratu qurba –l-mabna:62 the-car

near the-building

(The car is near the building.)

b. *?al-mabna: qurba –s-sayya:ra the-building near the-car *(The building is near the car.)

The above sentences in 105 clearly show that in characterizing their relative relations, the smaller object ?as-sayya:ratu (the car) is appropriate for the Figure role, while the larger object is suitable for the Ground role l-mabna: (the building). Reversing this semantic rule results in an unacceptable sentence. The example in 106 below confirms the same fact about size. In such a sentence, two inseparable semantic entities are referred to and those are Ta:wilati-l-maktab (the desk) and ?al-kursiyy (the chair):

106 a. ?al-kursiyy-l- yasa:riyy qurba –Ta:wilati-l-maktab63 the-chair the-left

near desk-of the-office

(The left chair is near the desk.) b. *Ta:wilati-l-maktab qurba – l-kursiyy-l- yasa:riyy desk-of the-office near the-chair the-left *(The desk is near the left chair.)

The unacceptability of the reverse sentence is based on the fact that the location of

138

smaller objects is characterized in reference to bigger objects and not the opposite. Therefore, although these two recurrent pair of objects are usually close to one another in reality, only one of them can be used as a reference point for the other.

However, for motion events, size is not a distinctive property for Figure/Ground assignment. In our experience, a small entity can move to/from/past a big object, but a large entity can also move to/from/past a small object. That is, for a participant entity being conceptualized as the Figure, what is relevant is whether it is movable and is actually in motion, not whether its size exceeds that of other entities presented in the motion scene. This is evident in 107 and 108 below:

107 a. ?inzalaqati-s-samakatu fi: –l-ma:?64 slipped

the-fish

in the-water

(The fish slipped into the water.)

b. ka:na –S-Sayya:du yata9aqqabu – l-feela was the-hunter

following

Tu:la-n-naha:r65

the-elephant along the-day

(The hunter was following the elephant all day.)

The examples in 107a and b, above, represent two different motion events. In the first example, the motion verb ?inzalaqat (slipped) involves the existence of a Figure object ?ssamakatu (the fish) and a Ground object ?al-ma:? (the water). The Figure is smaller in size

than the Ground. The same is true for the example in 107b in which the motion verb yata9aqqabu (follow) is performed by a Figure entity ?aS-Sayya:du (the hunter) that is

smaller in size than the Ground ?al-feela (the elephant) which is a large moving entity

139

whose relative location is used to identify the Figure's movement. These two sentences prove that Figure is, sometimes, smaller than the Ground with regard to size.

Conversely, the subsequent group of sentences demonstrates that size is not really a necessary condition for motion. The sentences below show that Figure can be larger than Ground:

108 a. ?ina

–l-Hu:ta –l-?aHdab

qafaza xa:rija-l-ma:?i faj?ah

wa

surely the-whale the-hunchback jumped outside the-water suddenly and –r-rtaTama bi-l-qa:rib66 crashed

into-the-boat

(The whale suddenly jumped out of the water and crashed into the boat.)

b. ?inha:rati –l-9ima:ra 9ala: rija:li-l-?iTfa: ba9da 15 daqi:qa min collapsed the-building on

firemen

after 15 minutes from

wuSu:li-him67 arrival-their (The building collapsed on the firemen 15 minutes after their arrival.)

The above group contains two examples of motion events. In the first example, 108a, the Figure object is ?al-Hu:ta –l-?aHdab (the whale) and the Ground object is ?al-qa:rib (the boat). The Figure is considerably larger in size than the Ground. A similar situation is

observed in 108b in which the Figure ?al-9ima:ra (the building) is larger than the Ground rija:li-l-?iTfa:? (firemen). These sentences provide evidence that motion is indifferent to

size.

140

From what has been presented so far, it is found that in addition to other factors differentiating motion from locatedness, size is more relevant to locatedness, while movability is more significant for motion. Therefore, in 105 and 106, above, where locatedness is the issue, the more acceptable arrangement is that the bigger objects lmabna: (the building) and Ta:wilati-l-maktab (the desk) are assigned as the Ground and the

smaller entities ?as-sayya:ratu (the car), and ?al-kursiyy (the chair) as the Figure. This is not the case with motion events in which the size of the Figure is not an issue The above examples show that locatedness and motion involve different conceptual operations, and thus should be treated differently.

In conclusion, besides the intrinsic property of movability, it has been shown that there are three event-dependent temporary characteristics of Figure and Ground in a motion event: their difference in conceptual prominence, their knowness of location, and the awareness of geometrical conformation. Typically, the entity assigned the role of Figure is conceptually more prominent; its spatial location is under-determined for the addressee; and its geometrical configuration is conceptualized as a point. As for the object(s) perceived as the Ground, it is conceptually less salient, its location is predetermined and assumed to be known to the addressee, and its conformational properties are usually highlighted in some detail in order to characterize the Figure's change of location. The actual size of an entity is generally not of concern in motion conceptualization.

141

3. 3 Patterns of Linguistic Representation of Figure and Ground in Arabic

After discussing the general conceptual characteristics of Figure and Ground in the previous sections, this part is devoted to an investigation of the ways in which the two components of motion are configured and realized in the surface structure of Arabic. It gives an idea about the cognitive processes and construal operations involved in the linguistic realization of Figure and Ground conceptualization and shows how these processes and operations function in guiding and constraining Figure and Ground representation.

3. 3.1 Syntactic Precedence of Figure in Linguistic Representation in Arabic

With regard to the linguistic representation of Figure and Ground, there seems to be an order of precedence regarding their occurrence in syntactic structures. This order dictates that basically “the Figure has syntactic precedence over the Ground” Talmy (2000a: 334). The following examples illustrate the point:

109 ?inna –θ-θu9ba:na tasallala bi-hudu:? ?ila da:xili—l-qa:9a68 surely the-snake

crept

by-quiet

(The snake crept quietly into the hall.)

142

to inside the-hall

The Figure in the previous example is ?aθ-θu9ba:n (the snake) and the Ground is ?al-qa:9a (the hall). Syntactic precedence means that the Figure is mentioned before the Ground in

the syntactic arrangement of words which is the case in this sentence. The Figure appears before the Ground in the horizontal order of constituents. Therefore, it occupies the subject position in the sentence.

The order of precedence is determined by the general human conceptualization of Figure and Ground in a motion event. That is, in a motion event conceptualization, the Figure is the moving entity whose variable path is the relevant issue in this conceptualization. As for the Ground, its relatively stationary status is basically the reference for characterizing the Figure's path. Thus, as discussed above, Figure is the default focus of attention, being more prominent than the Ground in the speaker's awareness. As a reflection of its relative prominence in attention, the Figure is generally positioned more saliently than the Ground in a syntactic configuration:

110 saqaTat sayya:ratu bi-im-if 9ala saTHi manzili-hi69 fell

car

BMF

on

roof-of house-his

(A BMF car fell off on the roof of his house.)

The Figure in the previous example is sayya:ratu bi-im-if (a BMF car), which is the moving entity whose variable path is the relevant issue in motion conceptualization. The Ground is saTHi manzili-hi (the roof of his house) which is used as the reference point for locating the Figure's path. Accordingly, the Figure precedes the Ground not only in the speaker's awareness but also in the syntactic arrangement.

143

Nevertheless, if the motion is not a self-motion but is initiated and controlled by an external agent or causer, then the agent of the motion is even more salient than the Figure. Consequently, the agent typically takes the subject position in the motion sentence followed by the Figure while the Ground comes last:

111 bada?a bu:Š yaqðifu ba9Da-l-Hija:ra 9ala SafHati- S-Saxra70 started Bush throwing some the-stones on surface-of the-rock (Bush started throwing some stones on the surface of the rock.)

Here, the motion of throwing is caused by an external agent which in this sentence is the noun; Bush. Hence, the noun, Bush, is the agent of motion and, therefore, occupies the subject position in the syntactic configuration. The Figure, ba9Da-l-Hija:ra (some stones), occupies the object position while the Ground, SafHati-S-Saxra (the surface of the rock), is positioned toward the end of the sentence as the object of preposition. Even in this case, the Figure still has precedence over the Ground since it fills the direct object position, the second prominent syntactic slot for event participants to fill.

In short, whether or not the motion is autonomous motion or caused-motion, the regular situation is that the Figure has precedence over the Ground in syntactic role assignment. This order can be summarized as the “Figure-over-Ground” principle. It is represented in the following diagram:

144

Figure 3-14: The Figure-over-Ground Principle

It can also be formulated as:

112 (Agent >) Figure > Ground (Chu 2004: 97)

The brackets around “Agent” indicates its optional status since it is not present in selfmotion events. The “Agent” is present only in caused-motion events in which case it is given more prominence by taking the subject position.

3. 3.2 Saliency Mapping and the Configuration of Figure and Ground

The “Figure-over-Ground” principle reflects a general mapping relationship between the saliency of motion elements in human awareness and the precedence of role assignments in syntax. That is to say, the more salient in awareness an element is, the more precedence it will have in syntactical constituent order. This relationship will be referred to as “saliency mapping”.71

113 saqaTat Saxratun Daxma bittija:hi ?aHadi -l-aba:ni:72 fell

a-rock

huge towards one-of the-buildings

145

(A huge rock fell down towards one of the buildings.)

Besides the motion verb in the above sentence, there are the two entities, Saxratun Daxma (a huge rock) and ?aHadi-l-aba:ni (one of the buildings). The first of these is the Figure while

the second functions as the Ground. Since the Figure is more salient in our attention than the Ground , it fills the subject slot in the syntactic order. The Ground as such comes later as the object of preposition.

The syntactic constituents in which the Figure and the Ground are expressed in sentences are as follows:

114 For nominals in a single clause, this precedence consists of expression along a case hierarchy. In a nonagentive clause, the Figure is subject and the Ground is (oblique) object. In an agentive clause, where the Agent is subject, the Figure is direct object and the Ground is oblique object.

Talmy (2000a: 334)

The syntactic roles are assigned according to the order of precedence specified earlier. However, a similar specification of case roles for assigning motion event elements in Arabic should also include more specifics, as suggested in 115 below:

115 Subject> Direct Object> Complement of Directional PP/Specifier of an NP/ Oblique Object

146

The preceding statement shows that there are several options for the lowest role in the hierarchy: complement of a directional PP, Specifier of an NP, or oblique object of the clause. These roles are low in the syntactic hierarchy, are regularly filled by the Ground.

3.3.3 The Realization of the “Figure-over-Ground” Principle in Arabic The conceptual saliency hierarchy of the Figure and Ground is identified in 112 (together with Agent in caused-motion) and the syntactic role prominence hierarchy in Arabic in 115. Prototypically, the saliency mapping from 112 into 115 follows the precedence order suggested in the two hierarchies. The higher a conceptual element stands in 112, the higher the syntactic role it is assigned in 115. For the Figure and Ground, the principle is “Figure-over-Ground”. The saliency mapping relation between 112 and 115 has a variety of instantiations in Arabic. We will consider autonomous motion first. The saliency mapping typically has the Figure as the subject of the sentence; the Ground typically occurring in one of three possible positions: as direct object of the main verb, as complement of a preposition phrase, or as a specifier of the subject (i.e., the Figure). The following examples illustrate these configurations:

3.3.3.1 Autonomous Motion

147

3.3.3.1.1 The Figure as the subject, and the Ground as the Direct Object

The following examples illustrate how motion components are realized in linguistic structures. The Figure and the Ground are emphasized: 116 9abara –l-qiTa:ru wa:di barda: 73 crossed the-train valley Barda (The train crossed Barda Valley.)

The Figure in 116 above is ?al-qiTa:ru (the train) which corresponds to the subject of the clause. The Ground, on the other hand, is wa:di barda (Barda Valley) which functions as the direct object of the verb in this clause. The same is true of the coming example:

117 Ga:dara –l-?aha:li masa:kina-hum xawfan mini- inhiya:riha74 left

the-people houses-their

in-fear of

collapse-its

(The people left their houses for fear of collapse.)

The Figure in the above sentence is ?al-?aha:li (the people) which functions as the subject of the motion verb. The Ground, masa:kina-hum (their houses) on the other hand, functions as the direct object of the verb.

148

3.3.3.1.2 The Figure as the subject, and the Ground as an Oblique Object (the complement of preposition)

The following sentences show the Ground as part of a prepositional phrase:

118 ?inzalaq-u: 9ala-θ-θalji-llaði GaTTa: niSfa si:qa:ni-him75 slid-they

on the-ice that covered half legs-their

(They slid on the ice that covered half their legs.)

119 waSala –r-ra?i:s

maHmu:d 9abbas ?ila 9amman76

arrive the-president Mahmood Abbas

to

Amman

(The president, Mahmood Abbas, arrive at Amman.)

The Figure in the in sentence 118, above, is the attached pronoun u: (they) which functions as the subject of the verb ?inzalaq (slid). The Ground, ?aθ-θalji (the ice) on the other hand, is part of the prepositional phrase 9ala-θ-θalji (on the ice) functioning as the object of the preposition. In example 119, however, the Figure is ?ar-ra?i:s (the president) while the Ground is 9amman (Amman) which is part of the prepositional phrase ?ila 9amman ( at Amman).

3.3.3.1.3 The Figure as the subject, and the Ground as the Specifier of the Subject

149

The sentences below demonstrate the Ground as part of a noun phrase:

120 waSalat Ta:?ira:tun muHammala bi-l-musa:9ada:t min ?isbania arrived planes wa-l-jaza:?ir

loaded

with-the-aid

from Spain

wa faransa77

and-the-Algiers and France (Planes loaded with aid (from Spain, Algiers, and France) arrived.)

The Figure in the above sentence is the word Ta:?ira:tun (planes) which functions as the subject of the verb waSalat (arrived). The Ground is conveyed by the prepositional phrase min ?isbania wa-l-jaza:?ir wa faransa (from Spain, Algiers and France) which in this case is

part of the noun phrase functioning as the subject of the clause. The next example also shows the Ground as part of the noun phrase functioning as Figure:

121 milyu:n na:ziH fi: da:rfu:r harab-u:

min Ga:ra:ti –l- mutamarridi:n78

million displaced in Darfur escaped-they from raids-of the-rebels (A million of displaced people in Darfur have fled the rebel raids.)

The Figure in the preceding example is the word milyawn na:ziH (a million of displaced people) which functions as the subject of the verb harab-u: (escaped). The Ground, on the

other hand, is the prepositional phrase min da:rfu:r (from Darfur) which is placed inside the noun phrase functioning as the subject of the clause.

3.3.3.1.4 Motion Sentences with more than one Ground

150

In some situations, more than one Ground component of motion is mentioned in a clause as shown in 122 and 123 below:

122 Ga:dara ?r-ra?i:su left

–l-bna:ni

Šarl Hilu ?al-qa:hira ?ila: bayru:t79

the-president the-Lebanese Charl Hilu the-Cairo

to Beirut

(The Lebanese president, Charl Hilu, left Cairo to Beirut.)

The above example contains one Figure and two Grounds. The Figure is the moving entity which in this sentence is ?ar-ra?i:su–l-bna:ni (the Lebanese president) while the Ground is expressed by two entities. One is the noun phrase ?al-qa:hira (Cairo) which represents the source of motion and is the direct object of the clause. The other entity is the prepositional phrase ?ila: bayru:t (to Beirut) that expresses the goal of motion. A similar case is presented in the following sentence:

123 min ?iSTanbu:l ?intaqala –l-muSawwiru from Istanbul

bi-9adasati-hi

moved the-photographer with-camera-his

?ila: madi:nati to

city-of

?azmi:r80 Izmeer (The photographer moved with his camera from Istanbul to Izmir.)

This sentence also contains one Figure and two Grounds. The Figure is the moving entity ?al-muSawwiru (the photographer). The Ground is expressed by two prepositional phrases; min ?iSTanbu:l (from Istanbul), and ?ila: madi:nati ?azmhi:r (to the city of Izmir). The first represents the source of motion and the other conveys the goal of motion.

3.3.3.1.5 The Omission of the Ground 151

In contrast to the situation above, the Ground element is sometimes omitted as the sentences in this part confirm. In such cases, the Ground is implied by the context and can be clearly understood by the speaker and the listener:

124 ja:?at ba9Du Ta:?ira:ti hilikobter ?ajnabiyya li-l-musa:9ada81 came some

planes helicopter foreign

for-the-help

(Some foreign helicopters came to help.)

The Figure in 124, above, is ba9Du Ta:?ira:ti hilikobter ?ajnabiyya: (some foreign helicopters) but there is no Ground. In fact, the Ground is omitted but can be inferred from the deictic motion verb ja:?at (came); usually it is the place where the speaker is located. The following is another example of the omission of the Ground element of motion:

125 tana:θarat ?jza:?un min mafru:Šati –l-funduq 82 dispersed

parts

of furniture-of the-hotel

(Parts of the hotel's furniture were scattered.)

This sentence contains a Figure element which is ?jza:?un min mafru:Šati –l-funduq (parts of the hotel's furniture) but no Ground. The Ground is, again, omitted or implied but can be

inferred from the deictic motion verb tana:θarat (scattered) and from the context. It is usually a location mentioned in the previous discourse or understood such as (in the air). Whether the Ground has more than one component expressed, as in 122 and 123, or

152

whether it is completely unmentioned, as in 124 and 125, the Figure-over-Ground precedence order is followed.

One point needs to be made clear here. In saliency mapping, the principle of “Figureover-Ground” means that the Figure is typically assigned a more prominent syntactic role than the Ground. It does not mean Figure-before-Ground in word order arrangement of a clause, though that is usually the case83.

3.3.3.2 Caused Motion

We turn now to the saliency mapping and the configuration of Figure and Ground in caused-motion sentences in Arabic. Caused-motion can be expressed by a slight morphological change in the root of the motion verb itself. In such a case, the Cause is conflated in the verb together with the fact of motion. In 126 and 127 below, the subject slot is filled by the agent or causer of the movement, the Figure is the direct object, and the Ground is the complement of a PP:

126 ka:na

yaqu:du

was-he driving-he

sayya:rata-hu fawqa kubri car-his

oktu:bar84

on bridge-of October

(He was driving his car on October Bridge.)

The sentence above demonstrates the Figure sayya:rata-hu (his car) in the object position while the Ground is represented by the surface form fawqa kubri oktu:bar 153

(on October Bridge) which is a prepositional phrase. The same applies to the following

example:

127 ?a-sqaTa ?al-musallaHu:na Ta:?irat blak hawk fi takri:t85 CS-fell the-insurgents

a-plane Black Hawk in Tikrit

(The insurgents shot down a Black Hawk in Tikrit.)

The Figure Ta:?irat blak hawk (a Black Hawk plane) occupies the object position in the sentence. The Ground, on the other hand is conveyed by the prepositional phrase fi takri:t (in Tikrit).

In the next example, the subject is the agent, the Figure is the head of the direct object, and the Ground is the specifier of the direct object:

128 saHaba-t ?al-kursiyya -l-waHi:d xalfa Ta:wilat-i:86 pulled-she the-chair

the-only behind desk-my

(She pulled the only chair behind my desk.)

The phrase xalfa Ta:wilat-i: (behind my desk) is not part of the verb phrase saHaba-t (she pulled) in this example. It is rather a specifier of the noun functioning as Figure ?alkursiyya (the chair) just like the adjective ?al-waHi:d (the only) which is also a specifier of

the noun ?al-kursiyya (the chair) and as such part of the noun phrase itself.

The Figure and the Ground of a caused-motion can appear as double objects of the

154

verb, with the Figure being the direct object and the Ground the oblique object:

129 ?a-Tlaqa ?al-qanna:Sah ?al-?isra:?i:liyyu:n ?an-na:r bittija:h qa:ri9 CS-fired the-snipers

the-Israeli

the-fire towards percussionist

?ajra:s kani:sat ?al-mahd87 bells-of church-of the-Nativity (The Israeli snipers opened fire towards the percussionist of the Nativity Church.)

The Figure in 129, ?an-na:r (the-fire), occupies the object position in the sentence. The same is true of the Ground, bittija:h qa:ri9 ?ajra:s kani:sat ?al-mahd (towards the percussionist of the Nativity Church), which can be thought of as a second object of the verb ?a-Tlaqa (opened fire).

The next example clarifies the same point of having both the Figure and the Ground functioning in the sentence as two objects to the verb:

130 qaðafa jumhu:r ru:ma ?arDa-l-mal9ab bi-sahmin na:riyy88 threw public

Rome ground-of the-pitch with-a-dart fiery

(Rome audience threw the pitch ground with crackers.)

The Figure in this sentence is sahmin na:riyy (crackers) that functions as the object of the verb though it is preceded by a redundant preposition. The purpose of this preposition is 155

to relate the verb to the object which in this situation is a little alienated from the verb by the verbal arrangement. The Ground, ?arDa-l-mal9ab (pitch ground), serves as another object to the same verb. Though it precedes the Figure in the syntactic order, it does not have semantic prominence over it.

The examples cited so far demonstrate the syntactic realization of Figure-overGround order in expressing caused-motion events. As noted before, the agent or causer of the caused motion is typically the subject, and the Figure is represented by the direct object. As for the Ground, it has several possible roles in realization, including that of the complement of a PP, the direct object, the specifier of an NP, etc.

As with the cases of autonomous motion shown earlier, more than one Ground component of a caused-motion event may occur in a clause, as illustrated in the following sentence:

131 ka:na l-?urdun yanquu 1.3 milya:r mitir muka99ab mina–l-miya:h sanawiyan was the-Jordon transfer 1.3 billion meter

cubic

of

the-water yearly

min buHayrat Tabariyyah ?ila –l-baHri-l-may-yit89 from Lake-of

Tiberias

to the-sea the-dead

(Jordon was transferring 1.3 billion cubic meters of water annually from Lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea.)

156

The Figure in the preceding sentence is of course 1,3 milya:r mitir muka99ab mina–l-miya:h (1.3 billion cubic meters of water) which is moved or transferred by Jordon from one place buHayrat Tabariyyah (Lake of Tiberias) that is the first Ground to another place l-baHri-lmay-yit (the Dead Sea) that is the second Ground.

The Ground may be implied by the context as in 132:

132 ka:na yuHarriku sa:qay-hi: wa ðira:9ay-hi: biŠiddah90 was-he moving

legs-his

and arms-his

violently

(He was moving his legs and arms violently .)

The agent in the above sentence is the pronoun he which refers to the baby while the Figure of motion is sa:qay-hi: wa ðira:9ay-hi (his legs and arms). The Ground, on the other hand, is implied and can be easily guessed from the context to be something like everywhere or in every direction. So far, we have seen typical realizations of the saliency mapping of both self-motion and caused-motion events in Arabic. As all the examples above show, the typical configuration of the Figure and Ground of both self-motion and caused-motion follows the “Figure-over-Ground” principle.

157

As further evidence of the “Figure-over-Ground” order, here are two examples in which the Figure/Ground configuration is reversed:

133 a. ?indafa9a –l-ja:ni: rushed

naHwa

ja:ra-llah91

the-offender towards Jarallah

(The offender rushed towards Jarallah.)

b. ?indafa9a ja:ra-llah naHwa –l-ja:ni: rushed

Jarallah

towards the-offender

(Jarallah rushed towards the offender.)

Both 133a and 133b express autonomous motion. In 133a, ?al-ja:ni: (the offender) is the Figure and thus occupies the subject position; ja:ra-llah (Jarallah) is the Ground. Thus it appears as the complement of the PP. but in 133b, the Figure/Ground assignment is reversed, i.e., ja:ra-llah (Jarallah) becomes the Figure and al-ja:ni: (the offender) is the Ground. As a result, the syntactic roles of the two elements are

reversed: ja:ra-llah (Jarallah) in 133b becomes the sentence subject, and al-ja:ni: (the offender) is moved to the position of the PP complement to the verb.

ja:ra-llah (Jarallah) and ?al-ja:ni: (the offender) belong to the same category "human and

animals" in the movability hierarchy mentioned before. The switch of their syntactic roles in 133a and 133b can only be understood as a result stipulated by the “Figure-overGround” principle.

158

3.4 Conclusion

This chapter describes the contrasting properties of Figure and Ground in the conceptualization of motion events, and their syntactic representation in Arabic. It is shown that the entities in the world form a movability hierarchy in experience-based cognition. When conceptualizing motion events, we regularly assign the Figure role to the entity that stands higher in the movability hierarchy, assigning the Ground to the entity with the lower movability rating. It is also pointed out that movability, like other human categorization systems, has prototype properties. Conceptual entities vary a long a continuum in degree of movability. We further observed that in-event characteristics such as conformation, also influence the conceptualization of the Figure and Ground of motion. Finally, the syntactic results of the conceptual contrasts between Figure and Ground in conception are manifested in detail. In particular, it is found that there is a saliency mapping relationship in Arabic between the conceptual elements of Figure and ground and the hierarchically-organized syntactic roles.

Endnotes

159

1

This is referred to as anchoring by Talmy which means that the Figure is a concept that needs anchoring and the Ground is the concept that does the anchoring or is the anchor for the Figure (2000a: 311). 2 Alahraam newspaper, November 19th, 2000. Issue no. 41621. 3 Alarabi magazine, January 1st, 2002. Issue no. 518. 4 Almustaqbal newspaper, March 29th, 2003. Issue no. 1258. 5 Almustaqbal newspaper, September 2nd, 2004. Issue no. 1687. 6 Alwatan newspaper , December 8th, 2005. Issue no. 8175. 7 Alahraam newspaper, December 4th, 2000. Issue no. 41636. 8 Figure and Ground are treated by Talmy as two fundamental functions related to one of the major structuring systems of language; that of attention and its distribution. Through this system language establishes one concept as a reference point or anchor for another concept. Figure is the concept that needs anchoring, Ground, on the other hand, is the concept that does the anchoring. These pair of concepts can be of two objects related to each other in space in an event of motion or location. They can also be of two events related to each other in temporal, causal, or other type of situation (Talmy 2000a: 211). 9 Al-jazirah newspaper, Jananuary 1st, 2004. Issue no. 11417. 10 Al-jazirah newspaper, Jananuary 1st, 2004. Issue no. 11417. 11 Al-jazirah newspaper, Jananuary 1st, 2004. Issue no. 11417. 12 Alyawm newspaper, August 19th, 2002. Issue no. 10657. 13 Alwatan newspaper, August 8th, 2005. 14 Alahram newspaper, January 18th, 2000. Issue no. 41315. 15 Alwatan newspaper, August 8th, 2005. 16 Alesbouh Al-Adabi newspaper, November 25th , 2000. Issue no. 736. 17 Alshaqalawsat newspaper, July 15th, 2003. Issue no. 8995. 18 Asharqalawsat newspaper, November 1st, 2005. Issue no. 9835. 19 Almustaqbal newspaper, September 23rd, 2003. Issue no. 1407. 20 Alarabi magazine, August 1st, 2002. Issue no. 526. 21 Alayyam newspaper from Yemen, December 13 th, 2005. Issue no. 4660. 22 Alarabi magazine, December 1st, 2000. Issue no. 505. 23 Alahraam newspaper, March 27th, 2000. Issue no. 41384. 24 Alwatan newspaper, January 1st , 2004. 25 Alahram newspaper, May 11th, 2002. Issue no. 42159. 26 Mawa:qifu Tayyaar, true stories by AnasAl-qawz, 7th edition 2005, p. 88. 27 www.awu-dam. Org/book/00/stories00/137-a-k/book00-so008.htm (Arab Writers Union in Damascus.) 2001. 28 “Qisas l-nnisaa’” by Fawziah Al-Diray’, 2004, p. 122. 29 Children’s story “A-SSulhufatu wa-l-?arnab” by dr. Hasan Shahata, 2000, p. 14. 30 “Mahma Ghala Thaman” by Abdullah Al-Orainy, 3rd edition, 2003, p. 131. 31 Mawa:qifu Tayyaar, true stories by Anas Al-qawz, 7th edition 2005, p. 260. 32 “Hikayaat Al-Ghabah” a collection of articles by Mas’ood Blooki, 2003, p. 36. 33 Alahram. newspaper, October 28th, 2001. Issue no 41964. 34 Asharqalawsat newspaper, Jan. 20, 2001. Issue no. 8089. 35 Alriyadh newspaper, May 3rd, 2005. Issue no. 13462. 36 Almustaqbal newspaper, March 22nd, 2005. Issue no. 1868. 37 Alriyadh newspaper, March 30th , 2005. Issue no. 13438. 38 In other semantic hierarchies proposed in previous literature, such as agentivity hierarchy ( elancey 1981, Dowty 1991) and animacy hierarchy (Comrie D 1981:186, Dixon 1994, Corbett 2000: 56), "human" and "animate" do not belong to the same rank. This is probably true with respect to the linguistic manifestations of agentivity and animacy. But regarding the movability of the two categories,

there are grammatically-relevant distinctions in the conceptualization and

linguistic realization of motion between them. Thus, the two are categorized together in one rank in this movability hierarchy. 39

Al-Mazloom, a novel by Hussien Al-rashid, 2nd edition, 2002, page 58. Asharqalawsat newspaper, March 30th , 2002. Issue no. 8523. 41 There are circumstances in which such entities may function as Ground as in: a. rakaD-tu ba9i:dan 9ani- l-kalb ran-I away from the-dog 40

160

(I ran away from the dog.) b. ?ittajah-tu naHwa- D-Da:biT headed-I towards the-officer (I headed towards the officer.) 42 www.awu-dam.org/book/05/stories05/90-M-A/book05-so005.hml 43 Asharqalawsat newspaper, November 10th, 2005. Issue no. 9844. 44 www.awu-dam.org/book00/stories00/16-a-a/book00-so010.htm . 45 www.awu-dam.org/book/03/stories03/280-h-h/book03-so004.hml 46 Alriyadh newspaper, August 22nd, 2005. Issue no. 13573. 47 Alyawm newspaper, Jan. 20th, 2004. Issue no. 11176. 48 www.awu-dam.org/book00/stories00/16-a-a/book00-so010.htm . 49 Al-jazirah newspaper, September 1est, 2004. Issue no. 11661. 50 Almustaqbal newspaper, October 27th, 2003. Issue no. 1436. 51 Alahraam newspaper, September 23the , 2000. Issue no. 41564. 52 Al-jazirah newspaper, July 22 nd, 2001. Issue no. 10524. 53 Alyawm newspaper, August 12th, 2005. Issue no. 11746. 54 Asharqalawsat newspaper, July 17th, 2003. Issue no. 8997. 55 Asharqalawsat newspaper, October 8th, 2004. Issue no. 9446. 56 Alwatan newspaper , January 1st , 2004. 57 Alahram newspaper, April 9th, 2005. Issue no. 43223. 58 Alyawm newspaper, August 25th, 2005. Issue no. 11759. 59 Alghad newspaper, December 21st, 2005. 60 Al-ayyaam newspaper from Palestine, November 11 th, 2004. 61 Al-mustaqbal newspaper, Jan. 30th, 2005. Issue no. 1819. 62 Alwatan newspaper, November 11th, 2004. 63 www.awu-dam.org/book/00/novel00/172-a-k/book00-nv013.htm, 2000, qad ya'ti Al-khareefu Ra bee'an by Aida Al-khalidi. 64 www.awu-dam.org/book/02/child02/386-J-T/book02-ch008..htm, 2002, mughamarat samakah by Jumaana Taha children's story. 65 www.awu-dam.org/book/05/stories05/61-H-K/book05-so022..htm, 2005, qisas hindiyyah tr. By huda alkilani and dr. Ibrahim ashihabi stories. 66 Alyawm newspaper, August 21st , 2003. Issue no. 11024. 67 Asharqalawsat newspaper, Jan. 28th, 2004. Issue no. 9192. 68 Albayan newspaper from UAE, July 2nd, 2005. 69 Almustaqbal newspaper from Lebanon, June 17th , 2003. Issue no. 1323. 70 Asharqalawsat newspaper , November 20th , 2002. Issue no. 8758. 71 Two points can be made here regarding the nature of “saliency mapping”. On the one hand, “saliency mapping” is a more general principle guiding and restricting the linguistic representation of human conceptualization and the “Figure-over-Ground” principle can be viewed as a typical instantiation of “saliency mapping”. On the other hand, 'saliency mapping' should also be regarded as “iconicity” phenomenon linking human conceptualization and language expression (cf. Haiman 1985) . 72

Al-mustaqbal newspaper , December 20th, 2003. Issue no. 1480. www.awu-dam.org/book/00/novel00/87-t-d/book00-nv002..htm, 2000, fi mahabbi-rreeh By tayseer dabaabna. 74 Al-ayyaam newspaper from Yemen , April 27th, 2005. Issue no. 4466. 75 www.awu-dam.org/book/00/novel00/87-t-d/book00-nv002..htm, 2000, fi mahabbi-rreeh By tayseer dabaabna 76 Al-ayyaam newspaper from Palestine, November 18 th, 2005. 77 Al-mustaqbal newspaper , February 26th, 2004. Issue no. 1532. 78 Al-riyadh newspaper , August 27th, 2004. Issue no. 13216. 79 Alahram newspaper , November 12th, 2004. Issue no. 43075. 80 Al-Ghad newspaper , January 28th, 2005. 81 Alyawm newspaper , March 3rd, 2002. Issue no. 10610. 73

161

82

Alahram newspaper , October 9th, 2004. Issue no. 43041. There are cases in which the Ground as the oblique object precedes the Figure as subject as the next example indicates: CM-Verb Agent Ground Figure 1. ?axraja –l-?a:miru min du:la:bi maktabi-hi musaddasa tanwi:r got out the-commander from office-his a-gun light (The commander took out a flashgun from his office.) (www.awu-dam.org/book/02/stories02/137-h-j/book02-so004.htm) The examples are so many and they all correspond to a well-known syntactic rule that states that a defined noun usually precedes an undefined noun in syntactic word order in Arabic sentences. 84 Alahram newspaper , July 12th, 2000. Issue no. 41491. 85 Asharqalawsat newspaper , November 17th , 2003. Issue no. 9120. 86 www.awu-dam.org/book/02/stories02/137-h-j/book02-so023.htm 87 Alarabi magazine from Kuwait, December 1st , 2002. Issue no. 529. 88 www.alwatan.com/graphics/2004/06jun/05may/3.5/dailyhtml/sports.html 89 Alayyam newspaper from Yemen, June 25th , 2005. Issue no. 4516. 90 Alahram newspaper, May 3rd , 2001. Issue no. 41786. 91 Alyawm newspaper, December 30th, 2002. Issue no. 10790. 83

CHAPTER FOUR

162

PATH AND MOVE

4.0 Introduction

Chapter 3 has discussed the conceptualization and representation of Figure and Ground in Arabic. The present chapter and the following one are examining three other primary constituents of motion: the Move component, Path, and Manner of motion. The focus of discussion in these chapters is on the typologically significant patterns utilized to construe and package these elements into grammatical surface structures in Arabic. The first part of this chapter explores the ways in which language in general and Arabic in particular packages these three components of motion, i.e. Move, Path, and Manner, together in actual sentences. This part will expand on Talmy’s typology of lexicalization patterns which explores the different ways Path, Move, and Manner are conflated in surface forms. It will also examine the general patterns rendering these elements in Arabic. The plausibility of Talmy’s lexicalization typology is examined from the perspectives of SWA.

The rest of this chapter investigates the conceptualization and the representation of Path. Path is a conceptual complex that is central to motion conceptualization and representation. Therefore it is considered as the defining property of motion. Later in this part, a framework is presented for characterizing Path conceptualization and its linguistic expression. Finally, the inventory of the morpho-syntactic forms denoting Path in Arabic within this framework will be presented. 163

4.1 Patterns of Packaging Meaning in Form 4.1.1 Talmy’s Lexicalization Patterns:

In our discussion of Figure and Ground in SWA in the previous chapter, three properties are observed with regard to the surface representation of these two motion elements. First, both Figure and Ground are expressed with separate lexical items in their surface realizations. Second, the lexical items expressing any Figure or Ground belong without exception to the same grammatical category of NPs. Third, the NPs for Figure and Ground are classified as an open class. In short, there is a simple one-to-one relationship between Figure and Ground in conceptualization and the forms rendering them in linguistic surface. Example 134 shows the surface realization of the two elements, with ?al - qiTa:ru (the train) as the Figure and wa:di barda (the Barda valley) as the Ground:

134 9abara –l - qiTa:ru wa:di barda1 crossed the train

valley Barda

(The train crossed the Barda valley.)

Compared to Figure and Ground, the linguistic devices for encoding Move, Path, and Manner of motion are more complex. There is no simple one-to-one relationship between the three conceptual elements of motion and the surface linguistic forms expressing them. One conceptual element may be combined with another element to be realized as a single surface form but it is also possible for the same element to be

164

realized as more than one type of surface forms. Conversely, different types of the elements may be rendered by the same surface form (cf. Talmy 2000b: 21).

However, while there is no one-to-one relationship for representing Move, Path, and Manner, languages do not express these elements randomly. In fact, cross-linguistic investigations show that languages follow certain shared principles and manifest interesting typological differences in encoding the three motion elements in surface structure (Talmy 1985, 1991, Aske 1989, Choi and Bowerman 1991, Slobin 1996, Narasimhan 2003, etc). The purpose of the following lines is to show how much Arabic conforms to or diverges from the general typology of encoding motion set by Talmy.

Talmy has proposed a typology of encoding motion elements under the rubric “Lexicalization Patterns” (1985,2000b chapter 1). In Talmy's work, the term “lexicalization patterns” refers to the way in which conceptualized elements of a situation are packaged in lexical forms or grammatical constructions. With regard to motion elements, Talmy suggests that languages differ in the ways they map the Path onto a lexical or syntactic structure which was not acknowledged previously by others. Specifically, the world's languages fall into two groupings in this respect. One group characteristically maps the Path of motion onto the verb of the sentence. Simultaneously, the Move element also conflates with Path in the verb. Talmy terms this type of language a “verb-framed language”. The verb-framed languages include the Romance languages, Polynesian, Bantu, and Japanese. One of the specific objectives of this research is to decide whether Arabic is a verb-framed or a satellite-framed language and this will soon be clear. 165

Unlike verb-framed languages, "satellite-framed languages" characteristically map the Path component onto a "satellite"2 constituent such as a verb particle, prefix, or verb complement in a motion sentence, with Manner or Cause conflated in the main verb. These languages include Chinese, English, most other Indo-European languages, and Finno-Ugric (Talmy 1985, 1991). If we use MV to stand for the “main verb”, and Sat for “satellite”, then the two types of conflations can be represented as in 135 below:

135 a. Satellite· framed lexicalization: MV (Manner/Cause + Move) + Sat (path) b. Verb-framed lexicalization: MV (path + Move) ( + adjunct Manner/Cause expression)

The subsequent figure clarifies this comparison:

166

Manner/Cause MV Move

Satellite-framed Sat Lexicalization

Path

Move MV Path

Verb-framed Adjuct

Manner/cause

Figure 4-15: Two types of lexicalization for the Motion Components

Compare the following pair of sentences in English and Spanish in 136 below:

136 a. The bottle floated into the cave.

(English)

b. La botella entro flotando a la cueva. (Spanish) (The bottle entered (MOVED-in) to the cave floating.) (taken from Talmy 1991:488).

The pair of sentences in the preceding example express the same semantic content “the bottle moved into the cave during which time it floated” with 136a in English and 136b in Spanish. Obviously, the English version expresses the Path with the preposition into, while this component is conflated with the Move component in the verb entró in the Spanish sentence. On the other hand, in the English sentence, the Manner, floating, is 167

incorporated into the verb with the Move component, while in Spanish, it must be expressed separately in a gerundive form. Since Spanish maps Path onto the main verb and also conflates Path with Move, it is categorized as a verb-framed language. In contrast, Path in English is mapped onto the particle/preposition into as a kind of “satellite” to the verb. Thus English is a satellite-framed language.3

Arabic, on the other hand, expresses similar semantic content of the sentences above but with a slight difference as the following sentences will demonstrate:

137 bada?at juθaθu –l –Hayawana:ti-l-mayyitah taTfu: wasaTa started bodies-of the-animals

the-dead

-l-?amwa:j4

float middle-of the-waves

(The bodies of dead animals started to float in the middle of the waves.)

The Figure in the preceding example is juθaθu–l –Hayawana:ti-l-mayyitah (the bodies of dead animals) while the Ground is wasaTa-l-?amwa:j (the middle of the waves). Besides

motion, the verb taTfu (float) in Arabic expresses a vertical direction of motion upwards. Surveying the data proves that the verb taTfu (float), though it seems to be describing the manner of motion, belongs to the class of inherently directed motion verbs. Therefore, it is not followed by a satellite showing the Path. Instead, the Ground is a static location. We turn now to other motion verbs in Arabic which are tadaHraja (rolled) and qafaza (jumped) in 138 and 139 below:

168

138 tadaHraja –l-qati:la:n xa:rija xazza:n –l-?amti9ah fi –T-Ta: ?irah5 rolled

the-dead

outside tank-of the-luggage in the-plane

(The two bodies rolled out of the tank luggage in the plane.)

The bodies of l-qati:la:n in sentence 138 moved out of xazza:n –l-?amti9ah (tank luggage) during which time they rolled. The Manner component is conflated with the Move component in the verb. Path, on the other hand, is obviously expressed by using the adverb xa:rija (outside). So here, Path is expressed separately as a satellite just like English. The same is also true of the next sentence in 139:

139 qafaza 9ilwa:n

?ila: da:xil

jismi-l –na:wu:s6

Jumped Alwaan to inside-of body-of-the-sarcophagus (Elwaan jumped into the body of the sarcophagus.)

The Figure is 139 above is 9ilwa:n (Elwaan) who moved ?ila: da:xil (into) jismi-l –na:wu:s (the body of the sarcophagus) during which time he jumped. The Manner component is

conflated with the Move component in the verb qafaza (jumped). Path is expressed by using the adverb ?ila: da:xil (into). So, Path is expressed separately as a satellite. Comparing these two sentences with 136 above and many similar ones in the data shows that Arabic has the two patterns of expressing motion: the pattern found in English in 136a above and the pattern found in Spanish in 136b. Further investigation will follow in the next section. Applied to all languages, including Arabic, the grammatical mapping of Move, Path, and Manner demonstrates a more complicated situation than the rendering of Figure and

169

Ground. On the one hand, encoding Move, Path, and Manner usually involves semantic conflation. Talmy examined conflations of Path and Move or Manner and Move in a single verb. Further investigation on Arabic may reveal other conflation patterns. On the other hand, one element can be encoded differently by different linguistic forms. For instance, Path can be rendered by the main verb, as in the Spanish sentence 137b; it can also be expressed with a particle/preposition, as in the English sentence 137a. Manner can be conveyed either by the main verb, as in 137a, or by a gerund, as in 137b. With this understanding in mind, we will investigate the details of the expression in Arabic of Move, Path, and Manner in the next section.

4.1.2 The Parallel System of Lexicalization in Arabic

Verb-framed lexicalization is indeed a typical pattern for rendering motion elements in Arabic. Below are some examples of Path lexicalization in Arabic to support this statement. It is natural in Arabic to conflate Move with Path and express them in the main verb of a motion sentence as in the following examples:

140 Sa9ada

9a:milun zira:9iyy

ascended worker agricultural

li-?a9la: ?iHda:-Š-Šujayra:t 7 to-top

one-of the-bushes

(An agricultural worker ascended to the top of one of the bushes.)

The preceding sentence contains the motion verb Sa9ada (move up) which does not only convey the meaning of Move, but also the Path of the motion. Its semantic content indicates that motion proceeds from a lower place to a higher place. The following sentence presents a different verb: 170

141 daxala entered

?aHadu-l-mudarrisi:na ?ila-S-Saff 8 one-of the-teachers

to the-classroom

(One of the teachers entered the classroom.)

The motion verb in the above sentence, daxala (went into), is a gain a Path verb that expresses both the fact of motion together with the Path. Its semantic content indicates that motion proceeds from outside to inside of an enclosure. The presence of the satellite (directional complement) ?ila (into) in the surface form of this sentence or in the earlier sentence li-(to) is totally optional and can undergo a Locative Preposition Drop Alternation without changing the meaning of the verb or the sentence9.

The verbs in the above examples manifest characteristics of "verb-framed languages" in which the main verb of the sentence encodes both Move and Path of the motion. They suggest that Talmy's typological study presents an accurate pattern for Arabic which conforms to the standards of a "verb-framed language". There are other grammatical realizations of the motion element, Path, in surface forms that do not correspond to the above classification. The following sentences have the involved verbs underlined:

142 ?i9Sa:r fabya:n yataHarraku naHwa-Š-Šama:li –Š-Šarqiyy min birmu:da 10 hurricane Fabian is-moving

towards the-north

the-east

of Bermuda

(Hurricane Fabian is moving towards the northeast of Bermuda.)

171

The main verb in sentence 142 is yataHarraku (is moving) which expresses Move alone without any indication of Path. The Path of motion is rendered by the directional complement of the verb naHwa-Š-Šama:li –Š-Šarqiyy min birmu:da (towards the northeast of Bermuda). A similar case is found in 143 below:

143 sa:fara

?as-sa:da:t yawmi-l-?arbi9a:?

traveled Assadat

day-the-Wednesday

?ila: Su:rya: 11 to

Syria

(Assadat travelled on Wednesday to Syria.)

The main verb in this sentence is sa:fara (traveled) which again conveys Move alone without any indication of Path. The Path is expressed by the directional complement of the verb ?ila: Su:rya: (to Syria).

The above sentences demonstrate that the Path component of motion can have a different lexicalization pattern that is represented in the few underlined verbs sa:fara (traveled) and yataHarraku (is moving) in 142 and 143 respectively. In this case, the Path

is not conflated in the verb itself. Instead, it is rather conveyed in a verb complement that is syntactically dependent on the head verb and appears after the verb. Such verb complement is usually directional in nature, i.e., it expresses the Path properties of motion. It is viewed as a satellite to the main verb in motion expressions. Therefore, Arabic can be said to be a satellite-framed language.

In addition to "satellite Path" representation, the lexicalization of Move, Manner and

172

Cause in Arabic also has this two-way linguistic representation, i.e., through verb conflation or PP lexicalization (Talmy 2000b: 49).

The main verbs in both 144-45 below express Move conflated with Manner of Motion. The involved verbs are underlined:

144 tasallaqa climbed

Hasan ?ila: ?a9la: mabna: Hassan to

majlisi- n-nu:wa:b 12

top building-of House-of the-Representatives

(Hassan climbed to the top of the House of Representatives.)

The preceding sentence contains the motion verb tasallaqa (climbed) which denotes both the fact of motion or Move plus another meaning component; namely: Manner. The movement to the top of the House of Representatives is performed through climbing. So the verb expresses movement plus how this movement is executed. No indication of the Path of that Motion is given in the verb. Instead, the Path is convey in the satellite to the verb which is ?ila: ?a9la: mabna: majlisi- n-nu:wa:b (to the top of the House of Representatives). The same applies to the verb yarkuD (to run) in the following sentence:

145 ja9ala rafter yarkuD fi: -l-masa:fa:ti-l-fa:riGati- min –l-mal9ab 13 made Rafter to-run

in the-spaces the-empty

of the-field

(Rafter started to run in the empty spaces of the field.)

The verb yarkuD (to run) in 145, above, also conflates the fact of motion, Move, together with the Manner of that motion. The Path is realized in the surface structure of the

173

sentence as the prepositional phrase fi: -l-masa:fa:ti-l-fa:riGati- min –l-mal9ab (in the empty spaces of the field).

However, the main verbs in the following sentences can best be viewed as expressing the Cause of motion conflated with the fact of motion:

146 taTa:yara ri:Šu-

l-9aSa:fi:ri- l-l:bidati taHta maðall:ati- n-nawa:fið14

flew off feathers-of the-birds

the-lurking under shutters-of the-windows

(The feathers of the birds, lurking under window awnings, flew off.)

The verb taTa:yara (flew off) in the preceding sentence conveys the meaning of Move plus the Cause of motion which is air in this case. The event expressed by the verb is conceived as resulting from another event which may be initiated by an agent or not, and such agent may be intentional or not (Talmy 2000b: 158). The agent or the Cause of movement in the previous example is the air which is an unintentional agent. The Path component, on the other hand, is realized as a satellite. The subsequent sentence presents a slightly different case:

147 yatana:θaru-T-TaHi:nu min θiya:b-i: scatters

the-flour

kullama ?ihtazza jasad-i:15

from clothes-my whenever shook body-my

(The flour scatters from my clothes whenever my body shakes.)

The verb yatana:θaru (scatters) in sentence 147 conveys the meaning of Move plus the Cause of motion which is mentioned in the second clause kullama ?ihtazza jasad-i

174

(whenever my body shakes). The event expressed by the verb is conceived as resulting

from another event which is initiated by an intentional agent. The Path is realized as a satellite. The above discussion shows that Arabic utilizes both the satellite-framed and verbframed lexicalization patterns in encoding Path and other components of motion. Thus, Arabic exhibits “a parallel system of conflation” in encoding Path and the other motion elements.16 An interesting question comes to mind here, "If both satellite-framed and verb-framed patterns are available in Arabic, then, what are the similarities and differences between the two types of motion representations in the language?" As a general comparison, consider the examples below:

148 a. zaHafa ?aT-Tiflu 9ala: ?arDicrawled the-baby on

l-bayti- t-tura:biyy17

ground-of the-house the-earthy

(The baby crawled on the earthy ground of the house.)

b. dana:

min-hum

?aŠ-Ša:bu-l-?aŠqar

musa:9idu-Š-Šayx

za:Hifan18

approach from-them the-young the-blonde assistant-of the-Sheik crawling (The Sheik's young blonde assistant approached them crawling.)

In the above example, the two sentences 148a and 148b can be understood as expressing the same motion event in the real world. The first sentence, 148a, utilizes the satellite-framed pattern while the second, l48b, uses the verb-framed pattern. The two ways of lexicalization are not equally expressive or applicable in representing motion events, even though both of the satellite-framed and the verb-framed patterns are

175

frequently used in Arabic. For instance, the specific meanings conveyed by the two types of lexicalization to represent the same motion event; namely: zaHafa (crawled) and dana: za:Hifan (approached crawling) are not exact synonyms. With the satellite-framed

pattern in the verb zaHafa (crawled), the Manner of the motion is profiled in conception, i.e. how the movement is performed. Thus, if the Manner of the motion is of concern to the speaker as in describing the movement of a baby, then the satellite-framed pattern is the appropriate choice.

In contrast, the Manner of the motion is unspecified in the verb-framed expression in Arabic. Thus, if the Manner is not a dimension within the speaker's focus of attention, the verb-framed pattern is more appropriate. Compare the underlined verbs in 149a, b, and c with those in 150a and b below:

149 a. ?aT-Tiflu ðahaba ma9a ?ixwat-ihi the-child went

?ila: maT9amin muja:wir19

with brothers-his to

restaurant near-by

(The child went with his brothers to a near-by restaurant.)

b. ðahaba Ha:zimu musri9an ?ila: Gurfati- n-nawm 20 went

Hazim

quickly

to

room-of the-sleep

(Hazim went to the bedroom quickly.)

c. huri9a ?a:la:fu

-l-muslimi:na –l-Ga:Dibi:n ?ila:-l-masjid 21

rushed thousands-of the-Muslims

the-angry

to the-mosque

(Thousands of angry Muslims rushed to the mosque.)

176

The motion event expressed in 149a,b, and c is one that has already taken place. In 149a and b, it is the Path that is conflated with Move in the verb ðahaba (went). 149b has the added semantic information about the motion scene, namely; the Manner which is conveyed explicitly in the adverbial phrase musri9an (quickly). The Manner of motion is more prominently involved and conveyed within the speaker's attention in 149c using the verb huri9a (rushed). There is no way to tell which one is more appropriate to use; but the context is the best judge for such a choice. The satellite-framed pattern in 149c highlights the Manner of the motion.

In contrast, the verb-framed form in 149a and b is underspecified with relation to Manner. It serves as a general reference to the scene. The focus is not on the Manner but on the fact-of-motion or the Move element and on the Path component, i.e., in the direction away from the speaker, which is conflated with Move in the verb root. Therefore, the exact meaning of the verb ðahaba (went) is to move in the direction away from the speaker. The difference between 149b and 149c, above, is not quite distinct. Both sentences convey Manner but in two different ways. The sentence in 149b refers to Manner by explicitly using the adverbial phrase musri9an (quickly) at the sentence final position. On the other hand, the instance in 149c conflates Manner with Move in the verb at the sentence initial position using the verb huri9a (rushed).

A similar situation to the one mentioned above occurs in the following instances of 150a and b:

177

150 a. ðahaba ?ila: -l-jabal22 went-he to

the-mountain

(He went to the mountain.)

b. rakaDa ?ila: -l-jabal 23 ran-he

to

the-mountain

(He ran to the mountain.)

The motion suggested in 150a is not specified in relation to Manner. In other words, the Manner of motion is less certain in the speaker's mind. More importantly, the focus of the expression is on the Path of motion rather than the exact Manner of motion. Therefore, it is more appropriate in 150a to omit Manner on linguistic surface with the verb-framed pattern while 150b conflates it in the verb of motion. Example 150b demonstrates the case when Manner of motion is the focus of expression and so it is more marked than 150a. Beyond this difference, the two examples express the same content on the whole.

4. 2 Path as the Defining Property of Motion

The central and defining property of motion events, as Langacker asserts, is the Move element (1987: 170). If the fact of motion is expressed linguistically, for example, with the verb yaqfizu (jump) as in the examples of 151a and b below, then, 178

the event conveyed is a motion event, and the corresponding clause is a motion expression. Thus in 151,

151 a. huwa yaqfizu fawqa sari:ri -l-ja:ri He

-l-wadi:924

jumping on bed-of the-neighbor the-nice

(He was jumping on the nice neighbor's bed.)

b. (ða:lika-T-Ta:?ir) la: yanfakku yaqfizu min kuwwaatin fi: jida:r ?ila: ?uxra:25 that

the-bird

not stop jumping from an-aperture in a-wall to another

(That bird does not stop jumping from one aperture in the wall to another.)

The occurrence of a motion verb like yaqfizu (jump) in both 151a and l51b means that both sentences express motion events. However, this view of motion expression is somewhat incomplete. Although 151a and 151b are both associated with an actual motion in the physical world indicated by the motion verb yaqfizu (jump), only 151b involves translation or the physical change of location.

To understand why this is so, we need to consider the nature of motion events as language expresses them. Languages do not treat clauses expressing movement in a similar way. The presence of the fact of motion or the Move element is not enough to conclude that a particular clause involves translocation. The distinctive property is the "change of location" of the Figure with respect to a reference Ground. Thus, only when the change of location, i.e., the Path of the motion, is profiled and overtly represented, that an event is construed and realized in language as a typical motion event. Otherwise,

179

it is conceptualized as a different type of event and not as a motion event, despite the assertion of movement. The profiled assertion of a Path is necessary for a movement situation to be expressed as a motion event.

To clarify the points presented above, let us examine the situations involved in 151. As mentioned earlier, both 151a and 151b contain the motion verb yaqfizu (jump), and thus both are linguistic realizations of motion in the physical world. But, the two sentences reveal significant differences in event conceptualization and linguistic representation. In 151a, although the motion verb yaqfizu (jump) is overtly mentioned, the sentence expresses no change of location for the Figure. The sentence actually expresses an action that is equal to the following meaning "somebody does something at some place", but not "some entity moves through space." The adverb fawqa sari:ri-l-ja:ri-lwadi:9 (on the nice neighbor's bed) does not profile any portion on the Path that the Figure

passes through, but simply presents a setting or location in which the action yaqfizu (jump) takes place. Thus, the conceptualization and the linguistic expression associated

with it underlying 151a is not the expression of translational motion. Compare 151a and 152 below:

151 a. huwa yaqfizu fawqa sari:ri -l-ja:ri He

-l-wadi:9

jumping on bed-of the-neighbor the-nice

(He was jumping on the nice neighbor's bed.)

152 ka:na Tiflu-n SaGi:r yan:mu fawqa –s-sari:ri -l-kabi:r26 was a-baby small sleeping on

the-bed

180

the-big

(A small baby was sleeping on the big bed.)

Sentence 152 has the same syntactic structure with the same Adverb Phrase and the same Ground element as sentence 151a. The main verb in 152 is the non-motion verb yan:mu (sleep) but, in 151a, the verb yaqfizu (jump) is a motion verb. Yet, neither sentence

incorporates the kind of directional information conveyed in sentence 151b above. The sentences in 151a and 152 quoted above are equal in representing two general-type events. Both have the "constructional meaning" 27 of "someone doing something at some place", rather than "someone changes location through space." No translation of the Figure is understood to take place with the motion verb yaqfizu (jump) in 151a.

However, in 151b, as indicated by the Path complement min kuwwaatin fi: jida:r ?ila: ?uxra (from one aperture in the wall to another), the speaker conceptualized and conveyed the

starting point and the end point of the Figure's change of location. Thus, the sentence clearly expresses a translation through space for the Figure by adding the Path information, i.e., the Prepositional Phrase. Therefore, 151b is a typical representation of a motion event. Thus, although a particular situation may seem to be a translational motion event in the real world, we may not process it as such, and language may not express it as translational motion.

We are able to conceive and portray the same "objective" situation in alternate ways. A physical motion in the real world can be conceptualized and rendered either analytically or holistically28. In an analytic conceptualization, the speaker focuses attention on the internal structure of the Path of the motion. The motion process is depicted by highlighting certain part(s) of the Path of motion, a sequential scan of such 181

elements as departure, traversal, and arrival. Through analytic conceptualization, the Path of the Figure's Move is profiled, and the linguistic representation realized as a motion event expression (Chu 2004: 141) .

In contrast, in holistic conceptualization, the speaker takes an overall view of the motion situation, ignoring the route details of the Path. Even though the motion may involve a change of location of the Figure in the real world, the details of the change of location is left unspecified in the speaker's conceptualization; The motion is only conceived as an action in general. As a result, the event is not expressed linguistically as a motion event but instead may be expressed using structural patterns appropriate for rendering general types of events (Chu 2004: 141) .

Moreover, there is substantial evidence to prove that Path is more central than Move in motion conceptualization in Arabic. This evidence comes from sentences like 153a and b below. In such instances the Move element is not overtly asserted by the main verb of the sentence, yet the sentence still expresses a motion event because a Path is clearly highlighted:

153 a. ka:nat tataHaddaθu ma9a-hu Tawa:la

-r-riHlati min baGda:d ?ila: ru:ma 29

was she-talking with-him throughout the-trip from Bagdad to Rome (She was talking to him throughout the trip from Baghdad to Rome.)

b. baqiya

wa:qifan Tawa:la-

r-riHlati30

remained standing throughout the-journey

182

(He remained standing throughout the journey.)

The sentences in 153a-b use satellites- the PPs Tawa:la-r-riHlati (throughout the journey) and Tawa:la-r-riHlati min baGda:d ?ila: ru:ma (the trip from Baghdad to Rome) - to express the

presence of motion. The first can be understood as “She travelled from Baghdad to Rome and she was talking to him in the meanwhile”. Clearly, the main verb tataHaddaθu (talking) is not a motion verb and therefore does not indicate motion through space.

Although the Move element is not conveyed by the verb, the sentence still represents translational motion of the Figure (She) from (Baghdad) to (Rome). To achieve this understanding, we clearly rely on the Path expression indicated by two consecutive PPs min baGda:d ?ila: ru:ma. Thus, so long as the Path element is represented in the clause,

the sentence is understood as a motion expression even though the Move element is not made explicit31.

The same is true of 153b above which expresses motion in the sense that "He moved to a place and remained silent all the way to that place". The main verb, baqiya (remained), is a verb that designates a state but not motion through space. Again, the

Move element is not conveyed by the verb. Yet, the sentence conveys translational motion of the Figure (He) from one place to another. That leads us to the conclusion that in motion conceptualization, the profiling of Path is more fundamental than the fact of motion.

To sum up the preceding discussion, it is found that a sentence may express motion without containing a motion verb. This is not necessarily related to the physical nature of 183

the event, but is instead determined by how the speaker construes the event. As regards physical motion, only when its internal structure is analytically conceptualized and the Path, i.e., change of location, clearly profiled, can the event be expressed as a motion event. In contrast, if the physical motion is holistically conceptualized and its internal Path structure is disregarded, the event will be represented as a general action rather than translational motion. The Move meaning of a motion event in Arabic need not be expressed by motion verbs. We saw that whether or not the main verb of a sentence is a motion verb, the sentence may express motion if the Path of the motion is specified. Path rather than the fact of motion per se is the central defining property for motion event expressions.

4.3 Path as the Representation of a Conceptual Complex

Path in Talmy's framework is understood to be the route followed by the Figure object in a motion event with respect to the Ground(see chapter 2). This general understanding forms the basis for practical application to examine the conceptual and the linguistic details of Path, especially those conceptual elements which contribute to communicating the route through space in a motion event.

Talmy defines Path as a complex involving three main components: Vector, Conformation, and Deictic (2000b: 53-56). The Vector refers to the direction of motion of the Figure with respect to the Ground, which can be a source (e.g., move from), a milestone (e.g., move along, via) or a goal (e.g., move to, towards). The Conformation is 184

related to the geometry of Grounds, which can be conceptualized as containers (e.g., move into, out of), surfaces (e.g., on), or points (e.g., past) The Deictic component has only the two member notions toward the speaker and in direction other than toward the speaker.

Thus, the framework which the researcher follows for characterizing the linguistic representation of the Path complex in Arabic is composed of these three basic components: Vector, Conformation, and Deictic. In this section, each of these components will be discussed and exemplified32.

Path

Vector

Conformation

Deictic


4.3.1 Vector

The term “Vector” refers to the dynamic phase of the Figure's movement with 185

reference to the Ground on the path of the motion. The following diagram represents the three phases of motion; the beginning or source of motion, the end point or goal of motion and the middle point of motion:

Departure

Arrival

Traversal

Figure 4-17: Parts of Vector

Obviously, Vector itself is also a conceptual complex. Talmy recognizes three basic Vector components: Arrival, Departure and Traversal (2000b: 53). Arrival and Departure are the most salient Vector parts in cognition and in linguistic representation as well. The Departure Vector signifies the initial stage of motion. The Arrival component refers to the ending stage of motion33.

Besides Arrival and Departure, the third Vector element which is less salient but still

186

regularly represented in language is Traversal. Traversal indicates that stage of motion between the initial and the ending stages. The next examples show the different parts of the Vector:

154 ya9u:du wolfwitz

?ila: wa:ŠunTun min ?anqarah34

returns Wolfowitz to Washington from Ankara (Wolfowitz returns to Washington from Ankara.)

The above sentence contains two expressions of Path. The first is ?ila: wa:ŠunTun (to Washington) which denotes the ending stage of motion or Arrival while the second, min ?anqarah (from Ankara), indicates the initial stage of motion or Departure. Such

combinations of the Vector elements in one sentence are almost regular. Yet, many instances contain only one of the Vector elements. The next sentence shows yet another combination of the Vector elements:

155 ?al-baHHa:ru-l-?iGri:qiyy sa:fara muba:Šaratan 9abra –l-muHi:Ti the-sailor

the-Greek

travelled directly

across the-ocean

?ila: -l-hind35 to

the-India

(The Greek sailor travelled across the ocean to India.)

There are two expressions of Path in the previous example. The first one is 9abra –lmuHi:Ti (across the ocean) and refers to the stage of motion between the initial and the

ending stages or Traversal. The second expression is ?ila:-l-hind (to India), indicates the 187

final stage of motion or Arrival. However, the above examples show that human beings do not conceptualize each and every detail of the reality, only the most prominent configurations of Vector are captured and represented in human conceptualization. Therefore, language realizes and encodes only those salient configurations as linguistic forms. These prominent configurations might be solely the Arrival, the Departure, or the Traversal. Yet, different combinations of these elements might surface as prominent configurations in any given situation of motion depending on its degree of importance to the event of motion or the attention of the conceptualizer.

Following Talmy's tradition, upper case letters are used to stand for Vector components (2000b: 53-56). Hence, the notations TO, FROM, and PASS will stand for the three abstract Vector components of Arrival, Departure, and Transversal respectively. The following abbreviations will also be used to facilitate formulaic representations; F for Figure, G for Ground, and MOVE for the Move element. We can now characterize the outline of the individual Vector components as follows:

156 a. Arrival: (F MOVE) TO (G)

b. Departure: (F MOVE) FROM (G) c. Transversal: (F MOVE) PASS (G)

The subsequent table illustrates various examples corresponding to the three formulas

188

presented above: Table 4-13: The Profiling of Individual Vector Components

Vector Components

Examples 157 yatasallalu ?ab-i: sneak

Arrival

xifyatan

?ila – l- Gurfati -

father-my surreptitiously to

the-room

s-sufliyati-l-mahju:ra36 the-lower the-abandoned (My father sneaks surreptitiously into the abandoned room downstairs.) 158 ?al-?ami:ru faySal ya9u:du min finlanda37

Departure

the-prince Faisal come back from Finland (Prince Faisal comes back from Finland.) 159 kullu ŠaxSin yamurru 9abra ha:ðihi –n-nuqTati-l-

Traversal

every person pass

through this

the-point the-

Hudu:diyya38 border (Every person passes through this border point.)

The underlined parts of the preceding examples represent the Path of motion. In 157, the phrase ?ila–l-Gurfati - s-sufliyati-l-mahju:ra (into the abandoned room downstairs) expresses the final stage of motion; i.e., the Arrival point. The initial stage of motion or the Departure vector of Path, on the other hand, is expressed by the phrase min finlanda

189

(from Finland) in 158. The last sentence, however, communicates the Traversal part of

Path, that is, the part of Path that extends between the initial and final stages of motion.

As was said before, two or all of three basic Vector components can co-occur in the same sentence depending on the functional requirements of actual communication. Consequently, the following Vector combinations can probably be found:

160 a. Departure + Arrival: (F MOVE) FROM (G1) TO (G2) b. Transversal + Departure: (F MOVE) PASS (G1) FROM (G2) c. Transversal + Arrival: (F MOVE) PASS (G1) TO (G2) d. Departure + Arrival + Traversal (F MOVE) FROM (G1) TO (G2) PASS (G3)39

These possible combinations are exemplified in the following table:

190

Table 4-14: The Different Combinations of Vector Components Vector Combinations

Examples 161 ka:na ya-taHarraku min maskani-hi was

Departure+ Arrival

he-moving

fi: 9a:layh

from residence-his in Aley

?ila: ?ama:kina muxtalifa 40 to

places

different

(He was moving from his home in Aley to different places.) 162 daxala 9abra -l-Huddu:d ?akθaru min 250 muwa:Tinan entered across the-borders

Traversal+Departure

more than 250 citizen

Su:riyyan min HimS wa Halab 41 Syrian

from Homs and Aleppo

(More than 250 Syrian citizen have entered across the

Traversal + Arrival

borders from Homs and Aleppo.) 163 (kammiya mina-n-nafT) tunqalu 9abra ?unbu:bin (amount of -the-oil) is-transferred through a-pipeline ?ila: jazi:rati Ha:lu:l 42 to

island-of Halul

(An amount of oil is transported through a pipeline to the island of Halul.) 164 13 safi:natu Sawa:ri:xin ?amirikiyya taHarrakat mina -l13 ship-of

Departure + Arrival + Traversal

missiles

American

moved

from the

baHri-l-mutawassiT ?ila:- l-baHri-l-?aHmar 9abra sea -the-Mediterranean to the-sea –the-red qana:ti- s-suways43 canal-of the-Suez

191

across

(13 American missile cruisers have moved from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea across the Suez Canal.)

The underlined phrases represent the Path of motion. In each of the sentences above the Path consists of a combination of two Vector elements. The sentence in 161 demonstrates the Departure Vector represented by the phrase min maskani-hi fi: 9a:layh (from his home in Aley) and the Arrival Vector corresponding to the phrase ?ila: ?ama:kina muxtalifa (to different places). Example 162, on the other hand, contains two expressions

of Path. The first is 9abra -l-Huddu:d (across the borders) which shows Traversal; the second is min HimS wa Halab (from Homs and Aleppo) which conveys the meaning of Departure. It is important to note here that this order of Traversal first followed by Departure is specific to Arabic since the order in English is Departure then Traversal.

The third combination is exemplified by sentence 163 which conveys two Vector components: Traversal, represented by 9abra ?unbu:bin (athrough a pipeline), and Arrival, represented by ?ila: jazi:rati Ha:lu:l (to the island of Halul). The last combination is attested by sentence 164 in which there are three expressions of Path. The first is mina -l- baHri-lmutawassiT (from the Mediterranean Sea) which expresses Departure. The second is ?ila:- lbaHri-l-?aHmar (to the Red Sea) which communicates Arrival and finally the phrase 9abra qana:ti- s-suways (across the Suez Canal) communicates Traversal. It should also be note

here that this order of components of Vector is different from the one found in English in which Departure is followed by Traversal then Arrival.

192

In our daily experience, Departure, Traversal, and Arrival are the three most central phases of a translational motion. For this reason, these Vector categories may be universal which means that every language would have specific grammatical forms equivalent to each of the three categories.44

From what has gone so far, it is clear that the Vector of Path with its various components and combinations is regularly realized in Arabic. The above examples also show that the satellite-framed lexicalization is a principal way to express Path in Arabic.

4.3.2 Conformation

The Conformation component of Path denotes the geometric relationship between the Figure and the Ground on the path of motion. At any given point on the Path of motion, the Figure establishes a specific locational relationship with the relevant Ground. If attention is directed towards this locational relationship, then it becomes part of conceptualization and representation of motion.

As with Vector and other cognitive categories, the construal and linguistic realization of Conformation is also based on experience and communicative needs of the speakers. Human cognition conceptualizes certain Conformation types which are salient in experience, but ignores many others which are not significant. Based on Talmy's framework and his views on this regard (2000b: 55), Chu summarizes some fundamental 193

Conformation categories regularly construed in language (152):

165 a. Inside/Outside Conformation: F is TO the INSIDE/OUTSIDE of G b. Surface Conformation: F is on the SURF ACE of G c. Beside Conformation: F is BESIDE G d. Above/Beneath Conformation: F is ABOVE/BENEATH G

The table below contains examples that characterize the Conformation of Inside and Outside in Arabic:

Table 4-15: The Conformation of Inside and Outside in Arabic Ground

The Inside

The Outside

Schema

Conformation

Conformation

166 qaðafa-t binafsiha ?ila:- T-

Volume

threw-she herself to the-

167

xaraja-l-qiTa:ru

9ani-l-

quDba:n46

Tari:q45

went the- train

road

(The train went off the rail

(She threw herself onto

out-of the-rails

road. =has derailed)

An Enclosure

the road.) 168 tasallala maHmu:du ?ila: sneaked Mahmood da:xili-

169 tawajja-ha: ?ila: xa:rij

to

?al-

headed-they to outside-of the-

Š-Šuqqa47

mir?a:b48

inside-of the-apartment

garage

194

(Mahmood sneaked into

(They went out of the garage.)

The apartment.)

The above table makes two distinctions. One is between Inside and Outside Conformation relations and the other distinction involves the Ground itself which can either be a Volume or an Enclosure. The linguistic forms used to describe motion Inside/Outside a Ground that has the shape of a Volume are different from those used to describe the same motion to a Ground that forms an Enclosure. For example, the form in sentence 166 that conveys Path is ?ila:T-Tari:q (onto the road) while it is ?ila: da:xili- Š-Šuqqa (into the apartment) in sentence

168.

The same is true of sentences 167 and 169. The form used in 167 is 9ani-lquDba:n (off the railroad) while it is ?ila: xa:rij ?al-mir?a:b (out of the garage) in 169. This

difference in the preposition use is due to the difference in the Ground schema in each sentence.

The other Conformation categories presented previously in 165 are illustrated with examples in the following table:

195

Table 4-16: The Conformation categories of ON, BESIDE and ABOVE

Conformation Categories

Examples

170 yaðallu yamŠi: 9ala: kurni:Ši- l-ma9a:di:49

ON

remain walking on cornice-of El Maadi (He continues walking on the cornice in Maadi.) 171 junu:dun hunu:d yamurru:n bija:nibi -S-Sawa:ri:ji-l-

BESIDE

soldiers Indian are-passing beside

the-missiles the-

hindiyya50 Indian (Indian soldiers are passing beside the Indian missiles.)

ABOVE/ BENEATH

172 yarmi:

bi: min ?a9la:-

s-sullam 51

throws-he me from above-of the-stairs (He knocks me from above the stairs.)

The sentences in the preceding table demonstrate the use of the Conformation component of Path. This component of Path is underlined in the above examples. In sentence 170, the preposition 9ala: (on) is used to express the sense of surface contact Conformation. Sentence 171, on the other hand, utilizes the

196

expression bija:nib (beside) to convey the sense of adjacency while sentence 172 uses the form ?a9la: (above) to suggest the sense of height but not touching. It is worth noting here that when the Conformation component of Path is expressed in the sentence, the Vector is not.

On a different level, combining the Conformation property of a motion with the Traversal Vector results in at least four types of Traversal subcategories that are realized in Arabic with different forms. Using the prepositions past, across, through, over, Chu identifies these subcategories for English and Chinese as shown below (2004: 153):

173. a. Traversal + Beside: past b. Traversal + Surface: across c. Traversal + Inside: through d. Traversal + Above: over

Arabic distinguishes these subcategorization and often uses different ways to represent Traversal situations along with different types of Conformation. The different ways for expressing the preceding meanings in Arabic are illustrated in the following table:

197

Table 4-17: The Lexicalization of Past

Examples

Lexicalization Type

Traversal + BESIDE ( Past)

passed-we by-a-castle old

Pattern

Verb-framed

174 marar-na: bi-qal9atin qadi:ma ?uqi:mat fawqa on

tallin murtafi9 52 a-hill high (We passed by an old castle built on a high hill.) 175 ka:n-u:

yanqulu:na-l-muha:jiri:n

bi-l9abba:ra

were-they transferring the-immigrants by-ferry

Pattern

Satellite- framed

built

?ila: bri:Ta:nya muru:ran bi-balji:ka53 to

Britain

passing by-Belguim

(They were transporting migrants by ferry to Britain via Belgium.)

The previous table shows that this combination of the Traversal Vector plus the Conformation component (Beside) is existent in Arabic. Moreover, there are two possible ways for the expression of this Path in Arabic. One is the verb-framed pattern

198

illustrated by the sentence 174 in which the verb marar-na: (passed) lexicalizes both the fact of motion along with Path. In this case, two components of Path are conflated in the verb: Vector and Conformation. Literally, the verb means that in a medial stage of our motion we came near to an old hill. Example 175, on the other hand, conveys the same meanings using the satellite-framed pattern. The verb yanqulu:na (transport) is a motion verb that expresses the fact of motion alone. The Path is conveyed using the adverb muru:ran (while passing by) which suggests both Vector (Traversal) and Conformation

(Beside).

The second combination of Vector + Conformation is also present in Arabic and can be pointed up in the next table:

Table 4-18: The Lexicalization of Across

Lexicalization Type

Examples Traversal + SURFACE(Across)

Pattern

Verb-framed

176 ka:na-l-qiTa:ru ya9buru nahra

lufu:lu:54

was the-train crossin g river-of Luvua (The train was crossing the Luvua river.)

they come

Pattern

Satellite- framed

177 hum yafidu:na mina- l-jaza:?ir 9abrafrom Algeria

across

S-SaHra:?55 the-desert (They come from Algeria across the desert.)

199

The two sentences in the previous table represent two possible ways for the expression of the Traversal Vector plus the Conformation Inside in Arabic. One way is the verbframed pattern illustrated by the sentence 176 in which the verb ya9buru (is crossing) lexicalizes both the fact of motion along with Path. In this case, two components of Path are conflated in the verb: Vector and Conformation. Therefore, the verb means that the Figure is moving or traversing across the surface of the Ground. The second sentence, i.e., 177 , conveys the same meaning but through using the satellite 9abra (across) which suggests the Traversal of a surface.

The third combination of Traversal plus Inside is demonstrated by the next pair of examples:

Table 4-19: The Lexicalization of Through

Ground Schema An Enclosure

Examples Traversal + INSIDE (Through) 178 sa:ra

xila:la- l- mamarri- l-9ari:D56

walked-he through the-corridor the-wide (He walked through the wide corridor.) 179 tuharrab

A Volume

smuggled

?ila: xa:riji- l- bila:d

9abra-

to outside the-country across

l-?urdun57 Jordon (They were smuggled out of the country through Jordon.)

200

The motion verbs; sa:ra (walked) in 178 and tuharrab (were/was smuggled) in 179, express the fact of motion plus Manner as we will see later. Path, on the other hand, is realized in the form of satellites. These satellites are the two expressions xila:la (through) and 9abra (through). Both expressions are used here to communicate the sense of Traversing the

Ground from Inside. The difference between the two satellites lies in the fact that the first is used with Grounds that have the shape of an enclosure as in 178 while the second is used with Grounds that have the shape of a volume as in sentence 179. Moreover, the expression 9abra (through) can also be used with the meaning of across as shown in 177.

The last combination represented by the satellite Over is illustrated by the following sentence:

180 ?aT-Tayara:nu –l-Harbiyy Hallaqa fawqa –n-na:qu:ra wa tabni:n58 the-planes

the-military flew

over the-Naqura and Tibnin

(Warplanes flew over Naqura and Tibnin.)

The motion verb in the above sentence is Hallaqa (flew) which conflates the fact of motion and Manner. The Path, on the other hand, is lexicalized as the satellite fawqa (over). The most important contribution that this adverb adds to the meaning of the verb

is the sense of Traversal from Above. Therefore, it is different from the form ?a9la: (above) or the preposition 9ala (on) which do not convey Traversal.

4.3.3 Deictic 201

Deictic is a fundamental element in the conceptualization of Path. This component of Path means that speakers may take their own location into consideration when characterizing the Path of motion. Depending on the speakers' place, the Deictic component has only two typical member notions: "toward the speaker" and "in a direction other than toward the speaker". The Deictic component may well be universal. Therefore, each language might have specific morpho-syntactic forms to represent it (Talmy 2000b:56). The following diagram illustrates the Deictic components with its two notions:

Toward the speaker

Away from the speaker

Figure 4-18: The Deictic notions

Although the Deictic component may be realized in almost all languages of the world, yet it is not equally prominent or recurrent in Path conceptualization and usage in all languages. In English, for example, there are only two motion verbs which can be said to encode the deictic component and these are come and go. Arabic, on the other hand, has the following verbs to encode "toward the speaker" notion: ?ata (came), HaDara

202

(came), ja:?a (came),and qadima (arrived). The next set of verbs encode the notion "away

from the speaker": ðahaba (went), Ga:dara (left), and raHala (left). Consequently, the Deictic element does not constitute a major component of Path conceptualization in English. In Arabic, on the other hand, the number of motion verbs that convey the Deictic element is somewhat limited. Yet, these few verbs may be among the most frequently used in everyday life situations. Still, motion conceptualization in Arabic is not in any way restricted to these few verb. The verbs mentioned above may be the only ones in Arabic which reflect the use of the Deictic component. The Deictic property of a Path is determined by the location at which the speaker mentally places him/herself. When speakers select a Deictic location, they typically select one that is the same as or closer to the place where they are physically located (Chu 2004: 170). Accordingly, if a speaker is at home and wants to ask someone else to his/her place, s/he would probably use 181a below and not 181b which places the speaker outside the house:

181 a. ta9a:la ?ila: manzil-i: na-taGadda come

wa na-taHaddaθ59

to house-my we-have-lunch and we-talk

(Come to my house to have lunch and talk.) (towards the speaker)

b.*?iðhab ?ila: manzil-i: na-taGadda go

wa na-taHaddaθ

to house-my we-have-lunch and we-talk

(Go to my house to have lunch and talk.) (away from the speaker)

203

The first of the pair of sentences in 181 above is more acceptable and expected in this situation than the second. The verb ?iðhab (go) in the second sentence is a motion verb that conflates the fact of motion plus the Deictic component of Path (away from the speaker). Therefore, this Deictic meaning in the verb makes it inappropriate to be used in this situation.

It is also possible for the speaker to conceptualize the same motion event from two different perspectives based on certain communicative purposes; yielding differences in the Deictic property used. The speaker may position him/herself mentally at either the location where the speaker currently is or at the location where s/he wants to be (Chu 2004:174). Describing someone's movement to a hotel, for instance, involves the speaker's current location, i.e., whether the speaker is in the hotel or outside the hotel at the time of motion. Accordingly, s/he might either say 182a or 182b below:

182 a. ja:?a

?ila -l–funduq60

came-he to the-hotel (He came to the hotel.)

b. ðahaba ?ila –l-funduq61 went-he to the-hotel (He went to the hotel.)

204

The two sentences describe the same motion event from two different angles. In sentence 182a, the speaker positions him/herself at the hotel. For that reason, the motion of the other person is conceptualized as being towards the speaker, i.e., coming. In sentence 182b, the speaker positions him/herself outside the hotel. Thus, the motion of the other person is conceptualized as being away from the speaker, i.e., going. The use of the Deictic property of Path seems to depend on a construal operation that is based on experience and therefore is totally subjective in nature.62 4.3.4 Direction

In addition to the three fundamental components of Path discussed above, the researcher believes that Direction plays an important role in molding motion verbs and their paths in Arabic as will be seen later through examples.

Direction means the intrinsic directional property of the Figure's movement in relation to space and not to Ground. Direction is believed to have four basic subcategories: Vertical, Horizontal, Returning, and Verging(Chu 2004: 155). The diagram below elucidates the subcategories of the Direction of Path:

205

Direction

Vertical

Horisontal

Returning

Verging

UP

FORWARD

CONVERGING

DOWN

BACKWARD

DIVERGING

Figure 4-19: Subcategories of Direction

The Vertical subcategory designates the direction of motion with reference to the horizon or the surface of the earth. As such, it has two routes; Up and Down. The motion has an Up Direction when the Figure moves vertically further and further from the horizon or surface of the earth. In contrast, the motion has a Down Direction when the Figure moves vertically closer and closer to the horizon or surface of the earth (Chu 2004:155). The following are instances demonstrating the UP/DOWN directions:

183 a. ?irtafa9at ?aT-Ta:?iratu min 9ala: saTHiwent-up

the-plane

l- ?arD63

(UP)

from on surface-of the-earth

(The plane rose above the ground.)

b. habaTat

Ta:?iratu naqlin 9askariyyah fawqa ?arDi- l- jazi:ra 64 (DOWN)

went-down plane-of transfer military

206

on

land-of the-island

(A military transport plane landed on the island.)

The two motion verbs in 183, above, are underlined. These verbs express motion or the fact of motion along with Path. The component of Path conflated in these verbs is Direction which has two subcategories: UP and DOWN. The first verb, ?irtafa9at (rose), conflates the fact of motion with the Direction Upwards. Thus, it is enough to say ?irtafa9at (rose) to know that the direction is vertical and upwards in contrast to the

direction indicated by the verb habaTat (landed) which is vertical and downwards in 183b.

The second subcategory is Horizontal (i.e., Facing). This subcategory is based on the inherent direction of the Figure's "face" or "head". Horizontal has only two variants: Forward and Backward. If the motion of the Figure is meant to proceed in the same direction as the Figure's "face", then the Path is a Forward Path. Conversely, if the motion of the Figure proceeds in the opposite direction of the Figure's "face", then the Path is a Backward Path. The two Horizontal Directions are exemplified in the next pair of sentences:

184 a. tataqaddamu

-l-quwa:tu- l-mutaHa:lifa ?ila: baGda:d 65 (FORWARD)

move-forward the-forces the-allied

to Baghdad

(The Allied Troops were advancing to Baghdad.)

b. wa:faqa sta:li:n 9ala: ?an yataqahqar li-lxalf

207

66

(BACKWARD)

agreed Stalin

on to retreat

backwards

(Stalin agreed to retreat backwards.)

Sentence 184 contains two underlined verbs. Again, these verbs express motion or the fact of motion along with Direction component of Path. This time the Direction specified by these two verbs is on a horizontal axis. This axis, as mentioned above, has two variants: FORWARD and BACKWARD. The first verb, tataqaddamu (are advancing), conflates the fact of motion with the FORWARD Direction. The second verb

in 184b, yataqahqar (retreat), conflates the BACKWARD direction with the fact of motion. It is worth mentioning here that Path is not only conveyed by the verb alone. There are other expressions in these sentences that help or collaborate with the verb to express Path. For example, in sentence 184a, there is the satellite ?ila: (to) which also defines Vector component of Path, i.e., Arrival. In 184b, on the other hand, there is the Adverb li-lxalf (backwards) which reinforces the meaning of the verb. Even in 183a and b, the

prepositions or satellites min 9ala: (off) and fawqa (above) respectively contribute to ultimate expression of Path in Arabic.

The third subcategory of Direction is Returning which captures the fact that the same Figure moves once again on the same Path of an earlier motion. But the direction of the current motion is opposite to that of the earlier motion. The next instance will clarify the point:

208

185 9:ada

-l-qa:Di: mizhir ?ila: mawqi9i-

l- jari:ma li-l-marrati- θ-θa:niya 67

came-back the-judge Mezhir to location-of the-crime for-the-time the-second (Judge Mezhir returned to the crime scene for the second time.) (RETURNING)

The preceding sentence demonstrates the motion verb 9:ada (returned) which is a Path verb. Besides motion, the verb conveys the Direction of this movement. This Direction seems to be the opposite of a previous motion that took place earlier. The sentence also contains the phrase, li-l-marrati- θ-θa:niya (for the second time), which strengthens the meaning intended by the verb. The last subcategory of Direction is the Verging feature which means that different figures move divergently away from or convergently toward a common Ground. The most important property of this subcategory is that it inherently entails the movement of more than one Figure at once. The following sentences in 186a and b represent this subcategory:

186 a. ?iHtaŠada -l-?ulu:fu

fi: ?ista:di- ka:bul 68 (CONVERGING)

gathered the-thousands in stadium-of Kabul (Thousands of people gathered in the Stadium of Kabul.)

b. ba9da niSfi sa:9a tafarraqa -l-mutaða:hiru:na bihudu:? after half hour dispersed the-demonstrators quietly

209

69

(DIVERGING)

(After half an hour, the demonstrators dispersed quietly.)

The two underlined Path verbs in 186a and b represent the conflation of the Verging subcategory of Direction. In 186a, the verb, ?iHtaŠada (gathered), characterizes movement from different directions towards a common center or a shared gathering point. The motion is conceived of to be from various Figures simultaneously. In 187b, however, the opposite is true. The verb, tafarraqa (dispersed), characterizes movement from one common center in different directions away from that center. The motion is conceived of to be from various Figures simultaneously. The four sub-types of Direction of Path can be summarized in (187) below:

187 a. Vertical: Up: F Moves vertically and gets further away from the horizon. Down: F Moves vertically and gets closer to the horizon.

b. Horizontal: Forward: F Moves horizontally and gets further away from the Departure G and closer to the Arrival G. Backward: F Moves on the same route of its earlier horizontal motion, but in the direction opposite to that of the earlier motion.70

c. Returning: F Moves on the same route of its earlier motion, but in the direction opposite to that of the earlier motion.

210

d. Verging: Divergent: different F Move divergently away from the same G. Convergent: different F Move convergently toward the same G.

In this section, a framework for characterizing the Path complex of motion is presented. In this framework, Path consists of four conceptual components: Vector, Conformation, Deictic, Direction. Each component is further analyzed into basic elements. The framework used for analyzing the Path complex of motion can be summarized as follows: 188. Components of the Path Complex: Vector: Arrival, Departure, Traversal Conformation: Inside/Outside, Surface, Beside, Above/Beneath Direction: Vertical (Up/Down), Facing (Forward/Backward), Returning, Verging (Divergent/Convergent) Deictic: Toward the speaker Away from the speaker

4.4 Path and Move: Patterns of Representation

The framework presented above can be used to describe the morpho-syntactic devices used for Path representation in Arabic. This framework is repeated here for convenience:

211

Path

Vector

Conformation

Deictic

Direction


In Arabic, Path components are expressed either by main verbs, prepositions or both. Path verbs and Path prepositions are both closed-class categories. The several Path components encoded in Arabic are applied on a hypothetical sentence below:

189. saqaTat ?al-kuratu min fell

the-ball from

9ala: ?ar-raff

fi: ?aS- Sundu:q

on the-shelf in

the-box

Path Components Vector

Departure

Conformation Direction

Arrival Above

Down

Deictic

212

Inside

There are some general conclusions that can be drawn from the previous sentence. First, Path components in Arabic may be realized using two types of surface forms: Path main verbs such as saqaTa (fell), and prepositions such as min (from) and 9ala (on). Adverbs, on the other hand, are used to some extent to express Path as 9a:?idan in yatasallalu 9a:?idan (sneak back), Sa:9idan in maDa: 9a:9idan (went uphill) and muru:ran in muru:ran bi-l-maktaba (past the bookstore).

Sometimes, both main verbs and prepositions can

co-occur to characterize as many Path properties as possible such as saqaTa min (fell from) or saqaTa 9ala: (fell on).

Secondly, one surface form can profile one or more Path components. In 189, the verb saqaTat (fell) conveys the fact of motion or Move and the Direction of movement, while

the preposition fi: (in or into) conflates Departure with Inside. Hence, to explain the representation of Path in Arabic, the conflation of Path components in the surface forms needs to be examined. This conflation process seems to be distributed among many linguistic forms.

Finally, languages are variably selective, i.e., they do not convey every detail of the Path of motion. For example, the Conformation feature of the Arrival Ground ?aSSundu:q (the box) is clearly marked by preposition fi: (into), while those of the Departure

Ground ?ar-raff (the shelf) are unspecified. The patterns of omission and profiling of Path components are interesting areas of investigation which may be pursued in other researches.

Based on what has been presented above, the list of morpho-syntactic devices 213

(prepositions and Path verbs) used for Path representation in Arabic are discussed in the following sections.

4.4.1 Prepositions

In this section, the prepositions used in Arabic to express Path components are presented. These prepositions are divided into groups according to their related meanings. The table below lists the Path prepositions and their Path-rendering functions: Table 4-20: Arabic Path Prepositions ?ila(to) Hatta (till) li (to)

Arrival

naHwa bi-ttija:h (toward)

min (from) 9an (away from)

Tawa:la, 9ala Tu:l (along)

9abra (across)

min xila:l fi: (through) (into)

+

Vector

+ Departure Traversal

+

+

+

+

+

Inside/

+ +

Conformation

Outside Surface

+

+

Beside

+ +

Above/ Beneath

214

+

The above table shows the relation of the Path components to these prepositions. All of these prepositions are free morphemes except for the preposition li (to) which is a bound or attached prefix. Basically, the Arrival property is conveyed by ?ila: (to), li (to), and fi: (into). The Departure Vector is rendered by min (from), 9an (away from), naHwa and bi-ttija:h (toward). Traversal, on the other hand, is expressed by Hatta (till), Tawa:la, 9ala Tu:l (along), 9abra (across), and min xila:l (through). Compared with Path verbs, Path

prepositions neither profiles the Deictic property of Path nor the intrinsic Direction.

Moreover, to express the Conformation subcategory ?ila: da:xil (into) and ?ila: xa:rij (out of), it is necessary to use a positional noun phrase object. For example, Inside and

Volume can be expressed through using a preposition like ?ila:(to) along with a positional noun phrase like da:xil (inside) and xa:rij (outside) yielding the prepositional phrases ?ila: da:xil (into) and ?ila: xa:rij (out of) as the pair of sentences below show:

190 a. tajawwala -l-HuDu:ru

da:xila -l-mabna:71

gathered the-thousands in stadium-of Kabul (The audience wandered inside the building.)

b. ?ijta:za 9aŠara:tu –s-suya:H

jisra-

l-xaŠab ?ila: da:xil

passed scores-of the-tourists bridge-of the-wood to inside-of qal9at

Haram sanctuary

Sayda: :72

castle-of Sidon (Scores of tourists have passed the wooden bridge into the sanctuary of the

215

Citadel of Sidon.)

The examples of 190 show that when the positional noun da:xila (inside) is used on its own, it indicates movement in one location but not Path as shown in 190a. When it combines with the preposition ?ila: (to), to yield ?ila: da:xil (into), it designates Path into an enclosure as evident from the instance in 190b. The same is true of the positional noun xa:rija (inside).

The Direction or the Deictic features of Path are conveyed either using Adverbs like the ones mentioned below or Path verbs which are the subject of the next section. Arabic has a set of Adverbs which label locational relations in systematic ways. These adverbs are fawq (above), taHt (below/under), ?ama:ma/qabla (front/before), ba9da/xalfa (after/behind), yami:n/Šima:l (right/left), wasaT/bayna (middle/between), ja:nib (side), Šarq (east), Garb (west), janu:b (south), Šama:l (north)

In conclusion, prepositions and adverbs play a major role in rendering Path components in Arabic.

4.4.2 Path Verbs

Path verbs in Arabic are used as the main verbs of clauses. They express similar Path properties as the prepositions. As a result, Arabic can be said to demonstrate a parallel

216

system of lexicalization. In addition to the prepositions presented in sentence 190 above, the verb saqaTat (fell) was used to express the Move component of motion along with the Direction of Path, i.e., Down. In fact, Arabic has a number of other verbs that conflate the Path component with Move. Some of these verbs are mentioned below along with the Path components they encode:

Table 4-21: Verbs conflating Move + Path in Arabic

Path Components

Examples of Path Verbs

+ Move ?irtafa9a, 9ala: (rise), nazala (descend),

a. UP/DOWN

saqaTa, hawa: xarra (fall), habaTa, HaTTa (land), haTala (fall (of rain), Gariqa (sink), ?irtaqa, Sa9ada (ascend), tasallaqa (climb), ?inha:ra (collapse), Ga:Sa, GaTasa (dive), Tafa:( float), ?inHadara (slip), ?insaHaba (withdraw),

b. FORWARD/ BACKWARD

taqaddama ?aqdama (advance), tawaGGala (advance further), xaTa:(step), tara:ja9a, taqahqara (retreat),

217

c. Arrival + Deictic

waSala, qadima (arrive at), HaDara (turn up),

d. Departure

raHala, Ga:dara (leave), sa:fara (travel), xaraja (go out), ?iHtaŠada, tajamma9a (gather together)

e. Verging

tafarraqa (disperse) , tana:θara (scatter)

The Path verbs in a in the table above all conflate the fact of Motion or Move with Direction either UP an in ?irtafa9a, 9ala: (rise), and ?irtaqa, Sa9ada (ascend). Tafa: (float) and tasallaqa (climb) are not only Path verbs, but also Manner verbs. They specify

the manner in which the movement conflated in these verbs takes place. They also specify the direction of that movement which is UP. This is opposite to what is found in English in which the verb climb is a Manner verb that does not have an intrinsic direction. Therefore a person can climb up or down. In Arabic, on the other hand, tasallaqa (climb) can only be used to mean climb upward.

Likewise, the verb Tafa: (float) has the UP direction as part of its meaning. Consequently, floating down is not expressed by the verb alone, but through using other forms. The other verbs in this list convey the direction DOWN conflated with Move.

The second group of verbs, express the fact of motion with the Direction Forward as in taqaddama, ?aqdama (advance), xaTa:(step), and tawaGGala (advance further) which has the additional meaning of moving forward inside an enclosure. The other two verbs, tara:ja9a and 218

taqahqara (retreat) conflate the fact of motion with the Direction BACKWARD.

The third group in the table above contains the verbs: waSala, qadima (arrive at), and HaDara (turn up) which convey the fact of motion plus the Arrival Vector and the Deictic

component TOWARD the speaker.

The fourth group includes the verbs raHala, Ga:dara (leave), sa:fara (travel), and xaraja (go out). All these verbs express the fact of motion besides the Departure component of

Vector. Sometimes, even the Deictic AWAY from the speaker can also be inferred from these verbs depending on the context. The fifth and last group of verbs in the above table demonstrates the conflation of the fact of motion along with the Verging component whether it is Divergent as in ?iHtaŠada and tajamma9a (gather together) or Convergent as in tafarraqa (disperse) and tana:θara (scatter).

This list is by no means exhaustive, there might be other verbs that are not mentioned here. It remains to say that the representation of Path in Arabic is not restricted to one surface form or the other. Path verbs combine and co-occur with prepositions or adverbs to characterize all the detail of a motion event with all its richness and variedness in reality.

In conclusion, the basic surface forms used in Arabic to express Path are summarized in the following diagram:

219

Linguistic Forms

Prepositions

Path Verbs

Adverbs

Figure 4-21: Surface Forms used in Path Representation

4.5 Conclusion

The above chapter presented and discussed both the satellite-framed pattern and the verb-framed pattern. They are both available in Arabic for expressing the motion elements of Move, Path, Manner, and Cause. Both patterns occur frequently in SWA where a parallel system of lexicalization is employed. Typologically, this parallel system of conflation sets Arabic apart from some languages such as English or Spanish (as in example 136a and b) which use only one type of conflation "in its most characteristic expression of motion." (Talmy 2000b: 27). On the other hand, the two lexicalization patterns exhibit differences in Arabic with regard to their construal, their communicative functions, and their applicability for expressing different types of motion. Satellite-framed lexicalization profiles the Manner of motion, and is suitable for expressing realized motion in which Manner surfaces as being more significant within

220

the speaker's focus of attention. In contrast, verb-framed lexicalization does not specify the exact Manner of the motion, and thus is the appropriate option for conveying motion when Manner is not at issue in the conceptualization.

This chapter also presented a characterization of the Path of motion in Arabic. It has been suggested that Path is a defining property of motion conceptualization and representation in Arabic. After that, a framework for the analysis and description of Path was given. The framework consists of four basic categories: Vector, Conformation, Direction, Deictic. Each category comprises several elements. This framework facilitated the description of Path conceptualization and representation in Arabic. It was observed, particularly, that Path conceptualization and realization in Arabic reveals certain typological characteristics: Path properties are realized in a number of main verbs and prepositional phrases. The Deictic category of Path is realized in a limited number of motion verbs; certain Conformation Path elements are not rendered by Path verbs.

221

Endnotes 1

www.awu-dam.org/book/00/novel00/87-t-d/book00-nv002.htm. fi mahabbi-rreeh by Tayseer dabaabna By "satellite", Talmy means "the grammatical category of any constituent other than a noun phrase or prepositional phrase complement that is in a sister relation to the verb root." (Talmy 2000b: 102) Examples of satellites include English verb particles (up, down. back, over, forth, etc.), and Arabic verb complements (fawqa (up), taHta (down), huna (here), huna:ka (there), etc.), and Latin, German, and Russian verb prefixes. 3 According to Talmy, the lexicalization patterns of verb-framed mapping and satellite-framed mapping not only involve motion events, but are also reflected in other types of events. For example, the sentence below presents a causation event which also demonstrates different mappings in English and Spanish: 2

a. I blew out the candle. (English) Apague la vela de un soplido / soplandola. (Spanish) (I extinguished the candle blowing it out.) (adopted from Talmy 1991: 487) 4 www.awu-dam.org/book/05/stories05/61-H-K/book05-so05.htm. wasat Al-tufaan a story translated by Huda Al-Kilaani 5 Asharqalawsat newspaper, January 24th, 2003. Issue no. 8823. 6 www.awu-dam.org/book/02/stories02/137-h-j/book02-so024.htm. Hurras Assabi by Haadi Muhammad Jawad. 7 Alahram newspaper, December 22nd, 2005. Issue no. 43480. 8 Alyawm newspaper, January 14th, 2003. Issue no. 10805. 9 The Locative Preposition Drop Alternation is a process by which one syntactic structure changes into another usually involving a preposition drop as in (They loaded the hay onto the truck and they loaded the truck with hay (See Jackendoff 1985, Dixon 1991, Levin 1993, Seizi Iwata 2008). 10 Alyawm newspaper, July 7th, 2003. Issue no. 11041. 11 Alahram newspaper, April 27th, 2005. Issue no. 43241.

222

12

Almustaqbal newspaper, November 21th, 2003. Issue no. 1458. Alahram newspaper, July 9th, 2000. Issue no. 41488. 14 Alarabi magazine, March 1st , 2003. Issue no. 556. 15 www.awu-dam.org/book/00/stories00/179-b-a/book00-so013.htm. Daa-iratu Addaw? by Baasim Abdu 16 The concept of "a parallel system of conflation" is proposed in Talmy (2000b: 66). 17 www.awu-dam.org/book/00/stories00/72-k-h/book00-so006.htm. Ha:filatu Atturaab by Gassan Hanna 18 www.awu-dam.org/book/02/stories02/145-a-s/book02-so009.htm. Al-muktashifoon Yawdoon by Ibraheem Bin Sultan 19 Alriyadh newspaper, December 16th, 2005. Issue no. 13689. 20 Alriyadh newspaper, January 21st, 2005. Issue no. 13360. 21 www.alwatan.com/graphics/2004/06jun/05may/9.5/dailyhtml/politic.html 22 Alriyadh newspaper, December 1st , 2005. Issue no. 13674. 23 www.awu-dam.org/book/04/child04/336-H-A/book04-ch006.htm. Hikayaat Sha'biyya L-latfaal by Khayruddeen Obaid. 24 www.awu-dam.org/book/02/stories02/300-N-H/book02-so015.htm. Addawaraan fi Qaa'i Azzamaan by Nooruddeen Al-Hashimy 25 www.awu-dam.org/alesbouh/800/isbb800-013.htm. Manziluna by Ahmad Al-Fuhayri 26 www.awu-dam.org/book/00/child00/128-a-a/book00-ch013.htm. OLaqad Aada Hasan by Aasif Abdullah 27 The analysis here of the constructional meaning shared by (152) and (151a) obviously owes much to theories of Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, Taylor 1998, etc.). Construction Grammar claims that constructions have basic status in language. Certain conventionalized aspects of both meaning and use are directly associated with particular syntactic constructions. Furthermore, "constructions that correspond to basic simple sentence types encode as their central senses, event types that are basic to human experience." (Goldberg 1998). 28 The concepts of and distinction between analytic conceptualization and holistic conceptualization owes insights to Langacker's concepts of "sequential scanning" and "summary scanning" in scene processing (Langacker 1987: 145), though the two sets of concepts are not identical. 29 Asharqalawsat newspaper, March 6th, 2005. Issue no: 9595. 30 Almustaqbal newspaper. November 18th, 2004. Issue no. 1753. 31 Adopting the perspective of Construction Grammar, we could say that the Move meaning is suggested by the construction rather than by the individual lexical items. However, it is still clear that a Path expression is indispensable for representing motion events. As 153a and b show, without Path, the construction would not be a motion event construction. 32 Since this analysis is based mainly on Arabic with some reference to English and seeks to characterize Path representation for Arabic, the Path components identified in this section are not assumed to be a cross-linguistically complete inventory. It is quite possible that other languages categorize other facets of Path not included in this framework. 33 The prominence of Arrival and Departure in Path conception is consistent with the general tendency of human cognition to view the starting and ending portions of a process or event as more salient than parts and more attended to. 34 Alyawm newspaper, December, 1st , 2002. Issue no. 10761. 35 Alwatan.com/graphics/2004/12dec/2.12/dailyhtml/culture.html 36 Alriyadh newspaper , December 29th, 2005. Issue no. 13702. 37 Alghad newspaper , August 10th, 2005. 38 Alyawm newspaper , August 9th, 2002. Issue no. 10647. 39 G1, G2 etc. in the formulas stands for different Ground objects stands represented in expressions. Arabic instantiations of Vector component combinations can be seen later in this section. 40 Alarabi magazine, August 1st , 2002. Issue no. 525. 41 Almustaqbal newspaper , March 30th, 2005. Issue no. 1875. 42 Alwasat from Bahrain, September 22th, 2003. Issue no. 381. 43 Alwasat from Bahrain, March 17th, 2003. Issue no. 192. 44 Similar to the Arabic instantiations of the three Vector components in 157-159 and their English equivalents are examples from many other languages in such studies as Aske (1989), Talmy (2000), and 13

223

Slobin (1996) for Spanish, Choi and Bowerman (1991) for Korean, Asher and Sablayrolles (1994) for French and Narasimhan (2003) for Hindi. 45 www.awu-dam.org/alesbouh%20802/874/isb874-022.htm , issue no. 874 August 13th, 2003. 46 Alyawm newspaper, December, 23th, 2004. Issue no. 11361. 47 Alyawm newspaper, October, 11th , 2002. Issue no. 10710. 48 Almustaqbal newspaper, March 20th, 2003. Issue no. 1249. 49 Alahram newspaper, November, 3rd, 2003. Issue no. 42700. 50 Alahram newspaper, May 27th, 2002. Issue no. 24175. 51 Alwasat newspaper, January 3rd, 2003. (www.alwasatnews,com/119/news/read/191704/1.html) 52 Alarabi magazine, April, 1st, 2004. Issue no. 545. 53 Alyawm newspaper, August 13th, 2003. Issue no. 11016. 54 Alghad.com/index.php?news=59582, on November, 30 th, 2005. 55 Almustaqbal newspaper, November 22nd, 2005. Issue no. 2387. 56 www.awu-dam.org/alesbouh/767/isb767-012.htm, issue 767 date: July 14th, 2001. Ra'I Al-Himlaan a story by Muhammed Nadeem. 57 Alwatan newspaper (www.alwatan.com/graphics/2005/07jul/1.7/dailyhtml/culture.html) 58 Almustaqbal newspaper, December 12th, 2003. Issue no. 1473. 59 www.awu-dam.org/book/addes/naseef/book-nv005.htm Mawaji' Ashataat, a novel by Abdulkareem Naseef, 2002. 60 www.awu-dam.org/alesbouh/20802/893/isb893-023.htm January 31st, 2004. Issue no. 893. Afdal Insaan fi Al-Alam by fardales petrosian t. by Nowfal Niyoof. 61 www.awu-dam.org/book/06/novel06/324-M-K/book06-nv015.htm Banaat Baladna, a novel by Mohammad Qarania, 2006. 62 The Deictic phenomenon was a subject of interest in linguistics from a variety of perspectives, e.g., Kuno (1987), Langacker (1987: 126-129), and Duchan et al (1995). 63 Alyawm newspaper, May 1st, 2004. Issue no. 11161. 64 www.alwatan.com/graphics/2004/10oct/16.10/side_pan.html 65 Alahram newspaper, March 26th, 2003. Issue no. 42478. 66 Al-Jazira newspaper, Sepember 29th, 2004. Issue no. 11689. 67 Almustaqbal newspaper, October 22nd, 2005. Issue no. 2077. 68 Alwasat newspaper, September 10th, 2002. Issue no. 4. 69 Alwatan.com/graphics/2003/04apr/8.4/heads/ft8.html 70 Clearly, Backward can be viewed as a "compound" Direction which incorporates Forward and Returning properties. See the definition for Returning. 71 www.alwatan.com/graphics/2004/12dec/31.12/dailyhtml/local.html 72 Almustaqbal newspaper, August 11th, 2004. Issue no. 1668.

224

CHAPTER FIVE

MANNER AND MOVE

5.0 Introduction

At this point in the study, the conceptualization and linguistic realization of the four internal constituents of motion in Arabic have been described. These internal constituents are Figure, Ground, Path, and Move. In addition to the four internal

225

components, motion conceptualization and expression commonly requires certain external components, particularly, manner of motion. It has been mentioned in Chapter 4 that Talmy identified two types of lexicalization patterns according to the linguistic means of realizing Path and Manner/Cause and represented his findings formally as follows:

191. a. Satellite-framed lexicalization: MV (Manner/Cause + Move) + Sat (path) b. Verb-framed lexicalization: MV (Path + Move) ( + adjunct Manner/Cause expression)

Satellite-framed languages, in Talmy's typology, such as English tend to conflate Manner with Move in the main verb of a clause. But verb-framed languages such as Spanish tend to conflate Path with Move in the main verb and can only designate Manner with an adjunct constituent to the main verb.

226

Move Main Verb

Path

Verbframed

Manner Adjunct Cause

Lexicalization Move

Main Verb Manner

Sateliteframed Satellite

Path

Figure 5-22: Types of Lexicalization

This chapter focuses on the main characteristics of the conceptualization and representation of Manner of motion in Arabic. The chapter also incorporates a collection of frequently used Manner of motion verbs in the language.

5.1 The Conflation of Manner and Move

Talmy's framework, presented above, serves as the basis for describing the conceptualization and representation of Manner of motion in Arabic.

227

In comparison with archetypal verb-framed languages such as Spanish, Arabic appears to have the characteristics of a verb-framed language in which Path is conflated with Move in the main verb and Manner of motion can be expressed in an adjunct phrase. This is evident in the examples cited below:

191 a. ?axaða 9a:rif yanzilu

mutasaliqan -l-Hura

started Arif to-come-down climbing

?ila: taHt1

the-poplar to down (downwards)

(Arif started to come down the poplar tree while climbing.)

b. ya?ti: ?ila: maDa:fati-

l-muxta:ri

za:Hifan 2

come-he to guest room-of the-village headman crawling (He comes to the village headman's guest room crawling.)

Sentences in 191a and b, above, are instances of Path verbs accompanied by Adjunct phrases showing manner. The verb in 191a is yanzilu (come down) which conflates Move with Direction (DOWN). The phrase mutasaliqan ?ila: taHt (while climbing down) is the linguistic form that conveys the manner of the motion specified by the main verb. The same applies to the verb in 191b; ya?ti (comes), which also conflates Move the Deictic (toward the speaker). The Adjunct, za:Hifan (crawling.), expresses the manner of the motion denoted by the Path verb.

On the other hand, Arabic shows the characteristics of a satellite-framed language like English as well. Manner of motion in Arabic can be conflated with Move in the

228

main verb of a clause while Path is expressed separately in satellites to the verb. Below are some example that prove the existence of the satellite-framed pattern of conflation in Arabic:

192 a. hirrun yatasalaqu ?ila: 9uŠŠi a-cat is-climbing to

9uSfu:ra 3

nest-of a-bird

(A cat is climbing up to nest of a bird.)

b. ?axaða 9ima:d yazHafu bi-tt-ja:hi- l-?abniya 4 started Emad to-crawl towards the-buildings (Emad started to crawl towards the buildings.)

The sentences in 192a and b represent instances of Manner verbs accompanied by satellites expressing Path. The verb in 193a, yatasalaqu (is climbing up), conflates Move with Manner of motion. The Path is expressed by the PP ?ila: 9uŠŠi 9uSfu:ra (to nest of a bird). The verb in 192b, on the other hand, is yazHafu (to crawl) which conflates Move

with Manner of motion. The Path is conveyed through the PP bi-tt-ja:hi- l-?abniya (towards the buildings).

The main verbs in 191a and 192a convey similar meanings but with different surface forms. In 191a, the verb conflates Path and Manner is conveyed in a separate Adjunct. In 192a, the verb conflates Manner and Path is conveyed in a satellite. The same is true of 191b and 192b. Two different patterns of conflation and two types of lexicalization found in the same language.

229

Two important questions related to manner of motion should be asked in such cases. First, does every Manner verb have a variant structure in which manner is conveyed as an Adjunct? The second question is what criteria might be involved in determining the suitable conflation pattern for any given situation? The following sections will attempt to answer these questions.

5.1.1 The Concept of Manner

Manner-of-motion appears to be a multi-dimensional domain. It may include motor pattern of motion as in crawl, or rate as in hurry or attitude as in stroll. Manner, in the broad sense of the term, can also incorporate vehicle, means and medium. Sometimes, even the type of moving object can create manner-specific distinctions.

However, Manner, in Talmy's framework, is part of the Co-event that accompanies a Main event. Motion events can be complex consisting of two events as in "He glided down" which can be analyzed into two sub-events: (a) He moved downward, (b) in a gliding manner. The second event is called the Co-event. It denotes how the movement or change of location is performed (Talmy 2000b: 29, 214). These two events, the main event and the co-event, can be integrated through a conceptual process termed event integration forming what Talmy calls the Macro-Event. It is a complex event with a complex conceptual structure. The Macro-Event is conceptualized on a regular basis as a unitary event and frequently expressed by a single clause. For this integration to take 230

place, Talmy proposes the existence of these two conditions: the main event must be of "certain distinct classes", and the two events must be related to each other and to the whole complex. (215-17).

Within the Macro-event, the main event is termed the framing event which constitutes the core schema. It is composed of four components: a figural entity, an activating process, an association function, and a ground entity. The figural entity is usually the component on which attention is always focused. It is conceptualized as a variable. The second component is conceptualized as a reference entity which helps characterize the condition of the figural entity. The third component is a process by which the figural entity makes a transition with respect to the ground entity (in an event of motion, this would be translated as the fact of motion or Move). The fourth component is the association function which sets the figural entity into a particular relationship with the ground entity (in an event of motion, this would be translated as Path). Either the association function alone (Path) or that together with the ground entity (Ground) make up the core schema(218).

The co-event, on the other hand, constitutes an event of circumstance in relation to the macro-event as a whole and perform functions of support in relation to the framing event. In these supporting functions, the co-event can fill in, elaborate, add to, or motivate the framing event. This general support relation can be divided into a set of more specific relations which includes Precursion, Enablement, Cause, Manner, Concomitance, etc., (220). Out of these support relations, Manner is what concerns us at 231

this point. The following two diagrams clarify the structure of the Macro-Event and the Framing Event:

[(Agent)

[Event] Framing event

Support relation

Motion Temporal contouring State change Action correlating Realization :

[Event]Co-event

Precursion Enablement Cause Manner Subsequence Constitutedness :

Diagram 5-23: Conceptual structure of the macro-event

Figural entity

Association process

Association function

Transition

Ground entity framing event

Core schema

Diagram 5-24: Conceptual structure of the framing event

5.1.2 Lexicalization of Manner in Arabic

There are various reasons why the conflation of Manner with Move in the main verb of a sentence is somewhat equivocal. First, "manner" is an intricate concept. Even in satellite-framed languages not every "manner" can be conflated with Move in a motion verb (Chu 2004: 194). Second, there is a common standard as to the range of

232

prepositions describing the Path of motion that co-occur with Manner verbs (Levin 1993: 265).

In Arabic, on the other hand, the data shows that the conflation of Manner with Move in the main verb of a sentence is generally straightforward. The following sentences are cited to show the regularity of this pattern of conflation in Arabic:

193 a. yaTi:ru- d-daja:ju ?ila: ru?u:si –l- ?aŠja:r 5 fly

the-chickens to tops-of the-trees

(The chicken fly to the treetops.)

b. 200 la:ji?

min ha:yyiti: yasbaHu:na Hatta sa:Hili- florida 6

200 refugees from Haiti

swim

until coast-of Florida

(200 refugees from Haiti swim to the coast of Florida.)

The Manner verbs in 193a and b above, are underlined. The verb in 192a, yaTi:ru (fly), conflates Move with Manner of motion. The verb in 192b, on the other hand, is yasbaHu:na (swim) which also conflates Move with Manner of motion. The Path of

motion is conveyed using the satellites ?ila: ru?u:si –l- ?aŠja:r (to the treetops) in 193a and Hatta sa:Hili- florida (to the coast of Florida) in 193b.

The question, then, is what kind of Manner can be conflated with Move in the way that yatasalaqu (climb) and yazHafu (crawl) do to form a Manner of motion verb? The

233

answer to this question lies in the conditions that Talmy proposed for event integration mentioned above. These conditions will be repeated here for convenience:

1. the main event must belong to "certain distinct classes" 2. the main event and the co-event must be related to each other and to the whole complex

The classes which Talmy refers to in the first condition are enumerated in diagram 11 above. The main event or the framing event must be one of these mentioned in the diagram. The second condition means that the two events must be related to each other through one of the supporting relations mentioned in the diagram. They must also be related to the whole complex or the macro-event. This is only realized when one of the two events is understood to be the main event and the other to be either of equal status to the first event or accompanying it.

Moreover, within the same context, Chu assumes that for any Manner to be conflated with Move, it must be an intrinsic property of the motion in question. If Manner is not somehow related to Move, it cannot be combined with it in conception and thus cannot be realized as a single verb. This condition is labeled by Chu as the "inseparability condition" (196).

As an evidence of the "inseparability condition", Chu refers to a motion situation in which a person moves on foot at a normal pace while smiling. There are two different 234

"Manners" involved in this motion situation. The first one is "moving on foot with a normal pace"; the other is "smiling while moving". The relation of each of these two Manners to Move is not the same. The first Manner "(moving) on foot at a normal pace" denotes the intrinsic body speed or motor pattern of this motion. As such, this Manner, i.e., "(moving) on foot at a normal pace", is conceptualized as being in an intrinsic association with Move in this motion event. As a result, they represent inseparable elements.

In contrast, the second Manner, "moving and smiling simultaneously", is not tied to the Move component of motion. The Figure can Move with a smile on his/her face, or without any smile at all. The relation of this Manner to Move is not inherent or basic. Thus, "smiling" is not conceptualized as an intrinsic property of Move in this motion event. As a result, the first Manner "(moving) on foot at a normal pace" is conflated with Move in English. The same kind of conflation occurs in Arabic in verbs such as maŠa: (walk). But the second Manner "smiling (while moving)" is not realized in Arabic.

There is no verb in Arabic with the meaning "Move while smiling".

Similar to "smiling", there are other possible incidental aspects of motion such as the mental state of the Figure, the color of the Figure's clothes, and the weather at the time of motion that are not conceptualized as inherent properties of motion, and thus not combined with Move in Arabic to form Manner of motion verbs.

235

The example “moving on foot at a normal pace while smiling” demonstrates how the inseparability condition constrains [Manner + Move] conflation in motion verbs. Nevertheless, like other human categorizations, the inseparability of Manner and Move in a motion event is an experientially-based subjective judgment. Consequently, there are some cases in which two kinds of Manners similar with respect to their inseparability relationship with Move may be represented in various ways in the language, i.e., they form different patterns of conflation with Move and with other Manners. To further clarify this point, the motion events below are cited:

194 a. bada?a

yartafi9u

9ani-

l-?arDi

Ta:?iran b-hudu:?7

started-he ascend away-from the-ground flying

with- tranquillity

(He started to rise above the ground while flying quietly.)

b. Ta:ra –l-9uSfu:ru muHalliqan ba9i:dan 9ani -l-xaru:f 8 flew -the-bird

hovering

away

from the-sheep

(The bird flew away from the sheep while hovering.)

c. ðalla –l-Ta:?iru-l-?abyaDu-S-SaGi:r yuHalliqu Ta:?iran bi-?ajwa:?i-l-madi:na9 still the-bird the-white

the-little

hover

flying

in-space-of the-city

(The little white bird kept hovering, while flying in the sky of the city.)

The sentences in 194, above, represent three different ways for expressing Manner in Arabic. All three ways are frequently used and more or less describe the same event. The event in 194a express the exact meaning of yaTi:ru (fly) in 193a. But in 194a, the pattern of conflation is different. While the main verb in sentence 193a conflates Move with

236

Manner of motion, the main verb in 194a conflates Move with Path whereas Manner is expressed as a separate component (Adjunct to the verb).

The motion event conveyed in 194b, on the other hand, has the exact meaning of the motion event expressed in 194c. Both main verbs in 194b and c are Manner verbs that conflate Manner plus Move. The main verb in 194b is Ta:ra (flew) while it is yuHalliqu (hover) in 194c. But the two sentences still contain Adjuncts of Manner attached to the

verb and these are muHalliqan (while hovering) and Ta:?iran (while flying) respectively. These sentences provide evidence of the possibility of having two Manners in the same motion sentence. One of these Manners is conflated in the main verb and the other is conveyed in a separate Adjunct.

Path, however, is expressed using satellites to the main verb. In 194b, the Path is conveyed through the Adverb ba9i:dan 9ani -l-xaru:f (away from the sheep) and in 194c the Path is conveyed through using the Prepositional Phrase bi-?ajwa:?i-l-madi:na (in the sky of the city).

The preceding examples in 194b and c illustrate a situation in which two Manners are expressed together. However, the presence of such situations is restricted to those Manner verbs that are closely related in conceptualization such as Ta:ra (flew) and yuHalliqu (hover) in 194b and c since both of them describe motion in space. Such

237

situations are not so numerous or recurrent to form a regular pattern of lexicalization. Yet, their presence in the language proves two points. The first point of consideration is the attention that Arabic devotes to Manner which the previous examples show that it can be very detailed in some cases and very brief in others. The second point is that lexicalization of motion components in Arabic is as diverse as the structures found in the language although motion events are conceptualized in the same way or as having the same conceptual Core Schema. The difference, then, lies in the way of expression. More examples can be quoted here to support this idea. Consider the following sentences in 195 below:

195 a. ka:na- l-ja:niya:n

qad tasallala: laylan ?ila da:xil bayti

-l- majni:-9alayh10

was the-offender-dual have sneaked at-night to inside house-of the-victim (The two offenders have sneaked at night into the victim's house.)

b. haraba –s-safi:ru

-l-?aritriyy ?ila: ?urubba11

escaped the-ambassador the-Eritrean to

Europe

(The Eritrean ambassador fled to Europe.)

c. haraba

ba9da-ha mutasallilan ?ila: -s-su:da:n 12

escaped-he after-it

sneaking

to the-Sudan

(He fled after that to Sudan while sneaking.) d. tasallala

ha:riban ?ila:-Š-Šurfa13

sneaked-he fleeing

to the-balcony

(He sneaked while fleeing to the balcony.)

238

The sentences a and b in 195, above, illustrate the Manner verbs tasallala: (sneaked) and haraba (fled) used separately in separate situations. The sentences c and d, on the other hand, exemplify situations in which the two Manner verbs are used together. To state a rule, the two Manner verbs are conceptually closely-related since tasallala (sneaked) may involve huru:b (fleeing) and haraba (fled) may involve tasallul (sneaking). The

first Manner is usually conflated in the main verb while the second Manner appears as a separate Adjunct in the form of a past participle or ?ismu fa:9il.

The contrast between these ways of representation does not necessarily entail a contrast in conceptualization. The difference in fact might arise from certain attentional factors as well as experientially-based preference that is relatively changeable. Nevertheless, it shows that the "inseparability" of Manner and Move might be a sufficient condition to justify the realization of [Manner + Move] conflation, but not to necessitate it.

It is, therefore, predictable that considerable cross-linguistic variation does exist in the realization of manner in motion events. In English, for example, there is the verb "hop" which encodes the motion event "jump on one foot". But hop has no equivalent verb in Arabic. Instead, Arabic analytically expresses this type of Manner of motion using an adverbial as part of a sequence: yaqfizu 9ala: qadamin wa:Hida (jump on one foot). Another example is the verb yata9akkazu in Arabic which encodes the motion event "move using a stick". But yata9akkazu has no equivalent verb in English. But there exists 239

no single verb encoding the meaning [Move + using a stick], although, in real life it is not uncommon to see a wounded or handicapped person walking with a stick. Conversely, there is the verb "drive" which encodes "moving by using a car". Both motion events involve moving with some kind of tool. The difference is that in one motion event the tool is a car and in the other the tool is a stick. However, in English, only the Manner "using a car" conflates with Move and is realized as a verb.

The examples above prove that the inseparability of the Manner and Move might be a prerequisite for the realization of [Manner + Move] conflation, but not necessarily a sufficient condition to ensure such conflation.

The "jump on one foot" example demonstrates that some [Manner + Move] conflations in English cannot occur in Arabic. In fact, this kind of conflation is more limited in Arabic than in English. For example, Arabic does not conflate Move with a associated sound emitted by a Figure during its moving except in a few cases. But English has a fair number of such conflated Manner of motion verbs such as roar, wheeze, and whistle (cf. Levin 1993):

196 a. The truck roared across the town. b. The elevator wheezed upward. c. The bullet whistled into the room.

240

In 196, what is conveyed is that the Figure Moves while emitting a specific sound. To convey this kind of Manner of sound emission in a motion event, Arabic has only these three verbs as in 197 below:

197 a. ?al?amwa:ju- l-9a:tiya tahdiru 9ala- Š-Ša:Ti?i S-Saxriyy14 the-waves

the-high roared on the-beach the-rocky

(The high tides roared against the rocky beach.)

b. ?azzat

raSa:Satun min fawqi katifi-hi

whistled a-bullet

–l-?aysar15

from above shoulder-his the-left

(A bullet whistled over his left shoulder.)

c. taSfuru –r-ri:Hu fi -Š-Šawa:ri9i -l-?isfaltiyya16 whistling the-wind in the-streets

the-asphaltic

(The wind is whistling in the asphaltic streets.)

The underlined motion verbs in 197, above, conflate Move with Sound emission. The Figure, ?al?amwa:ju (the tides), in 197a moves while emitting a specific sound. This sound is conveyed in the verb along with the fact of motion. The Figure in 197b, on the other hand, is raSa:Satun (a bullet) which moves very quickly producing a specific sharp sound conveyed in the verb ?azzat (whistled). Therefore, the motion verb, ?azzat (whistled), conflates Move with Sound emission. The sound of the wind's moving is also conflated

241

in the verb of motion, taSfuru (whistle), in 197c. This verb expresses both movement of the wind and sound of that movement.

Another case which shows the difference in [Manner + Move] conflation between Arabic and English is with vehicular motion. English has two kinds of [vehicle + Move] verbs. The first kind specifies the actual type of vehicle used in a motion event, such as boat and bike in 198 and 199 below:

198 They boated us across the bay. 199 Let the boy bike to school.

This kind of [Vehicle + Move] conflation in English uses the names of the vehicles as the verbs. In Arabic, there is no [Vehicle + Move] verbs. To express this kind of Manner and Move in a sentence, Arabic utilizes either an adverbial phrase/clause, or a verb as in examples (100) and (101) below, but not a satellite-framed lexicalization pattern:

200 a. xamsatu ?ukra:niyyi:n tasallal-u: Five

?ila: briTa:nya fi: zawraq17

Ukrainian sneaked-they to

Britain in a-boat

(Five Ukrainian people sneaked to Britain in a boat.)

242

b. ka:na-l-muwa:Tin-a:n-l-?amrkiyy-a:n

daxala:

9ala:-matni-

zawraqin

Šira:9iyy18 was the-citizen-dual the-American-dual entered on board-of a-boat sailing (The two American citizens have entered on board of a sailing boat.)

c. naqal-u:

-r-raha:?na –l-judud ?ila: maxba?i-him fi: jawlo bi-stixda:mi

transferred-they the-hostages the-new to hideout-their in Jolo by-using zawraq19 a-boat (They transferred the new hostages to their hideout in Jolo island by using a boat.)

The main verb in 200a is the motion verb, tasallal (sneaked), which conflates Move with Manner. The Path is expressed by using the satellite, ?ila: briTa:nya (to Britain), while the other PP, fi: zawraq (in a boat), specifies the Manner of their moving or the vehicle in which the Figure moved. Likewise, sentence 200b contains the verb daxala: (entered), which denotes the Path of the Figure's movement. The Manner, on the other hand is indicated by the PP; 9ala:-matni- zawraqin Šira:9iyy (on board of a sailing boat), which again identifies the vehicle in which the Figure's moving took place. In the third sentence, 200c, the motion verb, naqal (transferred), is used to indicate abstract motion. The PP; ?ila: maxba?i-him (to their hideout), is the satellite that indicates Path. The Manner,

however, is conveyed using the by-phrase; bi-stixda:mi zawraq (by using a boat). The following examples illustrate the Arabic equivalents of the English verb "bike":

243

201 a. ka:na Ša:bbun

yaqu:du darra:jatan na:ryya 9ala Ša:Ti?i- l-9azi:zi:yya20

was a-young man driving a-bike

on beach-of Al-Azeezia

(A young man was driving a bike on Al-Azeezia beach.)

b. daxal bi-darra:jati-hi ?ila: sa:Hati entered with-bike-his

-l-masjidi

-l-muzdaHim21

into courtyard-of the-mosque the-crowded

(He entered on his bike into the crowded courtyard of the mosque.)

The motion verb "bike" in 201, above, has no equivalent in Arabic. Instead, Arabic uses verbs like yaqu:du (drive) in 201a followed by the vehicle's name; darra:jatan na:ryya (a bike). Therefore, the verb yaqu:du darra:jatan na:ryya (was driving a bike) may be understood

as a Manner verb since it conflates Move with Manner. The Path is, of course, expressed by using the satellite: 9ala Ša:Ti?i-l-9azi:zi:yya (on Al-Azeezia beach).

Similarly, sentence 201b contains the verb daxala: (entered), which denotes the Path of the Figure's movement. The Path is further specified by the PP; ?ila: sa:Hati-l -masjidi -lmuzdaHim (into the crowded courtyard of the mosque). The Manner, on the other hand is

indicated by the PP; bi-darra:jati-hi (on his bike), which again identifies the vehicle in which the Figure's moving took place.

The preceding examples demonstrate the types of surface forms that make the expression of vehicle of motion possible. These forms are mainly a Prepositional Phrase,

244

a by-phrase or a verb like yaqu:du (drive) which can be used to describe moving by cars, boats, bikes, or even planes.

The English verbs "boat" and "bike" represent the kind of [Vehicle + Move] verbs which denotes the actual type of the vehicle used in the motion event. Besides "boat", and "bike" and other such verbs, there is another type of [Vehicle + Move] verbs in English that encode Manner of motion with a vehicle in a highly abstract way. These verbs do not distinguish between different types of vehicles that share certain properties in the way they are used. For example, the verb "drive" points out that the vehicle used in motion can be a car, a truck, a train, or a motorcycle. In the same way, the verb "ride" may be used to represent motion on a horse, a bike, a wagon, a bus, or even a train. Hence, both "drive" and "ride" encode a less specific Manner of motion unlike verbs like "boat" and "bike".

In general, this second type of [Vehicle + Move] verb has translational equivalents in Arabic. For instance, for the most usages of "drive", Arabic can use the verbs yaqu:du (drive) or yarkabu (ride). The subsequent sentences show these usages. The first group of

sentences demonstrate the verb yaqu:du as an equivalent of "drive":

202 a. ka:na yaqu:du darra:jata-hu –n-na:riyyata 9ala-T-Tari:qi -r-ra?i:siyy22

245

was

driving bike-his

the-motor

on the-road the-main

(He was driving his motor bike on the main road.)

b. ka:na husayn z9aytir yaqu:du sayya:rata-hu fi: maHalati –r-rawŠa:23 was Husain Zuatir driving car-his

in district-of Arrawsha

(Husain Zuatir was driving his car in Arrawsha district.)

c. mitŠini:r sa-yaqu:du -T-Ta:?irata 9a:?idan ?ila:-l-wila:ya:ti-l-muttaHida24 Michener will-drive

the-plane

going-back to the-States the-United

(Michener will ride the plane back to the United States.)

The verb yaqu:du in the above examples is used to convey the meaning of "drive". As such, it conflates Move with a general sense of a vehicle not specified by a name. Therefore, it can be used planes, buses, trucks, cars, boats, and bikes.

The second group of examples confirm the use of the verb yarkabu as an equivalent of "ride":

203 a. rakiba sayya:rata-hu 9a:?idan ?ila: bayti-h25 rode-he car-his

going-back to house-his

(He drove his car back home.)

b. Ha:wala -l-muwa:Tinu ?an yarkaba –l-qTa:r fa-ta9aθθara wa saqaT26

246

tried

the-citizen

to ride

the-train then-stumbled and fell

(The citizen tried to ride the train but he stumbled and fell.)

c. ka:na was-he

yarkabu -l-qa:riba kulla Saba:H27 ride

the-boat every morning

(He used to ride the boat every morning.)

The verb yarkabu is normally used with the meaning "to ride" as the examples in 203b and c show. It is used with this sense with planes, buses, trucks, as well as horses and camels. But the 203a sentence, on the other hand, proves that it can also be used with the meaning "to drive". It is also used with this second sense with bike.

5.2 Arabic [Manner + Move] Verbs

In the previous section, certain properties and limitations of (Manner + Move] conflation in Arabic were presented and explained. In this section, a list of some frequently used [Manner + Move] verbs in Arabic is given to provide a better understanding of conflation:

Table 5-22: Different Types of Manner Information Conflated in Arabic Verbs

247

Type of Manner Motion on foot

Examples

maŠa (walk), qafaza (jump), jara: (run), harwala (jog), Haba: (crwal), tazaHlaqa (slip), xaTa (step), tasallaqa (climb)

Medium of motion

?abHara (sail), sabaHa (swim), 9a:ma (float), Ga:Sa, GaTasa (dive), Ta:ra (fly), Hallaqa, Ha:ma (hover), ?ixtaraqa (interpenetrate), nafaða (permeate), maraqa (go through swiftly)

Speed of motion

jara: (run), haraba (escape), Harwala (jog), huri9a, ?asra9a, habba (speed up), ?inTalaqa (go quickly), ?inqaDDa (attack quickly), tazaHlaqa (slip), taba:Ta?a (slow down), Haba:, zaHafa (crawl), dabba (creep), tasarraba (leak), tasallala (sneak), qaTTara (dribble)

Motion by losing control

saqaTa (fall), ?inha:ra (collapse), ?inzalaqa (slide)

Vehicle of motion

rakiba (ride), qa:da (drive), jaddafa (row)

Self-contained motion

tadaHraja (roll), da:ra, Ta:fa, laffa (rotate),

in translational motion

?irtadda (bounce)

Motion of liquid

sa:la (flow, stream), tadaffaqa (outflow), ?inhamara (pour down) , haTala (fall heavily), ?insa:ba (speed along), sa:Ha (flow), sakaba (spill) Gamara (flood)

Motion of air

habba (blow-rage), 9aSafa (blow away), ?insa:ba (speed along)

248

5.3 Causes of variation in the expression of motion events (Path vs. Manner)

Encoding motion crosslinguistically proves the existence of a fundamental difference in the segmentation and packaging of Path and Manner of motion (Papafragou et al 2006). As originally pointed out by Talmy (1985, 2000a &b), the lexical resources of English include a large inventory of manner verbs, e.g., strut, bounce, slide, stroll, etc., which can freely combine with adverbs, particles or prepositional phrases encoding Path information, e.g., away, into the forest, upwards, etc. On the other hand, Path verbs, e.g., enter, exit, descend, etc., are fewer in number and more restricted in distribution. By contrast, Arabic mostly expresses Path information in path verbs, e.g., yadxul (enter), yaxruj (exit), ya9bur (cross), yaðhab (go), etc., combined with prepositional phrases or

adverbials which further specify path, e.g., ?ila da:xili-l-manzil (into the house), xalfa-ŠŠajara (behind the tree), etc.

At this point, chapter 5 has demonstrated that Manner is also a recurrent element in motion conceptualization in Arabic. There are scores of verbs in the Arabic lexicon that denote different types of manner information. Therefore, Arabic does not differ solely or primarily from Satellite-framed languages like English, for instance, in the size of the manner-verb inventory. It possesses a great number of ordinary manner of motion verbs such as yazHaf (crawl), yamŠi: (walk), yatasallaq (climb), yaTi:r (fly), etc. Nevertheless, Arabic does not make the same use of Manner of motion in motion event descriptions as English and other Satellite-framed languages. Therefore, an important question arises as to what factors affect the inclusion of manner information in motion descriptions in Arabic? The answer to this question is twofold. It might be said that there are several 249

factors which cooperate to determine how motion will be expressed in Arabic. These factors are either linguistic or pragmatic (Papafragou et al 2006).

One major determining source of variation in the expression of Manner vs. Path is the typological distinctions between languages in both their grammatical devices and their preferred lexical selections. For example, in English, manner of motion is typically encoded in the main verb, while path information appears in nonverbal elements such as prepositional phrases. In contrast, in Arabic the verb usually encodes the Path of motion, while manner information is expressed using prepositional phrases, or adverbials. Therefore, the expression of Manner must conform with such languagespecific grammatical and lexical norms. Slobin has called this language-specific employment of linguistic resources “thinking for speaking” (1996). There is significant degree of flexibility within each language with regard to the description of a spatial scene or a motion event, i.e., through different kinds of verbs and prepositions. This means that speakers of a language can select from among a number of alternative perceptions or elements in a scene when faced with the task of describing it (Papafragou et al 2006).

The second reason behind variation is communicative or pragmatic. Pragmatic requirements interact in different ways with lexical-structural properties of individual languages during the expression of motion, e.g., the omission of easily inferable information. In English, for instance, manner is preferentially encoded. In Arabic, on the other hand, manner of motion is usually inferable from the context. Inferability of manner in Arabic leads to the fact that it is not as regularly encoded as Path is: 250

What we pick out from a scene in terms of entities and spatial relations to be expressed in language is not subject to fixed laws. There are preferences, for sure, following Gestalt properties of the scene, human interest, and so on, but they are no more than preferences. (Levelt 1996: 102)

Consequently, decisions about what to convey linguistically and what to leave unexpressed are decisively influenced by the presence of non-linguistic factors such as degree of informativeness, or expectations about the specific demands of the conversational exchange. Besides, listeners, as well, naturally go beyond linguistic aspects of heard descriptions in order to reconstruct the details of motion events inferentially (Papafragou et al 2006). For instance, people interpret a verb such as ?iqtaraba (approach) differently depending on details of the moving object, its target

ground, the speed of motion and its purpose (cf. Morrow & Clark, 1988). The following sentences illustrate the degree of dependence on inferability:

204 a. ?iqtaraba rija:lu -l-?amni mina- l-juθθ9a28 approached men-of the-police from the-corpse (The policemen approached the corpse.)

b. ?al-kawkabu –l-?aHmar ?iqtaraba mina- l-?arD29 the-planet the-red

approached from the-earth

(The red planet approached the earth.)

251

The preceding examples both contain the verb ?iqtaraba (approached) which is a path verb. No manner information is encoded neither in the form of the verb nor in the clause. But it is clear that such information can easily be inferred from context. The manner inferred from each sentence is related directly to the movement expected from the Figure of motion in each case. To further clarify this point, the following sentences also contain the verb ?iqtaraba (approached) in different contexts:

205 a. ?az-zawraqu l-filisTi:niyy ?iqtaraba mina- l-miya:hi-l-?iqli:miyya li-miSr30 the-boat

the-Palestinian approached from the-waters the-territorial of-Egypt

(The Palestinian boat approached the Egyptian territorial waters.)

b. jana:Hu Ta:?iratin 9askariyya briTa:niyya ?iqtaraba wing-of a-plane

military

British

kaθi:ran min mabna

approached closely from building-of

maTa:r ka:bul31 airport-of Kabul (The wing of a British military plane excessively approached the Kabul airport building.)

The meaning conveyed by the verb ?iqtaraba (approached) in 205a, above, is different from that conveyed by the same verb in 205b. The reason behind this difference in conceptualization is having a different Ground of motion in each case. The Ground in 205a is l-miya:hi-l-?iqli:miyya (territorial waters). So, the manner inferred in this sentence is different from the manner inferred from the 205b sentence which contains the same verb but with a different Ground of motion. the Ground in 205b is maTa:r ka:bul (Kabul airport)

252

which means that the manner understood from the motion verb is completely different from the previous one depending on the medium of motion in each example.

It might be safe to assume that speakers of Arabic are less likely to include manner information if it is inferable from other aspects of the linguistic description or the extralinguistic knowledge of the hearer. For instance, a speaker who knows that Nora (who lives in London) will go to the States, can say (Nora will go to the States) and let the hearer infer that she will use the normal way of crossing the Atlantic (i.e. she will fly). If Nora decides to travel by ship instead, the speaker might be more prone to describe this event by mentioning the manner of her movement (Nora will sail to the States).

Effects of inferability on the structure of event descriptions have been documented in the literature (cf. Brown & Dell 1987, Levelt, 1996, Lockridge & Brennan, 2002, among others). Taking into consideration the inferability hypothesis, it can be realized that a distinction between inferable and non-inferable kinds of manner might create irregularities in the encoding of manner in languages like Arabic where manner is otherwise not verbally prominent (Papafragou et al 2006).

In light of the data from Arabic on the expression of manner of motion, the researcher believes that Arabic fits neatly into this satellite- versus verb-framed typology. This typology has been useful in systematically sorting the world’s languages.

253

5.4 Conclusion

This chapter has demonstrated that Arabic reveals the characteristics of a satelliteframed language in allowing [Manner + Move] conflation for a verb. The analysis points out that to realize the [Manner + Move] conflation in a language, the inseparability between the relevant Manner and Move is a necessary condition. Moreover, there is much internal cross-linguistic diversity even among satellite-framed languages. Comparing Arabic with English, it is found that (Manner + Move] conflation in Arabic is much less pervasive than in English. In particular, it has been shown that the conflation of Move with the sound of emission and the conflation of Move with the Manner of using a specific type of vehicle are very limited in Arabic. It is also found that Arabic reveals the characteristics of a verb-framed language in allowing [Path + Move] conflation for a verb while expressing Manner as an Adjunct. Yet, there are at least 25 verbs of Manner of motion in Arabic which means that Manner conflation is possible in Arabic. The criterion for classifying a language as a verb-framed or a satellite-framed language depends on the preferred pattern of lexicalization. It might be said that Path and Manner are both conceptualized and expressed in Arabic but with differing proportions.

254

Endnotes 1

www.awu-dam.org/book//06/novel06/125-n-a/book06-nv009.htm , Awaraaq Arif Addimashqi, a novel by Nazeer Al-Azama, 2006. 2 www.awu-dam.org/alesbouh%202005/987/isb987-010.htm , Hikaayatu Awraaq, a story by Basim Abdu, 2005. 3 www.awu-dam.org/book//04/stories04/305-A-N/book04-so009.htm , ATTahaalib, a story by Ibraheem Sulaiman Nader , 2004. 4 www.awu-dam.org/book//00/stories00/179-b-a/book00-so008.htm , Da'iratu Addaw', a story by Basim Abdu, 2000. 5 Al-riyadh newspaper, December 6th, 2001. (www.alriyadh.com/2001/12/06/article30259.html) 6 Alyawm newspaper, October 31st, 2002. Issue no. 10730. 7 awu-dam.org/book/00/novel00/44-t-a/book00-nv003.htm , Al-bu'du Al-Khamis, a novel by Talib Omran, 2000. 8 www.awu-dam.org/book/02/stories02/261-M-A/book02-so006.htm , Rasa'ilu Allayl, a story by Muhammad Ata'ulla, 2002. 9 www.arabworldbooks.com/ArabicLiterature/story99.htm , Sabahun Jadeed Ala Tairin Abyadh Sagheer, a story by Muhammad Abdullah Al-Hadi. 10 Alwasat newspaper from Bahrain, September 11th, 2002. Issue no. 5. 11 Alwasat newspaper from Bahrain, September 9 th, 2002. Issue no. 3. 12 Asharqalawsat newspaper , June 17th, 2002. Issue no. 8602. 13 Almustaqbal newspaper, March 30th, 2003. Issue no. 1259. 14 www.awu-dam.org/mokifadaby/358/mokf014.htm , Be'atun Bahriyya, a story by Muhammad Abu Matook, 2001. 15 www.awu-dam.org/book/01/novel01/340-s-h/book01-nv008.htm , Al-Bashar Wa Hatta Ashajar , a novel by Sami Hamza, 2001.. 16 www.awu-dam.org/book/03/stories03/4-H-N/book03-so006.htm , Jamaraatu Ashawq, a story by Hasan Ibraheem Al-Naser, 2003. 17 Alriyadh newspaper, August 27th, 2000. Issue no. 10195. 18 Aljazirah newspaper, August 8th, 2000. Issue no. 10176. 19 Alriyadh newspaper, August 27th, 2000. Issue no. 10195. 20 Aljazirah newspaper, December 20th, 2001. Issue no. 10675. 21 Alriyadh newspaper, December 24th, 2005. Issue no. 13697. 22 Alriyadh newspaper, August 22th, 2005. Issue no. 13573. 23 Almustaqbal newspaper, June 23rd, 2003. Issue no. 1328. 24 Alyawm newspaper, May 25th, 2004. Issue no. 11302. 25 Alarabi magazine, December 1st , 2002. Issue no. 529. 26 Alyawm newspaper, July 13th, 2003. Issue no. 10985. 27 Alyawm newspaper, October 24th, 2003. Issue no. 11088. 28 Alghad newspaper, May 19th , 2005. 29 Almustaqbal newspaper, September 3rd, 2003. Issue no. 1389. 30 Alriyadh newspaper, December 4th , 2005. Issue no. 13677. 31 Asharqalawsat newspaper, February 27th, 2005. Issue no. 9588.

255

CHAPTER SIX

CLOSING REMARKS & CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Conclusions of the main points

In the previous chapters, a detailed study of the conceptualization and grammatical realization of prototypical motion in Arabic was put forward. Three different approaches to the analysis of motion in language and conception were reviewed, namely, Talmy’s Figure-Move-Path-Ground characterization, Langacker’s temporal perspective on mover’s sequential change of location, and Jackendoff’s view of motion as a mapping of a general function-argument conceptual organization. Talmy’s framework is found to provide a more fully-specified analysis of motion. It presents a more comprehensive view of motion conceptualization and its linguistic expression. Talmy observes that a conceptual element of motion may either be overtly realized as a language form or be unspecified. When overtly represented, the conceptual element can either be realized as a separate language form or be conflated with other elements in one form; this form can be either the main verb or another part of the expression. Motion components were then examined by turn. The contrasting properties of Figure and Ground in the conceptualization of motion events, and their syntactic representation 256

in Arabic were exemplified. The syntactic results of the conceptual contrasts between Figure and Ground in conception are manifested in detail. In particular, it is found that there is a saliency mapping relationship in Arabic between the conceptual elements of Figure and Ground and the hierarchically-organized syntactic roles.

Path was also examined within a framework consisting of four constituents: Vector, Conformation, Deictic and Direction. This framework allowed for a relatively comprehensive treatment of the conceptual structure of Path. Within this framework, many interesting Path representation phenomena in Arabic were presented.

Certain conceptual properties of Manner, the primary external element in motion conceptualization were examined. While it is characteristic of satellite-framed languages to conflate Manner with Move in the main verb of a sentence, this kind of conflation observes certain constraints, some of which are cross-linguistically observable, while others are language-specific. Arabic imposes more constraints on Manner and Move conflation than does English.

The study explored the conceptual structure of motion and the many typologically significant properties of its realization in Arabic at the linguistic level within the paradigm of cognitive linguistics. The insights gained from conducting such a study of motion events in Arabic prove that Talmy's framework for describing motion conceptualization is applicable to Arabic as well as other languages. The linguistic realization of motion in Arabic also proves the universality of conceptual structure.

257

Further, it constitutes an additional evidence of the applicability of the Core Schema theory. The major concern of this dissertation has been to determine from the perspective of Arabic the typologically-significant properties of the conceptualization and linguistic realization of prototypical motion. The observations and findings presented in this dissertation clearly point to the basic tenets of cognitive linguistics, which views language as an experientially-based product of the human mind, and a reflection of how speakers of a language structure their perceptions of reality.

The study proves Talmy's view (1988) that the conceptual system which underlies linguistic differences is not language bound. This means that independently of the linguistic code, human beings generally encode similar concepts.

The ultimate aim of the analysis was to discover how Arabic conforms to the typology that Talmy proposed for languages in relation to motion expression, i.e. whether it is a verb-framing language; a satellite-framing language or an equipollently-framing language. Accordingly, this research addressed the following specific objectives: (1) to analyze the Arabic motion events and explore the semantic components of meaning found in them, (2) to investigate the different patterns of lexicalization of the semantic components of motion and whether they conform with the universal linguistic patterns presented by Talmy, and (3) to examine how patterns of lexicalization and the conflation processes that follow are manifested in the semantics of Arabic verbs.

The following are some of the questions that this research tried to find answer for:(1) How are the main universal semantic components of motion lexicalized in Arabic 258

motion events?, (2) Does path appear with manner of motion verbs?, and finally (3) Can the pervasiveness of path and manner conflation be attributed to language-specific principles related to Arabic?

By examining the Arabic motion verbs used in the standard language of the media in the Arab world, it is found that Talmy's formulation of the motion schema applies to Arabic motion conceptualization. That's to say, the same conceptual elements of Figure, Ground, Move, and Path were found to be existent in Arabic. Figure and Ground form a conceptual pair with the Figure being the most prominent in conceptualization than the Ground. This conceptual contrast has syntactic consequences in linguistic realization manifested by the existence of a saliency mapping relationship in Arabic between the conceptual elements of Figure and ground and the hierarchically-organized syntactic roles. It is also found that Path is more central than Move in motion conceptualization in Arabic. It is found to be the defining property of motion conceptualization and representation in Arabic. It was also observed that Path conceptualization and realization in Arabic, particularly, reveals certain typological characteristics: Path properties are realized in a number of main verbs and prepositional phrases. The Deictic category of Path is realized in a limited number of motion verbs; certain Conformation Path elements are not rendered by Path verbs.

Concerning lexicalization patterns, Talmy identified two lexicalization patterns of motion event in his typology; the satellite-framed pattern and the verb-framed pattern. Both patterns were found to be available in Arabic for expressing the motion elements of

259

Move, Path, Manner, and Cause. Both patterns occur frequently in SWA where a parallel system of lexicalization is employed. Typologically, this parallel system of conflation sets Arabic apart from some languages such as English or Spanish (as in example 136a and b) which use only one type of conflation "in its most characteristic expression of motion." (Talmy 2000b: 27). On the other hand, the two lexicalization patterns exhibit differences in Arabic with regard to their construal, their communicative functions, and their applicability for expressing different types of motion. Satelliteframed lexicalization profiles the Manner of motion, and is suitable for expressing realized motion in which Manner surfaces as being more significant within the speaker's focus of attention. In contrast, verb-framed lexicalization does not specify the exact Manner of motion, and thus is the appropriate option for conveying motion when Manner is not at issue in the conceptualization.

Consequently, Arabic cannot be identified as a path-conflating type of language as Talmy suggests (i.e. having only the path-conflating type of verb as its most characteristic expression of motion). Rather we have to conclude that Arabic tends to be the type of language that conflates path and motion in main verbs. Yet, it contains a lot of verbs that conflate manner with motion in main verbs. And still in both cases, the most characteristic way to express path is by using satellites.

While it is natural in Arabic to conflate Move with Path and express them in the main verb of a motion sentence, the verb is not the only linguistic form used to render Path. Part of the Path complex is almost always realized by PPs along with the Path

260

verb. Moreover, the Path may not be conflated in the verb. Instead, it is rather conveyed in a verb complement that is syntactically dependent on the head verb and appears after the verb. Such verb complement is usually directional in nature. It is viewed as a satellite to the main verb in motion expressions.

The lexicalization of Manner and Cause with Move in Arabic also has this two-way linguistic representation, i.e., through verb conflation or PP lexicalization just like Path.

The dissertation shows that Arabic utilizes both the satellite-framed and verb-framed lexicalization patterns in encoding Path and other components of motion. Thus, Arabic exhibits "a parallel system of conflation" in encoding Path and the other motion elements. Research in this dissertation has found that the two types of motion representations in the language are not equally expressive or applicable in representing motion events. With the satellite-framed pattern, the Manner of the motion is profiled in conception, i.e. how the movement is performed represents a significance to the conceptualizer. Thus, if the Manner of the motion is of concern to the speaker as in describing the movement of a baby, then the satellite-framed pattern is the appropriate choice. In contrast, the Manner of the motion is unspecified in the verb-framed expression in Arabic. Thus, if the Manner is not a dimension within the speaker's focus of attention, the verb-framed pattern is more appropriate.

The study has further found that the manifestations of motion conceptualization in the language can either be of Move + Path, Move + Manner, Move + Path + Manner, or

261

Move + Manner + Path. Two or three of these components can be conflated in the main verb. The rest are conveyed through other linguistic forms in the same clause. The tendency of Path and Manner of motion in Arabic to have different lexicalizations is attributable to the morphosyntactic nature of Arabic as an agglutinating language. The makeup of the Arabic verb root conveys different semantic distinctions related to manner or direction of motion even in its most basic form. It can also be caused by cultural practices and communicative necessities.

This research has led to the identification of some general characteristics of motion expression in Arabic: (1) conflation of Motion plus one additional semantic component, either Manner or Path, is the most characteristic lexicalization pattern of the Arabic motion verb lexicon; (2) Arabic has a full set of Path verbs which express different types of Path; among these, the most frequently lexicalized types of Path are 'from Ground', 'To/towards Ground', and 'away from Ground' whereas the least frequent is ‘Out of Ground’. These tendencies suggest that there are important similarities in how Arabic and possibly other verb- and satellite-framed languages, lexicalize the domain of motion in their verb roots; (3) Manner-of-motion verbs in Arabic constitute a small set which differ from Manner verbs in languages like English. Their idiosyncrasy lies in their morphological structure since many of these Manner conflate an additional semantic component which, sometimes, happens to be Path. and (4) Arabic motion verb lexicon is able to express various types of Paths and Manners just like any other language.

The Arabic motion verbs used in this study included a variety of Path and Manner verbs. Although the number of these verbs are not equal, the study argues that this 262

should not be a conclusive element in the typology and that other measures like frequency of use should also count as well. As far as the number of verbs used for motion, Arabic appears to be the type of language called in the literature equipollentlyframed language with a mixture of both path verbs and manner verbs used to express and talk about motion situations.

6.2 Benefits of this research to linguistics and education

The present dissertation can have practical applications in three distinct domains: (1) for research in cognitive linguistics, (2) for language teaching and (3) for translation.

First, research on Motion may be benefited from in a number of ways. The approach presented in this dissertation could be extended to the study of the motion verb lexicons of other verb- and satellite-framed languages as well as to the study of other linguistic units which can also express path and/or manner information, such as satellites. Further studies can be conducted to examine other types of verbs in Arabic such as emotion verbs, psyche verbs and many others. The grammar of motion verbs can also be tackled in a separate research. However, the research on motion conceptualization would benefit from a better understanding of the semantics of Arabic motion verbs and from their general features observed in this dissertation.

Second, the semantic representations of motion verbs proposed in this dissertation may have useful applications for teaching English as a second language, in particular, for teaching English to speakers of Arabic. Students of English find it very difficult to 263

learn and master the vast amount of English manner-of-motion verbs. If manner verbs are presented to students in categories and then explored in terms of the additional manner information they encode, it will be easier for them to understand their semantics. The observations and findings also afford significant insights into motion expressions for Arab L2 teachers and learners, thereby facilitating both teaching and learning of motion verbs.

Finally, this dissertation may benefit the field of translation. The complex semantic nature of a great number of Arabic and English motion verbs has been presented and used as translation equivalents. Based on this study, translators might either choose the most semantically equivalent verb if the context of the utterance allows its use, or they might render the motion verb by other linguistic means in order to be as faithful to the original as possible while sounding natural in the target language. On the other hand, translation specialists may find it useful to isolate single components of a concept and translate them in a better way using their late equivalents or near-equivalents in the target language. In this way, linguistic differences are into perspective through realizing the common conceptual structure and the missing meaning-form mappings.

6.3 Suggestions for future research

In the future, further examination of the semantics of motion verbs using experimental methods is possible. The semantic analysis carried out in this dissertation puts forward the proposal that there should be other criteria for classifying motion verbs

264

as well as other verbs in Arabic. In other words, the current semantic representations for the Arabic motion verbs call for real-life data validation.

Another line of research might be needed to investigate the semantic weight of the manner parameters which constitute a verb’s meaning. This is done by grouping motion verbs into manner categories and examining whether some manner features are more important than others for defining a verb or whether all manner features are on equal footing. Furthermore, it might also be beneficial to study whether Verb-framed languages have a preference for lexicalizing some types of paths or movements over others or have a larger number of verbs depicting different ways in which the Figure walks than verbs denoting different ways of running and jumping for instance.

Fictive motion is another line of research that would sure be very interesting and promising to study in Arabic. It would shed more light on Conceptual Structure.

Last, it would be of value for cross-linguistic research to describe the categorization of paths, space in general as well as other semantic domains of verbs. Cognitive semantics is, in my opinion, another great way to renew the study of Arabic and to contribute to it some of the latest theories of language as a way of proving its immortality, beauty and ever-developing nature to suit the needs of its speakers.

265

REFERENCES

Abdu-ljaleel, Manqoor. 2001. Ilm Al-Dalalah: Usoluhu wa Mabahithuhu fi Al- Turaath AlArabi. The Arab Writers Union. http://www.awu-dam.orglbookJOl/studyOl/ 267-M-A1indbookO I-sd00l.htm Amidi, Sayfuddeen Ali Muhammed Al-. 1986. Al-Ihkam fi Usool Al-Ahkaam. Ed. by Sayyid Al-jumaily. Beirut: Dar Al-Kitaab Al-Arabi. Anees, Ibraheem. 1972. Dalalat Al-Alfaaz. 2nd ed. Cairo: Maktabat Anglo Al-Misriyyah,

Antovic, Mihailo. 2003. The Position of Semantics within Contemporary Cogitive Science. Facta Universitatic; Series Lingisitcs and Literature Vol.2, No 10. pp. 415-442. Nish: the University of Nish. Askari, AbuHilal Al-. 1990. Al-furooq fi Al-lughah. Ed. by Husaam Addeen Al-Qudsi. Beirut: Daar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah. Aske, Jon. 1989. Path Predicates in English and Spanish: A Closer Look. Proceedings of the fifteen annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 1-14. Azzooz, Ahmad. 2002. Usool Trathiyyah fi Nazariyyat Al-Huqool Al-Dalaaliyyah. The Arab Writers Union.. http://www.awu-dam.orglbookJ02/study02/365-AA1ind-book02-sdOO l.htm Beilock, S. L. & Holt, L. E. 2007. Embodied preference judgments: Can likeability be driven by the motor system?". Psychological Science 18. 51-57. Beilock, S. L., & Gonso, S. 2008. Putting in the mind vs. putting on the green: Expertise, performance time, and the linking of imagery and action. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 61. 920-932.

266

Beilock, S. L. 2008. Beyond the playing field: Sports psychology meets embodied cognition. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 1. 19-30. pdf Beilock, S. L. 2009. Grounding cognition in action: Expertise, comprehension, and judgment. Motion and Cognition. Mind and Motion: The Bidirectional Link between Thought and Action. Progress in Brain Research. Eds. M. Raab & J. Johnson. New York: Elsevier B. V, 3-11 Beradslee, D.C., and Westheimer, M. (eds.) 1985. Readings in Perception. Princeton. NJ: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. Berman, Ruth A. and Dan 1. Slobin. 1994. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. Bernini, Giuliano, Lorenzo Spreafico, Ada Valentini. 2006. Acquiring motion verbs in a second language: The case of Italian L2. Linguistica e Filologia 23. 7-26. Pdf. Berthele, Raphael. 2004. The typology of motion and posture verbs: A variationist account. Dialectology meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Kortmann, Bernd, 93-126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bloom, P., Peterson, M.A., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M.F. (eds.)1996. Language and space. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Brachman R. and H. Levesque 1985. Readings in Knowledge Representation. California: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. Brown, P., and Dell, G. 1987. Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology 19. 441-472. Brugman, C. 1990. What is the Invariance Hypothesis? Cognitive Linguistics 1, 2. 257-266. Butter, Charles M. 1968. Neuropsychology: The study of Brain and Behavior. Belmont CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

267

Cappelle, Bert, and Renaat Declerck.. 2005. Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 889-917. Casad, E.H. 1993. Locations, paths and the Cora verb. Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, ed. by R.A. Geiger and B. Rudzka-Ostyn, 593-645. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter,.

Chafe, W. L. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University Press.

Chierchia G. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1990. An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press

Choi, Soonja, & Melissa Bowerman. 1991. Learning to express Motion Events in English and Korean: The Influence of Language-Specific Lexicalization Patterns. Cognition 41. 83122.

Chu, Chengzhi. 2004. Event Conceptualization and Grammatical Realization: The Case of Motion in Madarin Chinese. The Graduate Division of the University of Hawai'i, Diss.

Cristobal, Maria. 2001. Arriving events in English and Spanish: a contrastive analysis in terms of Frame Semantics. International Computer Science Institute.

Croft, William. 1999. Some Contributions of Typology to Cognitive Linguistics and vise versa. Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology, ed. by Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker, 61-93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

268

Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruse, A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.

Crystal, David. 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dahdaah, Antoine AI-. 1991. Mu'jam Tasreef AI-Afaal AI-Arabiyia. Beirut: MAktabat Lubnaan.

Dawood, Muhammed. 2002. AI-Dalalah wa AI-Harakah: Dirasah li-Afaal AIHarakah fi AIArabiyyah AI-Mu'asirah fi Itaar AI-Manahij AI-Hadeethah. Cairo: Dar Ghareeb.

Daya, Fayiz Al-. 1985. Ilm Addalaala Bayna Annazariyya wa Attatbeeq. Damascus: Dar Al-fkr.

Dixon, R. M. W..1991. A New Approach to English Grammar On Semantic Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online Dictionary. Access: 12 May 2010, from http://www.britannica.com/

Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Fauconnier, G.l994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, G.1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

269

Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. 1994. Conceptual projection and middle spaces. UCSD: Department of Cognitive Science Technical Report 9401. San Diego, California.

Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner.1996. Blending as a central process in grammar. Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, ed. by A. Goldberg, 113-130. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.

Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22.2 133-87.

Fayyaad, Sulaiman. 1988. Mu'jam AI-Af'al AL-Arabiyya Athulathiyya Al-Mua'sira. Riyadh: Dar Al-Mirreek.

Fayyaad, Sulaiman. 2000. Mu'jam AI-Sam' wa AI-Masmo'aat. Beirut: Maktabat Lubnaan.

Fellbaum, C. 1990. English Verbs as a Semantic Net. International Journal of Lexicography 3.4 270-301.

Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by the Linguistic Society of Korea, 111-137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.

Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quademi di Semantica 6. 222-54.

Fillmore, Charles J. and Baker, Collin F. 2001. Frame Semantics for Text Understanding. Proceedings of WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop, NAACL, Pittsburgh, June, 2001, from http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/papers/FNcrime.

270

Fillmore, Charles, Charles Wooters, and Collin F. Baker. 2001. Building a large lexical databank which provides deep semantics. Proceedings of the Pacific Asian Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 3-25. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Fillmore, Charles et al. 2006. FrameNet. Website of Berkeley FrameNet project. Access date May 12th, 2010, from http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/index

Gray, R., Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. 2007. As soon as the bat met the ball, I knew it was gone: Outcome prediction, hindsight bias, and the representation and control of action in novice and expert baseball players. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14. 669-675.

Geeraets, D. 1997. Diachronic prototype Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gennari, Silvia P., Sloman, S., Malt, B., & Fitch W. 2002. Motion Events in Language and Cognition. Cognition 83.49-79.

Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. 2001. Individuation, relational relativity and early word learning. Language acquisition and conceptual development, ed. by M. Bowerman & S. Levinson, 215-56. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ghalayyeeni, Mustafa AI-. 1986. Jami' Al-Duroos Al-Arabiryyiah. Ed. by Abdul Mun'im Khafaaja. Cairo: Al-Maktabah Al-Asriyyiah.

Goldberg, Adele. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach toargument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

271

Goldberg, Adele E. 1998. Patterns of experience in patterns of language. The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 203-221. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Green N., & H.R. Heekeren. 2009. Perceptual decision-making: a bidirectional link between mind and cognition. Mind and Motion: The Bidirectional Link between Thought and Action. Progress in Brain Research, ed. by M. Raab & J. Johnson, 207-218. New York: Elsevier B. V.

Hamdaan, Mahmood Musa. 1998. Al-Ityaan wa Al-Maji' Fiqhu Dalaalatihima wa Isti'maaluhuma fi Al-Qura'n Al-Kareem. Cairo: Maktabat Wahbah.

Hassani, Ahmad. 1999. Mabaahith fi Al-lisaniyaat. Algiers: Diwaan Al-MuTboo'aat AlJami'iyyah.

Hassan Tamam. 2000. Al-Lugha Al-Arabiyyia Ma'naaha wa Mabnaaha. Casablanca: Dar Athaqaafa

Haydar, Freed Awad. 1999. Ilm Al-Dalalah: Dirasah Nazariyyah wa Tatbiqiyyah. Cairo: Maktabat Al-Nahdah Al-Masriyyah.

Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Higginbotham, J. 1985. On Semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 547-93.

Higginbotham, J. 1997. The Role of Events in Linguistic Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University, Ms.

272

Holt, L. E. & Beilock, S. L. 2006. Expertise and its embodiment: Examining the impact of sensorimotor skill expertise on the representation of action-related text. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13. 694-701.

Ibarretxe- Antufiano. 1999. Metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by R. W. Gibbs Jr. and G. Steen, 29-45. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjarnins.

Ibn Faaris, Abu Al-Husayn Ahmad. 1993. Al-Sahibi fi Fiqh Al-Luhgah. Ed. by Omar Farooq AI-Tabba'. Beirut: Maktabat AI-Ma'aarif.

Ibn Jinni, Abu-lfat'h Othmaan. 1955. Al-Khasa'is. Ed. by Muhammed Ali Al-Najjar. Beirut: Dar Aal-Kitaab AI-Arabi.

Ibraheem, Rajab. 2001. Alfaaz Al-Ma'kal wa Al-Mashrab fi Al-Arabiyya AlAndalusiyyah. Cairo: Dar Ghareeb.

Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 2000. The schemata for motion and action: A typological consideration. Functional Approaches to Language, Culture and Cognition: Papers in Honor of Sydney M. Lamb, ed. by D. G. Lockwood, P. H. Fries, and J. E. Copeland, 185-197. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins.

Jackendoff, R.S. 1976. Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 89-150.

Jackendoff, R.S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

273

Jackendoff, R.S. 1985. Multiple Subcategorization and the Theta-Criterion: The Case of Climb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3.3: 271-295.

Jackendoff, R.S. 1987. The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18.3. 369-411.

Jackendoff, R.S.1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Jackendoff, R.S.1992a. Parts and Boundaries. Lexical & Conceptual Semantics, ed. by B. Levin and S. Pinker, 9-45. Cambridge Mass: Blackwell.

Jackendoff, R.S.1992b. Philosophical Implications of Cognitive Semantics. Cognitive Linguistics 3.4. 345-66.

Jackendoff, R.S.1996. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Jackendoff, R.S. 1997. Semantics and Cognition. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 539-559. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Reason and Imagination. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Johnson, J.G. , M. Raab & H.R. Heekeren. 2009. Mind and motion: surveying successes and stumbles in looking ahead. Mind and Motion: The Bidirectional Link between Thought and Action. Progress in Brain Research, ed. by M. Raab & J. Johnson, 319-328. New York: Elsevier B. V.

274

Jurjaani, Abu bakr Ibn Abdulrahmaan Ibnu Muhammad Al-.1994. Asraar Al-Balagha fi Ilm AlBayaan. Ed. by Muhammeda Rasheed Ridha. Cairo: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyya.

Jurjaani, Abu bakr Ibn Abdulrahmaan Ibnu Muhammad Al-. 2001. Dalaa?il Al-I'jaaz fi Ilm AlMa'aani. Ed. by Sad Kareem Alfiqi. Cairo: Dar Al-Yaqeen.

Kay , Paul and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic realizations: The what's X doing Y? construction. Language 75.1. 1-33.

Katz, David .1950. Gestalt Psychology: Its nature and significance. United States: Ronald Press Company.

Katz, J.1. and J. A. Fodor. 1963. The Structure of Semantic Theory. Language 39. 2. 170-210.

Koffka, Kurt. 1935. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Lund Humphries.

Kohler, Wolfgang. 1947. Gestalt Psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern society. New York; Liveright Publishing Corporation.

Khuli, Mohammad Ali Al-. 2001. Ilm Addalaala (Ilm Al-Ma'na). Amman: Dar Al-Falah.

Kövecses, Zoltán.2002. Metaphor: a practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, G.& Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. 1987a. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

275

Lakoff, George. 1987b. Cognitive models and prototype theory. Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization, ed. by Neisser, Ulric, 63-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. 1988. Cognitive semantics. Meaning and Mental Representations, ed. by Eco U., M. Santambrogio and P. Violi, 119-54. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lakoff, G.& Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G.1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1.1. 39-74.

Lakoff, George. 1992. Metaphors and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the gulf.

Thirty years of linguistic evolution, ed. by Pütz, Martin, 463-82. Philadelphia; Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lakoff, G. and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral politics: how liberals and conservatives think . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol. I. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W.1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive basis of Grammar. Berlin/New york : Mouton De Gruyter.

276

Langacker, R.W.1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application, , Vol. II. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W.1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4.1 1-38.

Langacker, R. W. 1998. Conceptualization, symbolization and grammar. The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 1-40. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Langacker, R. W. 1999. Assessing the Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise. Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology, ed. by Theo Janssen, Gisela Redeker, 13-59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, R.W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Levelt, W. 1996. Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. Language and space, ed. by P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. Garrett, 77-108. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Levin B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1992. The Lexical Semantics of Verbs of Motion: The Perspective from Unaccusativity. Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, ed. by L.M. Roca, 247-269. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Linguistic Inquiry monograph no. 26. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press. 277

Levinson, S.C. 1996. Relativity in spatial conception and description. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Levinson, Stephen. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Language, Culture and Cognition 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lockridge, C., and Brennan, S. 2002. Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9. 550-557.

Loos, Eugene. (ed.). Glossary of Linguistic Terms. Online Linguistic Dictionary. Access May 2010, from www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguistic Terms

Majid, Asifa, Melissa Bowerman, Sotaro Kita, Daniel B. Haun, & S. Levinson. 2004. Can Language Restrict Cognition? The Case For Space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 3. 108-14.

Mahmood, Abdul-Jawwaad Tawfeeq. 2003. The syntax and semantics of the substanceRemoving Verbs in English and Arabic. Riyadh: Majallat Jaami'at Al-malik Saud lilughaat wa Al-taIjamah 15. 1.

Mateu, Jaume, and Gemma Rigau. 2002. A Minimalist account of conflation processes: Parametric variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. Theoretical Approaches to Universals, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, 211-236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 7.2. 183-226.

278

McCune, Loraine. 2006. Dynamic event words: From common cognition to varied linguistic expression. First Language 26 (2). 233–255.

Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird P.N. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mora Gutiérrez, J. P. 1998. Directed motion in English and Spanish. University of Seville, Spain. Diss. [Available as Estudios de Lingüística Espanñola, 2001, Vol. 11 – http://elies.rediris.es/elies11/]

Narasimhan, B. 2003. Motion Events and the Lexicon: The Case of Hindi. Lingua, 113.2: 123160.

Nahar, Haadi. 2007. Ilm Addalaala Attatbeeqi fi Atturaath Al-Arabi. Irbid: Dar Al-Amal linashr wa Attawzee'

Naigles, Letitia R., Ann R. Eisenberg, Edward T. Kako, Melisssa Highter, & N. McGraw. 1998. Speaking of Motion: Verb Use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive processes 13.5 521-49.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2000. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Nuyts, Jan, and Eric Pederson (eds.) 1999. Language and Conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Omar, Ahmad Mukhtaar. 1998. Ilm AI-Dalaalah, 5th ed. Beirut: Aalam Al-Kutub.

279

Osherson, N. Daniel, Lila R. Gleitman, Stephen Michael Kosslyn.1995.An Invitation to Cognitive Science. 2nd edition Visual Cognition. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Ozealiskan, Seyda, and Dan Slobin. 1999. Learning How To Search for the Frog: Expressions of Manner of Motion in English, Spanish and Turkish. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development Vol. 2. Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press.

Ozcaliskan, S., & Slobin, D. 2000a. Climb up vs. ascend climbing: Lexicalization choices in expressing motion events with manner and path components. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development Vol. 2, ed. by S. Catherine-Howell,.S. A. Fish, & T. K. Lucas, 558-570. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Ozcaliskan, S., & Slobin, D. 2000b. Expression of manner of movement in monolingual and bilingual adult narratives: Turkish vs. English. Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages, ed. by A. Gaksel & C. Kerslake, 253-262. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrasowitz Verlag.

Ozcaliskan, P., & Slobin, D. 2003. Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in Turkish and English. Studies in Turkish linguistics, ed. by A. S. Ozsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoolu-Demiralp, E. Erguvanly- Taylan, & A. Aksu- Koy, 259-270. Istanbul: Booaziyi University Press.

Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. 2006. When English proposes what Greek presupposes. Cognition 98. 75-87.

Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David P. Wilkins, Stephen Levinson, Sotaro Kita, and Gunter Senft. 1998. Semantic Typology and Spatial Conceptualization. Language 74.3 557-89.

280

Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104. 573-605.

Ross, Haj. 1995. A first crosslinguistic look at paths: The difference between end-legs and medial One. The Current State of Interlanguage: Studies in Honor of William E. Rutherford, ed. by Lynn Eubank, Larry Selinker, and Michael Sharwood Smith, 273-286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Saamuraa'i, Ibraheem AI-. 1983. AI-Fi'l Zamaanuhu wa Abniyatuh. Beirut: Mu'assasat AlRisaalah.

Sibawayh, Abu bishr Amru Ibnu Othmaan Ibnu Qunbur. 1988. Al-Kitaab. Ed. by AbdulSalaam Haroon. Cairo: Matba'at AI-Khanji.

Shakir, Salem. 1992. Madkhal ila Hm AI-Dalaalah. Algeirs: Diwaan AI-Matbu'aat AIJami'iyyah.

Shieber, S. and M. Johnson. 1993. Variations on Incremental Interpretation, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22 (2). 287-318.

Slobin, Dan. 1981. The origins of grammatical encoding of events. The child's construction of language, ed. by W. Deutsch, 185-199. London: Academic Press.

Slobin, Dan. 1996a. Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish. Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson, 195-220. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

281

Slobin, Dan. 1996b. From 'thought and language' to 'thinking for speaking'. Rethinking linguistic relativity, ed. by J. Gumperz & S. Levinson, 70-96. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Slobin, Dan. 2000. Verbalized Events. A Dynamic Approach to Linguistic Relativity and Determinism. Evidence for Linguistic relativity, ed. by Susanne Niemeier and René Dirven, 107-138. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Slobin, Dan. 2004a. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. Relating events in narrative. Typological and contextual perspectives, Vol. II, ed. by S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven, 219-257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Slobin, Dan. 2004b. How people move: Discourse effects of linguistic typology. Discourse across languages and cultures, ed. by A. Martinovic Zik & C. L. Moder, 191-206. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Slobin, Dan. 2005. Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified? Outside-In-Inside-Out. Iconicity in Language and Literature 4, ed. by C. Maeder, O. Fischer, & W. Herlofsky, 307-322. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Slobin Dan, & Nini Hoiting. 1994. Reference to Movement in Spoken and Signed Languages: Typological Considerations. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 20: 487-505.

Speigelberg, Herbert. 1972. Phenomenology in Psychology and Psychiatry: A Historical Introduction. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.

282

Suyooti, Jalaluddeen, AI-. 1958. Al-Muzhir fi Uloom Al-lughah wa Anwa'iha. Ed. by Muhammad Ahmad Jadilmowla and others. Egypt: Dar Ihyaa AI-Kutub Al-Arabiyyia.

Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. Syntax and Semantics 4, ed. by J. Kimball, 181-238. New York: Academic Press.

Talmy, Leonard.1976. Semantic Causative Types. The Grammar of Causative Constructions. Syntax and Semantics 6, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 43-116. New York: Academic Press.

Talmy, Leonard.1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Form. Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon vol. I., ed. by T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Talmy, Leonard.1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49100.

Talmy, Leonard.1991. Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation. Berkeley Linguistic Society 17. 480-519.

Talmy, Leonard.1996. The windowing of attention. Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, ed. by M. Shibatani and S.A. Thompson, 235-87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. I: concept-structuring systems. Mass: MIT Press.

283

Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. II: typology and process in concept-structuring. Mass: MIT Press.

Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tomlin, R. S. 1997. Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. Language and conceptualization, ed. by J. Nuyts & E. Pederson, 162-189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, M. and G. Fauconnier. 1995. Conceptual integration and formal expression. Journal of Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10. 3. 183-204.

Ungerer, F. and H-J. Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.

Van Valin, Robert. 2001. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vyvyan Evan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken. 2006. The Cognitive Linguistics Enterprise: An Overview. The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, 1-36. London: Equinox Publishing Company.

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Access: 12 May 2010, from http:// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 284

Wildgen, Wofgang. 2004. Time, Motion, Force and the Semantics of Natural languages. University of Bremen. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics, 2003/2004. Access, May 12, 2010. www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/homepapes/wildgen/pdf/ antwerpcn-timc

Wright, Alex. 2007. GLUT: Mastering Information Through Ages. National Academies Press.

Zamakkshari, Abu AI-Qaasim AI-. 1990. AI-Mufassal fi I'lm AI-Lughah. Ed. by Muhammad Ezzuddeen AI-Saedi. Cairo: Daar Ihyaa' AI-Uloom. "Verb Semantic Classes" 1996. Ivc 6c Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards (EAGLES on line). -2010. 27 April 2010.