Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Typological features of Telugu: defining the parameters of post-Talmian motion event typology

Typological features of Telugu: defining the parameters of post-Talmian motion event typology ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2022.2132563 Typological features of Telugu: defining the parameters of post-Talmian motion event typology a,b c d Viswanatha Naidu , Jordan Zlatev and Joost van de Weijer Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Centre for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India; Centre for Languages and Literature, Cognitive Semiotics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, Sweden ABSTRACT Recent research in motion event typology has moved beyond the binary Talmian division of “verb-framed” and “satellite-framed” languages and has established the existence of at least four distinct typological clusters, instan- tiated by, for example, Swedish (Germanic), French (Romance), Thai (Tai-Kadai) and Telugu (Dravidian). In this paper, we focus on characteristic features of Telugu, as a representative of the fourth cluster. In the study, 30 native Telugu speakers described video-recorded translocative events, in which the factors boundedness, viewpoint and causation were manipulated. Using the model Holistic Spatial Semantics, we show that Telugu speakers (a) preferentially used Direction verbs rather than Path verbs, (b) predominantly used case markers rather than verbs for encoding Path, (c) extensively used Landmark and Region expressions, and (d) frequently used Manner verbs in situations of “boundary- crossing” unlike speakers of typical “verb-framed” languages. We propose these features to be criterial of the fourth typological cluster mentioned above, a claim to be investigated in future research. KEYWORDS Boundary-crossing constraint; case-marking; Dravidian; Holistic Spatial Semantics; path; post-Talmian motion event typology; Telugu 1. Introduction When discussing the semantic typology of motion events, a traditional point of departure is the influential claim that languages fall into two types with respect to how they express the semantic category Path (Talmy 1985, 2000). On the one side are so-called “verb-framed” languages like Spanish, in which Path is said to be typically encoded by verbs like entró (“enter”) as in (1). On the other side are “satellite-framed” languages like English, where Path is CONTACT Viswanatha Naidu viswanath.iiit@gmail.com Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, Göteborg SE-405 30, Sweden We consistently use initial capital letters for semantic categories like Path and Manner, to distinguish these from hypothetical cognitive/experiential categories like bounded and unbounded motion (cf. Zlatev 1997; Zlatev et al. 2021). These semantic categories appear in the third row in all examples and are explained in Section 2. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 V. NAIDU ET AL. most commonly expressed by a so-called “satellite” to the verb (root), such as the particle/preposition into in (2). During the past two decades, however, this binary typology has been shown to be lacking both empirically and theoretically. Recurrent issues include (a) that the classification is unable to capture variation within a single language (e.g., Berthele 2013) and variation across languages supposedly belonging to the same type (e.g., Bohnemeyer et al. 2007; Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2009; Morita 2011; Matsumoto 2003; Lewandowski 2021); (b) the need to extend the number of types (Slobin 2004; Zlatev and Peerapat 2004; Fortis and Vittrant 2016); and (c) the vagueness in the definitions of the key concepts Path, Manner, and even Motion (Zlatev, Blomberg, and Caroline 2010; Croft et al. 2010; Imbert 2012; Blomberg 2014). (1) La botella entró flotando a la cueva (Spanish) the bottle enter.PST floating to the cave Figure Path+Motion Manner+Motion Path Landmark “The bottle floated into the cave.” (2) The bottle floated into the cave. (Talmy 2000, 227) Reviewing such problems and proposed alternatives, Naidu et al. (2018) and Zlatev et al. (2021) proposed the term post-Talmian as characteristic of the state of the field today. With this term, the authors acknowledge their indebtedness to the seminal work of Talmy, but mark that the field has moved beyond it. To justify this claim, Naidu et al. (2018) compared motion event expressions in Thai, an “equipollently-framed” language according to Slobin (2004), with those in Telugu, a Dravidian language spoken in south- ern India. Conducting an elicitation study based on “frog stories” (i.e., eliciting narratives based on a well-known picture book by Mayer 1969; cf. Berman and Slobin 1994), the authors revealed substantial differences between the languages in terms of the semantic categories that were most frequently expressed, and of the structural means by which they were expressed. Since neither Telugu nor Thai fit easily into the original “verb- framed” or “satellite-framed” types, Naidu et al. (2018, 20) formulated the hypothesis that within a post-Talmian motion event typology, the Talmian types “will appear as only two such clusters, while serial verb languages like Thai (e.g., Ewe and Vietnamese) and languages like Telugu (e.g., Tamil and Finnish) will fall into clusters that are distinct from these, as well as from each other, thus giving us (at least) four distinct typological prototypes.” Using the conceptual framework of Holistic Spatial Semantics, first proposed by Zlatev (1997), and subsequently revised and developed (Zlatev 2007; Blomberg 2014; Naidu et al. 2018), Zlatev et al. (2021) tested this hypothesis using systematic elicitation of different kinds of motion situations (Zlatev, Blomberg, and David 2010). They presented short video clips with human and animal actors to native speakers of Swedish, French, Thai, and Telugu. Given the ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 3 similarities and differences between the motion event descriptions found in the four languages, the authors conclude that the proposal of “four distinct typolo- gical clusters in motion event semantics” has been confirmed “by demonstrating (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Swedish, French, Thai and Telugu motion event descriptions differ from one another to such an extent that each language can be seen as instantiating a distinct typological cluster” (Zlatev et al. 2021, 84). In this approach to motion event typology, typological clusters are character- ized by prototypical patterns in ways to express a (hypothetically) universal set of semantic categories (see Section 2). The first two clusters approximate the original Talmian types, with Swedish and French as representatives, but the expression patterns are much more complex than a specification of how Path (and Manner) are expressed. Notably, linguistic strategies to express motion vary depending on the type of situation. For instance, in uncaused-unbound motion situation types, the French speakers encoded Path seldom, and rather used Direction terms as in (3). In contrast, in uncaused-bound motion situations they expressed Path frequently. (3) Un monsieur monte sur une colline en courant. (French) a man climb.up.PRS on a hill running Figure Motion+Direction Region Landmark Manner ‘A man runs up a hill.’ (Zlatev et al. 2021, 76) Thai (and other serial-verb languages like Ewe, Akan, Mandarin) represent a distinct cluster of languages in which the categories of Manner, Path and Direction are expressed by distinct serial verbs as in (4), while Path is commonly also co-expressed in prepositions. The latter also express Region, an important category which is generally neglected in Talmian typology (Zlatev et al. 2021). (4) puying doen khâw pay nay hɔ ̂ ŋ (Thai) woman walk enter go in room Figure Motion Motion Motion Region Landmark +Manner +Path +Direction ‘A woman walks into a room.’ (Zlatev et al. 2021, 78) Finally, Telugu speakers rely not on any of these options, but rather on nominal case-marking as the predominant means of expressing Path, reser- ving verbs for Manner and Direction, as in (5). (5) pillawādu skūlu-ki parigettu-kuMtū wacc-ā-du. _ _ _ boy school-DAT run-PTCP come-PST-3SG.M Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Direction+Motion Path:End FoR:VC ‘A boy came to the school running.’ (Naidu and Duggirala 2011, 186) All examples without a language attributed are in Telugu. The symbol M in Telugu examples covers nasals homorganic with the following consonant. 4 V. NAIDU ET AL. On the basis of an elicitation-based study using the same methodology as the present study, Zlatev et al. (2021) showed how Telugu displays patterns that differ both qualitatively and quantitatively from those in the other three languages and can therefore serve as the hypothetical core of a fourth typological cluster. But what features can be used as criterial for this cluster? We explore this question in the present article with a more extensive data set than those used in Naidu et al. (2018) and Zlatev et al. (2021). We do so in an inductive Manner in Sections 3 and 4, after first explaining our theoretical framework in Section 2. The relevance of the study is also enhanced by the fact that the many languages spoken in India, belonging to widely different language families, have received relatively little attention in motion event semantics. In the few studies that have been reported, Narasimhan (2003) concludes rather quickly that Hindi fits the Talmian “verb-framed” type, and Pederson (2006) does the same for Tamil (see also Slobin et al. 2011, 134). However, these authors ignored the difference between generic deictic verbs like those in the Tamil example (6) and the Hindi example (7), on the one hand, and Path verbs like entrer (“enter”) and sortir (“exit”) in French, on the other hand. In (6), the most essential element of Path, specifying the endpoint of the motion event, is in fact expressed not in the verb, but in the dative case marker. (6) oru payyaṉ aṟai-kk-ul pōṉāṉ. (Tamil) one boy room-DAT-in go.PST.AGR Figure Landmark Direction+Motion Path:End FoR:VC Region:In ‘A boy went into the room.’ (7) ladkā kamrē-mē ga-yā. (Hindi) boy room-in go-PST.AGR Figure Landmark Direction+Motion Region:In FoR:VC ‘A boy went into the room.’ Pederson (2006) based his conclusions on the assumption that Tamil, like Spanish and French, follows the so-called boundary-crossing constraint The present data for Telugu consists of that of the 20 speakers that was used by Zlatev et al. (2021), and 10 additional speakers. The first author collected examples (6)-(9) by eliciting intuitions from five native speakers of Tamil and Hindi. In (7), despite the fact that the dative case -ko is absent, the translocative interpretation is preferred to a locative one of ‘going around’ by native speakers of Hindi. This constraint states that Manner verbs (e.g., run, walk, crawl, ride) cannot express motion events with translational (or in our terms: translocative) motion. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 5 (Aske 1989; Slobin and Nini 1994; Slobin 1997; Ibarretxe-Antuñano and Luna 2013; Fagard et al. 2013) in a particular way: Like many languages, Tamil has a largish class of Manner-of-motion verbs which by themselves do not indicate translational motion. If translational motion is to be indicated, a motion verb (principally “go” or “come”) must combine with the Manner-of-motion verb (Pederson 2006, 415). This is hardly true, however, as native speakers of Hindi and Tamil fully approve of sentences in which a Manner-expressing verb combines with a Path-expressing case as in (8), and in which Path is not explicitly (overtly) coded, but can be inferred pragmatically (covertly), as in (9). (8) oru payyan aṟai-kk-ul otiṉāṉ. (Tamil) one boy room-DAT-in run.PST.AGR Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Path:End Region:In ‘A boy ran into the room.’ (9) ladkā kamrē-mē bhāgā. (Hindi) boy room-in run.PST.AGR Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Region:In ‘A boy ran in/into the room.’ These examples suggest that Pederson’s analysis was biased towards Talmy’s (2000) binary typology in several respects. First, the analysis ignores the difference between generic deictic verbs like those in the Tamil example (6) and the Hindi example (7), on the one hand, and Path verbs. Notably, Özçalışkan, (2013) regards such generic deictic verbs as neutral and therefore differentiates them from Path verbs. Second, the analysis bypasses the role of case markers, which are neither verbs nor “satellites” to the verb. Third, the importance of Region nouns is not recognized. These are the kind of biases that we aim to avoid in our study of motion event expression in Telugu, by adopting the open-ended frame- work and methodology described in Section 2. Sections 3 and 4 provide While example (9) is ambiguous between a locative (‘ran inside the room’) and a translocative (‘ran into the room’) interpretation, the context is likely to resolve this. For instance, if the boy is in a hurry to answer a call coming from the room, the translocative interpretation would be clearly preferred. The notion of case marker is very controversial in the literature (Hudson 1995; Blake 2001; Schiffman 2004; Haspelmath et al. 2005; Butt 2006; Asbury 2008; Corbett and Noonan 2008; Malchukov and Spencer 2008; Iggesen 2013), and it is beyond the scope of the present paper to resolve it. For present purposes we consider case as a linguistic category, marked by a bound morpheme on nouns (thus excluding unbound morphemes like prepositions), and expressing the agentive (i.e., agent, patient), grammatical (i.e., subject, object), or spatial (i.e., source, goal) role played by the entity marked. We focus on the latter, given the context of the study. 6 V. NAIDU ET AL. a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of the data, respectively, allowing us to spell out typological features of Telugu, and thus of the hypothe- tical “fourth cluster” in motion event semantics, to be tested in future research, as we explain in the discussion in Section 5. Section 6 con- cludes the paper. 2. Theory and methodology 2.1. Holistic Spatial Semantics Holistic Spatial Semantics (henceforth, HSS) has been described rather extensively in recent publications (Naidu et al. 2018; Zlatev et al. 2021). Here we provide a summary with examples from Telugu. The framework derives its name from the claim that spatial meaning is expressed by the whole spatial utterance, and not by a specific form class like prepositions. Yet, this “holism” is only partial, since different parts of an utterance, belonging grammatically to different form classes like verb, adverb and case marker, map onto the following 10 semantic categories: 1. Figure: the focal entity 2. Landmark: one or more physical entities in relation to which the location or translocation of the Figure may be specified 3. Region: an area of space, usually defined in relation to the Landmark 4. Motion: perceived change of the position of the Figure 5. Frame of Reference (FoR): a system of reference points and vectors, with three kinds: a. Object-centered (OC): based on a Landmark, or on the Figure itself b. Viewpoint-centered (VC): based on the perspective of an observer c. Geocentric (GC): based on “absolute”, geo-cardinal lines that remain constant to changes of Viewpoints, Objects, and Figures (e.g., east- west, up-down) 6. Path: bounded translocation, with respect to Beginning, Middle and/ or End 7. Direction: unbounded translocation, along one or more “lines” defined by a FoR (e.g., upwards, towards the speaker). 8. Manner: various aspects of how motion takes place, such as bodily locomotion, use of vehicle etc. 9. Shape: the geometrical form of the trajectory of movement (e.g., zigzag, straight) 10. Cause + Agent: the force that makes the Figure move (e.g., ballistic, co- motion) and the entity that is behind this force. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 7 These categories are grounded in human embodiment, but not reducible to it, and are flexible enough to adapt to the conventions of any particular language (Zlatev 1997; Naidu et al. 2018). Further, the way these semantic categories map onto the form classes that express them can be (a) composi- tional (one-to-one), (b) conflated (many-to-one) or (c) distributed (one-to- many); these mappings are expected to differ extensively across languages. Importantly, HSS makes a systematic distinction between the categories Direction (typically expressing unbounded motion as in up and come here), and Path (construing the event with respect to Beginning (e.g., from X), Middle (e.g., cross X) and End (e.g., to X)). The two categories have been shown to behave differently across languages (Zlatev et al. 2021) and there- fore should not be conflated. For example, in (10) the speaker does not express Direction, but rather Path and Region. (10) oka magawādu baMti-ni pai-ki wisir-ā-du. _ _ one man ball-ACC above-DAT throw-PST-3SG.M Agent Figure Region:Above+Path:End Cause+Motion ‘A man threw the ball upward.’ (Literally: “to the above”) (Event 11, Participant 2) Concerning motion event typology, HSS does not a priori assume a particular number of distinct language types. Rather, it endorses an open- ended methodology allowing the systematic examination of motion event expression using different methods of elicitation such as native speaker intuitions based on questionnaires (Zlatev 1997), narratives (Naidu et al. 2018), and motion event descriptions based on videos (Zlatev et al. 2021). 2.2. Materials and participants The elicitation tool used in this study was developed in the Phenomenology and Typology of Motion (PATOM) project (Zlatev et al. 2021), for the purpose of testing and further elaborating the theory of Holistic Spatial Semantics. Out of the total of 52 clips, 38 showed a translocative motion event (i.e., where the Figure changes in average position relative to a specific Frame of Reference) while the remaining 14 showed a non-translocative motion situation where this is not the case (for example, a woman shaking a blanket). The clips were between five and eight seconds long, depending on how long it took a particular motion situation to end naturally. For the present study, only the translocative motion events were analyzed and the other motion situations were treated as fillers, as shown in Table 1. Appendix B contains a specification of all the target stimuli. This code signifies that this was a description of event 11 by participant 2. This and all further examples are taken from the data of the present study. 8 V. NAIDU ET AL. Table 1. Distribution of motion event stimuli along the taxonomy of motion situations. Type of motion event Uncaused Caused Translocative, bounded (target) 12 8 Translocative, unbounded (target) 12 6 Non-translocative, bounded (filler) 4 2 Non-translocative, unbounded (filler) 4 4 Figure 1. Screenshots of two caused-bounded situations, (a) from a viewpoint that is parallel to the movement, and (b) orthogonal to the movement (Zlatev et al. 2021, 68). The Direction of the target motion events was systematically balanced (towards/away from the camera; up/down), as well as their boundedness (bounded vs. unbounded), causation (caused vs. non-caused), angle of view- point (parallel vs. orthogonal to the motion of the moving object) and the actors’ gender (male vs. female). Two examples are shown in Figure 1. As participants in the study, thirty adult speakers (mean age 21.9 years; 15 female) were recruited from the undergraduate and postgraduate students registered at the University of Hyderabad, India. They were all native speak- ers of Telugu, with knowledge of Hindi, English or both from their school or college education. The participants signed a form of informed consent and were compensated for their participation. 2.3. Procedure and analysis Each participant was tested individually by the first author, a Telugu native speaker himself. Written instructions were given, stating that after viewing each video clip, the participant should describe it in a way that is as natural and colloquial as possible. Each clip was played only once. The descriptions were audio recorded using a Sony ICD-MP3 recorder and later transcribed for analysis. The total number of clauses and motion event descriptions (see below) for the different event types are shown in Table 2. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 9 Table 2. Number of clauses and motion event descriptions produced for each category of stimuli (with number of stimuli given in parenthesis). Motion events Clauses Motion Event Descriptions Uncaused-unbounded (12) 584 366 Uncaused-bounded (12) 624 365 Caused-unbounded (6) 265 189 Caused-bounded (8) 362 244 Total 1835 1164 The annotation was semi-automatized, following the procedure devel- oped in the PATOM project (see Zlatev et al. 2021). The following steps detail how this was done for the present data. First, the descriptions of the video clips were analysed in terms of clauses and motion event descriptions. The latter were operationally defined as expressions with motion verbs, consisting of: (a) one finite clause as in (10) above, (b) one participle clause with a non-finite verb as in (11), or (c) two clauses that had the same semantic Figure, as in (12). (11) ammāyi iMt-lō-ki rā-gāne . . . girl home-in-DAT come-PTCP Figure Landmark Direction+Motion Region:In FoR:VC Path:End ‘After a girl having come home, . . . ’ (Event 16, Participant 1) (12) ammāyi cettu daggara nuMci geMtu-tū weḷ-tuM-di. _ _ girl tree near ABL hopping-PTCP go-PRS-3SG.F Figure Landmark Region: Path: Manner+Motion Direction+Motion Near Begin FoR:VC FoR:OC FoR:OC ‘A girl is going away from a tree hopping.’ (Event 2, Participant 1) While finite Telugu verbs inflect for tense and agreement with the gramma- tical subject as in (10) and the second verb in (12), non-finite verbs like that in (11), and the first verb in (12) are marked with relevant tense-mood suffixes and are therefore regarded as defining clauses in Telugu grammar (Krishnamurti and Gwynn 1985; Jayaseelan 2004; Kissock 2014). Thus defined, Telugu motion event descriptions correspond to what is typically expressed by single clauses in most other languages and can therefore be used as a basis for cross-linguistic comparisons. A list of the unique word forms in the transcripts were subsequently tagged with an English translation and a value for one or more HSS cate- gories, providing a “lexicon” of the descriptions. The words in the descrip- tions were then automatically tagged on the basis of this lexicon, and 10 V. NAIDU ET AL. subsequently checked and corrected when necessary. For example, in (12), ammāyi “girl” was correctly tagged as Figure, but in caused-motion expres- sions this category needed to be replaced by Agent. As a result of this analysis procedure, the data were analysed in terms of motion event descriptions, glossed and coded for the ten HSS categories. Of these, the following five categories, with their possible values, are of parti- cular importance for the analysis in the following sections: • Direction: Up, Down (FoR: GC), Left, Right, Towards, Away from (FoR: VC/OC), Forward, Backward (FoR: OC) • Path: Begin, Middle, End • Manner: Body (walk vs. run), Speed (rush vs. stroll), Vehicle (ride vs. fly ), Medium (sink vs. fall), Attitude (stride vs. stagger) • Region: In, Out, Below, Above, Surface, Against, Between, Among, Surround, Near, Far • Landmark: open-ended 3. Qualitative analysis In this section we describe patterns concerning the expression of each of the five HSS categories listed above, illustrated with examples from the present study. A list of all expressions for the categories Path, Direction, Manner and Region is given in Appendix A. 3.1. Direction As pointed out earlier, the category of Direction applies only to elements of unbounded translocation, while Path concerns bounded translocation. The two categories were often combined in a motion event description, as shown in (13) and (14). Expressions of Direction were commonly Viewpoint- centered: deictic verbs like waccu “come” and weḷḷu “go”, Directional adverbs like kudi “right” and edama “left”, or deictic adverbs like dūramgā “far-off”. _ _ (13) oka pustakālu unna gadi-lō nuMdi ammāyi a books there room-in ABL girl Landmark Path: Figure Region:In Begin edama waipu nuMdi bayata-ku weḷḷ-iM-di. _ _ _ left side ABL out-DAT go-PST-3.SG.F Direction:VC Path:Begin Region:Out Direction+Motion Path:End FoR:VC ‘A girl went out from the left side of the room with books.’ (Event 4, Participant 6) ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 11 (14) oka āwida baMti-ni wisirēs-iM-di tana-ku dūraMgā. one she ball-ACC throw-PST-3.SG.F she-DAT faroff Agent Figure Cause+Motion Landmark Direction:VC Path:End ‘A woman threw the ball far-off from her.’ (Event 34, Participant 22) Direction could also be expressed with the help of an Object-centered FoR, combining a Region noun like muMdu (“front”) with a Path case-marker, as in (15), or a Geocentric FoR as in (16), through verbs such as ekku “ascend” and digu “descend”. (15) oka papa bomma kāru-nu muMdu-ku tōs-iM-di. one girl toy car-ACC front-DAT pushed-PST-3SG.F Agent Figure FoR:OC Cause+Motion ‘A girl pushed a toy car forward.’ (Event 31, Participant 10) (16) oka abbāyi koMda-la-nu ekk-ā-du. _ _ a boy hill-PL-ACC ascend-PST-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Manner+Motion FoR:GC ‘A boy climbed the hills.’ (Event 20, Participant 14) 3.2. Path As stated in Section 2, HSS allows for three kinds of mapping patterns between form classes and semantic categories: composition, distribution and confla - tion. While all three were attested in the data, composition was dominant for Path, as in all descriptions shown so far. In these examples, Path is exclusively expressed through the case markers nuMdi (ABL) and - ku/-ki (“to”), without conflating Motion. The form nuMci/nuMdi, exemplified in (13) above, is derived from the accusative case marker -n and the verb uMdi “having been there” (Krishnamurti and Gwynn 1985; Krishnamurti 2003, 241). Unlike -ku/- ki, it is commonly, but not always, written separately from the nominal to which it applies. Nevertheless, we regard both forms as bound morphemes, as neither can be used separately. In addition, Telugu writing practice is not well standardized (Sproat 2003; Singh 2006) and cannot always be relied on as evidence for distinguishing between bound and free morphemes. Encoding Path in case markers without conflating Motion clearly differs from the pattern in the so-called “verb-framed” languages like Spanish, where Path and Motion are typically conflated in the verb (e.g., Slobin 2004). There were some motion event descriptions with Path verbs in the data, as in (17), but even in these descriptions Path was also coded by the dative casemarker, and thus distributed over the verb 12 V. NAIDU ET AL. and the case marker. When Path is distributed in languages like Spanish or French, this is over a verb which is dominant, and a preposition, more or less “required by the verb” as in (1). This is a pattern that is quite distinct from Telugu. (17) oka wyakti mellagā tana gadi-lō-ki prawēśiMc-ā-du. a man slowly his room-in-DAT enter-PST-3SG.M Figure Manner Landmark Path+Motion Region:In Path:End Path:End ‘A man slowly entered his room.’ (Event 13, Participant 11) 3.3. Manner Manner was expressed by finite verbs as in (18), or by verb-participles as in (19). Further, when either Path or Direction was expressed in the main verb, Manner was always expressed in a non-finite form as in (19). Any attempt to express Manner in the final, finite verb, and Direction in a non-finite participle, would be ungrammatical, as illustrated in (20). (18) oka atanu rōddu mīda uruku-tunnā-du. _ _ _ a he road above run-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Region:Above Manner+Motion ‘A man is running along the road.’ (Event 3, Participant 30) (19) oka atanu praśāMtamaina rōddu paina urukkuM-tu weḷ-tunnā-du. _ _ _ _ a he pleasant road above run-PTCP go-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Region: Manner Direction Above +Motion +Motion FoR:VC ‘A man is going along the pleasant road running.’ (Event 3, Participant 20) (20) *oka atanu praśāMtamaina rōddu paina weḷḷukun-tu uruku-tunnā-du. _ _ _ _ a he pleasant road above go-PTCP run-PRS-3SG.M ‘A man is running along the pleasant road going.’ 3.4. Region and landmark In line with the findings of Naidu et al. (2018), Region-expressing nouns (also known as “nouns of space and time”, “nominal adverbs”, or “adverbial nouns”, We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out. It may be acceptable in a scenario where the two motion events take place in sequential order, i.e., going followed by running. This is not the case in (20) as there is only one motion event. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 13 see Krishnamurti and Gwynn 1985) were found to be essential for the motion event descriptions. Typically, they were compounded with a Landmark expres- sion, as shown in many of the preceding examples and in (21). However, with the exception of -lō “in” they can also stand on their own as shown in example (10). Interestingly, together with Direction verbs like ekku (“ascend”) it is not idiomatic to use the dative case marker -ku without a Region noun, as illustrated in (22). Thus, the specification of Region is a precondition for Direction in such contexts. In contrast, the accusative case marker -ni may occur freely in such constructions, as shown in (23). (21) annayya koMda-mīda-ku ekku-tunnā-du. _ _ brother hill-above-DAT ascend-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Manner+Motion Region:Above FoR:GC Path:End ‘A brother is climbing the hill.’ (Event 20, Participant 17) (22) ??annayya koMda-ku ekku-tunnā-du. _ _ brother hill-DAT ascend-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Manner+Motion Path:End ‘A man is climbing the hill.’ (23) oka magawādu koMda-ni ekku-tunnā-du. _ _ _ a man hill-ACC ascend-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Manner+Motion FoR:GC ‘A man is climbing the hill.’ (Event 20, Participant 2) 3.5. Summary The qualitative evidence presented in this section shows three distinctive features in the way Telugu speakers describe motion events: • extensive use of generic Direction verbs • apparent dominance of case markers over verbs for expressing Path • common use of Landmark/Region expressions But are these features sufficiently frequent to be regarded as characteristic for Telugu, and hypothetically, the fourth cluster of languages that the present study aims to define? It is impossible to answer this question based on only Such uses may be found in children’s speech as well as in second language learners of Telugu (Usha Rani and Sailaja 2004). 14 V. NAIDU ET AL. a qualitative analysis, so we present a quantitative analysis of the data in the next section. 4. Quantitative analysis In this section, we subject the three features established as typical for Telugu motion event descriptions to a statistical analysis. In addition, we address a fourth feature, claimed to be definitional for so-called “verb-framed” languages: the boundary-crossing constraint (see Section 1). 4.1. Extensive use of direction verbs Figure 2 shows how often Direction (mostly Viewpoint-centered, and pre- dominantly expressed by deictic verbs), Manner, Path and Cause were expressed in the main verbs. Caused motion events were unsurprisingly characterized by the presence of a verb expressing Cause, but also by Direction and Manner verbs. Overall, Direction was expressed in the main verb approximately three to five times more often than Path or Manner. Path was expressed in the main verb only in the descriptions of uncaused- bounded motion events. Across all four conditions, Manner was expressed more often than Path, but still considerably less often than Direction. The finding that Direction verbs in general, and deictic verbs in particular, are so dominant in Telugu motion event expressions, supports the proposal to distinguish it from languages like Spanish and French, on the one hand, and at least to some degree, from languages like Swedish and English, where deictic verbs may be a common, but hardly dominant strategy. Thus, we may 17 18 1 1 0 0 0 Uncaused, unbounded Uncaused, bounded Caused, unbounded Caused, bounded Direction Manner Path Cause Figure 2. Direction, manner, path, and cause in main verbs. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 15 regard this a criterial feature of Telugu and its corresponding cluster in an extended motion event typology. 4.2. Path expressed in case-marking There were only 4 types and 18 tokens of Path-expressions through verbs in the descriptions, while Path was expressed by case markers 935 times (Figure 3). In fact, for three of the four event types, not a single Path verb was used. Another notable point in this context was the fact that whenever a Path verb was used, there was also a case marker to express it, making Path distributed, as in (17). A two-tailed paired t-test showed that the probability of choosing a Path-marking case marker over a Path-marking verb was statistically significant (t = 23.393, df = 29, p = 0.000). A Telugu case marker that expresses Path can be combined with a main verb that expresses Path, Direction or Manner, as shown in Table 3. When Path is simultaneously expressed in the verb, it becomes distributed, as illustrated in (17). When the main verb expresses Direction, Path and Direction become co-expressed in the same descrip- tion, as in (13). Finally, when a Manner verb is used as the main verb, 50 18 0 0 0 Uncaused, unbounded Uncaused, bounded Caused, unbounded Caused, bounded Case markers Path verbs Figure 3. Expression of Path in case markers and verbs in all motion event descriptions. Table 3. Three types of Telugu constructions where Path is coded in a case marker. Main verb Case marker Effect 1 Path Path Path is distributed in the description 2 Direction Path Path + Deixis composition (deictic) 3 Manner Path Path + Manner composition Boundary-crossing constraint violated 16 V. NAIDU ET AL. the so-called “boundary-crossing constraint” is violated. This is illu- strated in example (24) and further discussed in Section 4.4. (24) oka ammāyi toMdaragā oka sed-lōpali-ki parigettu-tuM-di. a girl rushingly a shed-inside-DAT run-PRS-3SG.F Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Region:In Path:End ‘A girl is running into the shed in a rush.’ (Event 16, Participant 29) It should be noted that case markers cannot be regarded as “satellites” even in the Talmian framework, where the term was defined as “any constituent other than a nominal or prepositional phrase complement that is in sister relation to the verb root” (Talmy 2000, 222). What is less often noted is that Talmy, soon after stating this definition, qualifies how Path can be expressed in “satellite-framed” languages: Although the core schema in satellite-framed languages is largely expressed by the satellite alone, it is also often expressed by the combina- tion of a satellite plus a preposition, or sometimes by a preposition alone. Such a “preposition” itself can consist not only of a free adposition, but also of a nominal inflection, or sometimes of a construction containing a “locative noun” (Talmy 2000, 222). But this assumes that “satellites” somehow remain the main strategy for the expression of Path while other adnominal constructions are second- ary. Apart from problems with blurring the category of “satellite- framing” such extension can be accused of assuming in advance that prepositions, and even more so case-marking are subordinate means when it comes to Path expression. As was shown above, this was clearly not the case for Telugu, which on the whole appears to favour an (ad) nominal pattern (nouns, cases) rather than an (ad)verbal (verbs, adverbs) pattern of Path expression (see Naidu et al. 2018). This is further discussed below. 4.3. Region and landmark The feature of expressing Region and/or Landmark nominally was clearly characteristic for the Telugu motion event descriptions. There was not a single translocative motion event description without at least one of these two categories. Region was expressed by a set of dedicated spatial nouns, while Landmark was expressed by a noun or a pronoun. With the exception of the uncaused-unbounded event type, Region expressions (1022 tokens in ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 17 246 247 Uncaused, unbounded Uncaused, bounded Caused, unbounded Caused, bounded Region Landmark Figure 4. Landmark and Region expressions in the four motion event types. total) were more frequently used than Landmark expressions (765 tokens in total) as shown in Figure 4. If we consider all instances of the five HSS categories under discussion (Path, Direction, Manner, Region, Landmark), and compare whether they were expressed (ad)nominally or (ad)verbally, as shown in Figure 5, the former form classes predominated for all types of translocative events. A two-tailed paired t-test also confirmed that the higher frequency of the 600 521 400 311 312 Uncaused, unbounded Uncaused, bounded Caused, unbounded Caused, bounded Nominal + adnominal Verbal + adverbal Figure 5. (Ad)nominal (nouns, cases) vs. (ad)verbal (verbs, adverbs). 18 V. NAIDU ET AL. (ad)nominals over (ad)verbals was statistically significant (t = 14.737, df = 29, p = 0.000). 4.4. Breaking the “boundary-crossing constraint” As pointed out in Section 1, the so-called “boundary-crossing constraint” stating that a Manner verb cannot be used to describe a situation where a boundary is crossed is said to be criterial for “verb-framed” languages like French. For example, in (25), the typical meaning is that the person is running inside, rather than into, the garden. (25) Marie a cour-u dans le jardin. (French) Marie AUX run-PTCP in DEF garden ‘Mary ran in the garden.’ While research has shown that in some allegedly “verb-framed” languages like Spanish and Turkish, the constraint is not always obeyed either, for example for rapid/instantaneous motion verbs such as Turkish daliyar “drive”, or punctual vertical motion such as Spanish tirarse (“plunge/throw oneself”) (Naigles et al. 1998; Özçalışkan 2013), Path verbs are clearly the norm in such languages. In contrast, in our Telugu data, as in (24), Manner verbs in boundary crossing events including parigettu/uruku “run”, dūru “penetrate/rush/ squeeze in”, geMtu “hop”, jāgiMg “jog”, duMku “jump” were common. As Figure 6. Path, Manner and Direction in the expression of uncaused-bounded events with boundary-crossing (see Appendix B for classification of the different kinds of events in the stimulus material of the study). ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 19 shown in Figure 6, these were not as common as Direction expressions, but more common than Path expressions. Thus, we may regard this pattern as one more characteristic feature of Telugu, in addition to the three listed at the end of the previous section. 5. Discussion While the study of Zlatev et al. (2021) was explicitly comparative, allow- ing the authors to contrast Telugu explicitly with Swedish, French and Thai, the present study allowed us to spell out in more detail four characteristic features of Telugu – and hypothetically, of the typological cluster to which it belongs. Using Holistic Spatial Semantics (Zlatev 1997; Blomberg 2014; Naidu et al. 2018), and focusing on how the semantic categories Path, Direction, Manner, Region and Landmark were expressed, we can generalize these characteristics in terms of the follow- ing four typological features: (a) Motion event descriptions require verbs, either finite or non-finite, and it is natural to focus on this parameter in typology. In Telugu, verbs predominantly express Direction (either Geocentric or Viewpoint-centered) rather than Path. Manner verbs play an inter- mediary role. (b) Limiting Path to the expression of bounded translocation (with the values Beginning, Middle, End), we established that it is predomi- nantly expressed in Telugu through bound case-markers rather than verbs. In general, we consider that it is correct to regard Path as a central semantic category of motion events, but not as the pivotal criterion for typological classification, which is one of the reasons why we reject the notion of “framing”, and the derivative categories of “verb-framed” and “satellite-framed” languages. (c) When taking the semantic categories Region and Landmark into consideration, we see that Telugu utilizes predominantly nominal and adnominal form classes, what we called an (ad)nominal strategy, rather than verbal and adverbal form classes, the (ad)verbal strategy. This distinguishes Telugu not only from Thai, as shown by Naidu et al. (2018), but also from languages like English on the one hand, and Spanish on the other, which are in different ways (ad)verbal. (d) Similarly to languages like English, on the one hand, and Thai, on the other, but distinct from Romance languages, Telugu allows the use of Manner verbs in the description of situations where boundaries are crossed. But unlike the former, it has a preference for Direction to be encoded in the main verb of the clause, in line with the first feature. 20 V. NAIDU ET AL. We propose that these features define the prototype of a typological cluster that is distinct from those that approximate the original Talmian types (with Romance and Germanic languages being given as examples, even though it is mistaken to lump these like this, due to extensive differences; see, e.g., Berthele 2013), as well as from serial-verb languages like Thai. As stated at the onset, our main aim with the study was to establish the criteria for assigning other languages to this fourth typological cluster. While detailed future work is needed for this, we can so far tentatively propose that other Dravidian languages also fulfill these criteria, and hence belong to it. Tamil examples were presented in Section 1, but here we can add examples from Malayalam (26–27) and Kannada (28–29) showing: (a) main Direction verbs in (26) and (28), (b) case-makers expressing Path in all examples, (c) Regions nouns in all examples and (d) violations of the “boundary-crossing constraints” in (27) and (29). In other words, indications for all the proposed typological features. (26) oru ānkutti muri-kkə akatt-ēkkə pō-yi. (Malayalam) _ _ _ _ _ _ one boy room-DAT inside-ALL go-PST Figure Landmark Region:In Direction+Motion Path:End ‘A boy went into the room.’ (27) oru ānkutti muri-kkə akatt-ēkkə ōd-i. (Malayalam) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ one boy room-DAT inside-ALL run-PST Figure Landmark Region:In Manner+Motion Path:End ‘A boy ran into the room.’ (28) obba huduga kōneya-oḷa-ge hō-da-nu. (Kannada) _ _ one boy room-in-DAT go-PST-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Motion Region:In FoR:VC Path:End ‘A boy went into the room.’ (29) obba huduga kōneya-oḷa-ge ōdi-da-nu. (Kannada) _ _ _ one boy room-in-DAT run-PST-3SG.M Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Region:In FoR:VC Path:End ‘A boy ran into the room.’ In addition, we may consider other, genetically unrelated, agglutinating lan- guages such as Turkish, which is usually considered “verb-framed” in the Talmian tradition (e.g., Özçalışkan and Slobin 1999). We can observe strong similarities between Turkish and the examples given above, including the use of ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 21 main Direction verb, Path expressed in the case marker and the presence of a Region noun (30). It is only the last feature that appears to differ, since Turkish is usually reported as being sensitive to the boundary-crossing constraint (Özçalışkan 2013) Yet, once we are freed from the straitjacket of a binary typology, and we operate with distinct clusters for, e.g., Spanish and Telugu, we could ask, to which cluster does a language like Turkish belong? Our proposed answer is that it would belong to the same cluster as Telugu, given the number of shared features. Other languages such as Finnish, which on the contrary have traditionally been classified within the “satellite-framed” con- struct, could very likely belong to this cluster as well, as recent work is suggesting (Tuuri 2021). (30) Top yuvarlan-arak tepe-den aşağı in-di. (Turkish) ball roll-CONN hill-ABL downness descend-PST Figure Manner+Motion Landmark Region: Direction+Motion Path:Begin Below FoR:GC ‘The ball descended the hill while rolling.’ (Furman 2012, 3) 6. Conclusions Talmian motion event typology has contributed to many insights on motion expression across different languages over the past few decades. However, there is increasing agreement that the two original types are insufficient to capture all observed linguistic diversity (e.g., Fortis and Vittrant 2016). Using new empirical data from a language belonging to a language family that has been relatively unstudied (i.e., Dravidian), and a new theoretical framework, this article contributes to expanding the theoretical and empirical scope of post-Talmian motion event typology. While it is high time to leave Talmy’s typology, we agree with Beavers et al. (2010, 332) that “any viable account should illuminate why Talmy’s typology is so close to being right”, and our approach does indeed help us in this way. Some, but not all, languages that have been analyzed as belonging to the “verb-framed” and “satellite-framed” types will corre- spond to two of an open number of typological clusters in a generalized post-Talmian motion event typology. Our main conclusion is that Telugu should be considered an example of a cluster that has earlier been conflated with others, due to the limits of an over-constrained typology. On the basis of the elicited material, complemen- ted with native speaker intuitions, we conclude that this cluster can be characterised by four typological features: (a) preferential use of Direction verbs rather than Path verbs, (b) case markers to encode Path, (c) extensive use of Landmark and Region expressions, and (d) frequent use of Manner verbs in “boundary-crossing” situations. 22 V. NAIDU ET AL. We have suggested that these features help to distinguish Telugu from languages arguably belonging to distinct clusters, like French, Swedish and Thai (Zlatev et al. 2021), and at the same time help identify other languages that belong to the same cluster, both genealo- gically close ones like Tamil, and distant ones like Turkish and Finnish. Further detailed studies are necessary to support this claim and to understand the parameters of this typological cluster. Holistic Spatial Semantics, whose primary objective is to study the expression of space and motion from a usage-based and open-ended perspective, and the methodology that we use in the present study, should be able to contribute to this enterprise. To sum up, further research is needed to fully understand the nature of the fourth cluster instantiated by Telugu. To achieve this goal, the typological features identified in the present study should be of help. Similarly, the other three clusters proposed by Zlatev et al. (2021) need to be complemented with the study of more languages, in order to understand the parameters of variation in post-Talmian motion event typology. Acknowledgments We wish to thank all the participants in the study, and the PATOM project (funded by the Swedish Research Council, grant 2015-01583) for providing the theoretical and methodological framework of the study. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Ditte Boeg Thomsen, the editor of the journal, for extensive feedback, which helped us improve the paper to a considerable extent. An earlier version of this study, titled “Actual Motion Expressions in Telugu” was presented by Viswanatha Naidu at the 35th South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable (SALA-35) held in Paris in October 2019, and he would like to thank the participants for their feedback. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Notes on contributors Viswanatha Naidu is Assistant Professor at the University of Hyderabad and work- ing towards his PhD in Linguistics at the University of Gothenburg. His primary research interests are within cognitive linguistics, specifically the cross-linguistic characterization of semantic categories, with focus on Indian languages. Jordan Zlatev is Professor of General Linguistics and Director of Research for the Division of Cognitive Semiotics at Lund University. His current research focuses on motion in experience and language, and more generally on language in relation to other semiotic systems like gesture and depiction, as well as to consciousness. He is editor-in-chief of Public Journal of Semiotics. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 23 Joost van de Weijer is a researcher at the Centre for Languages and Literature, and at the Humanities Lab, both at Lund University. He teaches courses in psycholinguistics and in the statistical analysis of experimental data, and provides methodological support for ongoing research projects within various areas of language and speech. ORCID Jordan Zlatev http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6096-4763 Joost van de Weijer http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9843-3143 References Asbury, Anna R. 2008. The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Doctoral disserta- tion. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Aske, Jon. 1989. “Path Predicates in English and Spanish: A Closer Look.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 15: 1–14. doi:10.3765/bls.v15i0.1753. Beavers, John, Beth Levin, and Shiao Wei Tham. 2010. “The Typology of Motion Events Revisited.” Journal of Linguistics 46: 331–377. Berman, Ruth, and Dan I. Slobin. 1994. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum. Berthele, Raphael. 2013. “Disentangling Manner from Path: Evidence from Varieties of German and Romance.” In Variation and Change in the Encoding of Motion Events, edited by Julian Goschler and Anatol Stefanowitsch, 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/hcp.41.03ber. Blake, Barry. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blomberg, Johan. 2014. Motion in language and experience: Actual and non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Doctoral dissertation. Lund: Lund University. Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas J. Enfield, James Essegbey, Iraide Ibarretxe- Antuñano, Sotaro Kita, Friederike Lüpke, and Felix K. Ameka. 2007. “Principles of Event Segmentation in Language: The Case of Motion Events.” Language 83 (3): 495–532. Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G., and Michael Noonan (eds.). 2008. Case and Grammatical Relations. Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Croft, William, Jóhanna Barðdal, Willem B. Hollmann, Violeta Sotirova, and Chiaki Taoka. 2010. “Revising Talmy’s Typological Classification of Complex Event Constructions.” In Contrastive Construction Grammar, edited by Hans Boas, 201–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fagard, Benjamin, Jordan Zlatev, Anetta Kopecka, Massimo Cerruti, and Johan Blomberg. 2013. “The Expression of Motion Events: A Quantitative Study of Six Typologically Varied Languages.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 39 (1): 364–379. doi:10.3765/bls.v39i1.3893. Fortis, Jean-Michel, and Alice Vittrant. 2016. “Path-Expressing Constructions: Toward a Typology.” STUF 69 (3): 341–374. doi:10.1515/stuf-2016-0015. Furman, Reyhan. 2012. Caused motion events in Turkish: Verbal and gestural representation in adults and children. Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 24 V. NAIDU ET AL. Hudson, Richard. 1995. “Does English Really Have Case?” Journal of Linguistics 31 (2): 375–392. doi:10.1017/S0022226700015644. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2009. “Path Salience in Motion Events.” In Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, edited by Jiansheng Guo, Elena Lieven, Nancy Budwig, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Keiko Nakamura, and Şeyda Özçalışkan, 403–414. New York: Psychology Press. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide, and Luna Filipović. 2013. “Lexicalisation Patterns and Translation.” Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications 23: 251–283. Iggesen, Oliver A. 2013. ”Number of Cases.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Imbert, Caroline. 2012. “Path: Ways Typology Has Walked Through It.” Language and Linguistics Compass 6 (4): 236–258. doi:10.1002/lnc3.329. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 2004. “The Serial Verb Construction in Malayalam.” In Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, edited by Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan, 67–91. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kissock, Madelyn J. 2014. “Evidence for ‘Finiteness’ in Telugu.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32 (1): 29–58. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju, and John Peter Lucius Gwynn. 1985. A Grammar of Modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Lewandowski, Wojciech. 2021. “Variable Motion Event Encoding Within Languages and Language Types: A Usage-Based Perspective.” Language and Cognition 13 (1): 34–65. doi:10.1017/langcog.2020.25. Malchukov, Andrej, and Andrew Spencer. 2008. The Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matsumoto, Yo. 2003. “Typologies of Lexicalization Patterns and Event Integration: Clarifications and Reformulations.” In Empirical and Theoretical Investigations into Language: A Festschrift for Masaru Kajita, edited by Shuji Chiba, 403–418. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Morita, Takahiro. 2011. “Intratypological Variations in Motion Events in Japanese and French. Manner and Deixis as Parameters for Cross-Linguistic Comparison.” CogniTextes: Revue de L’association Française de Linguistique Cognitive 6. doi:10. 4000/cognitextes.498. Naidu, Viswanatha, and Vasanta Duggirala. 2011. “On Verbalizing Motion in Telugu.” Indian Linguistics 72: 180–194. Naidu, Viswanatha, Jordan Zlatev, Vasanta Duggirala, Joost van de Weijer, Simon Devylder, and Johan Blomberg. 2018. “Holistic Spatial Semantics and Post-Talmian Motion Event Typology: A Case Study of Thai and Telugu.” Cognitive Semiotics 11 (2). doi:10.1515/cogsem-2018-2002. Naigles, Letitia R., Ann R. Eisenberg, Edward T. Kako, Melissa Highter, and Nancy McGraw. 1998. “Speaking of Motion: Verb Use in English and Spanish.” Language and Cognitive Processes 13 (5): 521–549. Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 2003. “Motion Events and the Lexicon: A Case Study of Hindi.” Lingua 113 (2): 123–160. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00068-2. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 25 Özçalışkan, Şeyda. 2013. “Ways of Crossing a Spatial Boundary in Typologically Distinct Languages.” Applied Psycholinguistics 36 (2): 485–508. Özçalışkan, Şeyda, and Dan I. Slobin. 1999. “Learning How to Search for the Frog: Expression of Manner of Motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish.” In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development Vol. 2, edited by Annabel Greenhill, Heather Littlefield, and Cheryl Tano, 541–552. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press. Pederson, Eric. 2006. “Spatial Language in Tamil.” In Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, edited by Stephen Levinson and David Wilkins, 400–436. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffman, Harold F. 2004. “The Tamil Case System.” In South Indian Horizons: Felicitation Volume for Francois Gros on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, edited by Jean-Luc Chevillard and Ewa Wilden, 293–322. Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry. Singh, Anil Kumar. 2006. “A Computational Phonetic Model for Indian Language Scripts.” Paper given at Constraints on Spelling Changes: Fifth International Workshop on Writing Systems, Nijmegen. Slobin, Dan I. 1997. “Mind, Code, and Text.” In Essays on Language Function and Language Type Dedicated to T. Givón, edited by Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson, 437–467. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slobin, Dan I. 2004. “The Many Ways to Search for a Frog: Linguistic Typology and the Expression of Motion Events.” In Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, edited by Sven Strömqvist and Ludo Verhoeven, 219–258. Mahwah, N.J: Laurence Erlbaum. Slobin, Dan I., Melissa Bowerman, Penelope Brown, Sonja Eisenbeiß, and Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2011. “Putting Things in Places.” In Event Representation in Language and Cognition, edited by Jürgen Bohnemeyer and Eric Pederson, 134–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slobin, Dan I., and Nini Hoiting. 1994. “Reference to Movement in Spoken and Signed Languages: Typological Considerations.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20 (1): 487–505. Sproat, Richard. 2003. “A Formal Computational Analysis of Indic Scripts.” In International symposium on Indic Scripts: Past and Future, Tokyo. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. “Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, volume 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, edited by Tim Shopen, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Vol. 2. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Tuuri, Emilia. 2021. “Concerning Variation in Encoding Spatial Motion: Evidence from Finnish.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1–22. doi:10.1017/S0332586521000202. Usha Rani, A., and V. Sailaja. 2004. ”Acquisition of the Non-Nominative Subject in Telugu.” In Non-Nominative Subjects. Vol. 2, edited by Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri V. Subbarao, 209–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zlatev, Jordan. 1997. Situated Embodiment: Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning. Stockholm: Gotab. 26 V. NAIDU ET AL. Zlatev, Jordan. 2007. “Spatial Semantics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, 318–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zlatev, Jordan, Johan Blomberg, and Caroline David. 2010. “Translocation, Language and the Categorization of Motion.” In Language, Cognition, and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions, edited by Vyvyan Evans and Paul Chilton, 389–418. London: Equinox. Zlatev, Jordan, Johan Blomberg, Simon Devylder, Viswanatha Naidu, and Joost van de Weijer. 2021. “Motion Event Descriptions in Swedish, French, Thai and Telugu: A Study in Post-Talmian Motion Event Typology.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 53 (1): 58–90. doi:10.1080/03740463.2020.1865692. Zlatev, Jordan, and Peerapat Yangklang. 2004. “A Third Way to Travel.” In Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, edited by Sven Strömqvist and Ludo Verhoeven, 191–218. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 27 Appendix A Types and tokens of expressions for the main semantic categories (e.g., Path), grouped by form-classes (e.g., verb). Path Verbs prawēśiMcu (‘enter’) 13 cērukonu (‘reach’) 3 eMtar (‘enter’) 2 Total 18 Case markers -ki/-ku (DAT) 602 nuMci (ABL) 311 guMdā (‘via’) 7 waraku (‘until’) 7 dwārā (‘via’) 7 mīdugā (‘via’) 1 Total 935 Direction Verbs weḷḷu/pōwu (‘go’) 325 waccu (‘come’) 200 ekku (‘ascend’) 80 digu (‘descend’) 63 tīsukeḷḷu (‘take (go) out’) 11 tīsukoccu (‘take (come) out’) 11 padu (‘fall’) 6 eguraweśādu (‘tossed up’) 1 wenakki weḷḷu (‘return’) 1 Total 698 Nouns apwards (‘upwards’) 1 paina (‘above’) 1 Total 2 28 V. NAIDU ET AL. Manner Verbs parigettu (‘run’) 244 naducu (‘walk’) 130 ekku (‘ascend’) 77 kūrconu (‘sit’) 73 digu (‘descend’) 63 niMconi (‘stand’) 61 jāgiMg (‘jogging’) 54 kottu (‘hit’) 35 _ _ uruku (‘run’) 32 tirugu (turn) 31 geMtu (‘hop’) 28 eguru (‘fly’) 23 wākiMg (‘walking’) 18 kuMtu (‘limp’) 15 paltī (‘somersault’) 11 tippu (‘turn’) 10 padu (‘fall’) 6 ranniMgu (‘running’) 6 ānukonu (‘lean’) 5 parugu (‘run’) 5 dūku (‘jump’) 4 dommari (‘somersault’) 2 jaMp (‘jump’) 2 waMgi (‘bend’) 2 dāns (‘dance’) 1 dūripovu (‘penetrate’) 1 gilli (‘pinch’) 1 kik (‘kick’) 1 lēputū (‘wake up’ causative) 1 nidralēci (‘wake up’) 1 pākutū (‘crawling’) 1 somarsāltu (‘somersault’) 1 Total 945 Adverbs mellagā (‘slowly’) 45 nemmadigā (‘slowly’) 21 cinnagā (’slowly’) 12 wēgaMgā (‘fast’) 11 guMdraMgā (‘round’) 5 nidānaMgā (‘slowly’) 5 slōgā (‘slowly’) 5 kappalāga (‘like a frog’) 4 fāst (‘fast’) 3 spīdgā (‘speedily’) 3 kāMgā (‘calmly’) 1 kōtilāgā (‘like a monkey’) 1 tomdaragā (‘quickly’) 1 twaragā (‘quickly’) 1 Total 118 ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 29 Region Nouns lō/lōpala (‘in/inside’) 375 paina (‘above’) 150 bayata (‘outside’) 161 daggara (‘near’) 116 kiMda (‘below’) 82 mīda (‘above’) 44 muMdu (‘front’) 34 dūram (‘far’) 16 kudiwaipu (‘right side’) 10 pakkana (‘beside’) 8 edaMa (‘left’) 5 madhya (‘middle’) 5 akkada (‘there’) 3 ān (‘on’) 2 cuttu (‘around’) 2 _ _ daun (‘down’) 2 dāni (‘in that’) 1 fraMt (‘front’) 1 ikkada (‘here’) 1 insaid (‘inside’) 1 na (‘end’) 1 saidu (‘side’) 1 wadda (‘near’) 1 Total 1022 The verbs ekku and digu express primarily Direction (and hence are glossed as ‘ascend’ and ’descend’), but also conflate an aspect of Manner that has to do with bodily motion. Hence, they have been coded as expressing both categories, here and in the qualitative analysis. But they were calculated only for their main category Direction in the quantitative analysis in Section 4. Appendix B The 38 translocative stimuli, classed as bounded or not (the first ±) and as caused or not (the second ±). “1pp” and “3pp” refer to the angle of the viewpoint in relation to the movement of the figure: 1pp = parallel to the movement; 3pp = orthogonal to the motion of the moving object. Stimuli representing events with boundary crossing are marked. 1. –Woman Walks Up Hill (1pp) 2. ±Girl Hops From Tree (3pp) 3. –Man Runs Towards (1pp) 4. ±Girl Walks Out of Room (1pp) Boundary crossing 5. ±Man Runs To Tree (3pp) 6. –Boy Runs Away (1pp) 7. –Man Walks Down Hill (1pp) 8. ±Woman Walks Out of Hut (3pp) Boundary crossing 9. ++Boy Puts Cat Into Car (3pp) Boundary crossing (Continued) 30 V. NAIDU ET AL. (Continued). 10. –Woman Runs Straight Towards (1pp) 11. ±Man Throws Ball Up 12. –Boy Walks Down Hill (1pp) 13. ±Boy Walks Into Room (1pp) Boundary crossing 14. ±Woman Walks Out of Room (1pp) Boundary crossing 15. –Boy Climbs Down Tree (3pp) 16. ±Girl Rushes Into Hut (3pp) Boundary crossing 17. ++Girl Takes Cat Out of Car (1pp) Boundary crossing 18. ±Girl Throws Ball From Cliff 19. ±Man Walks Into Garage (3pp) Boundary crossing 20. –Boy Climbs Up Cliff (3pp) 21. ++Man Puts Cat Into Car (1pp) Boundary crossing 22. –Girl Runs Down Hill (3pp) 23. ++Boy Throws Ball To Tree 24. ++Woman Takes Cat Out of Car (3pp) Boundary crossing 25. –Man Runs Up Hill (3pp) 26. ±Man Walks Into Room (1pp) Boundary crossing 27. ±Woman Runs From Tree (3pp) 28. ±Man Makes Dog Come To Him (1pp) 29. –Girl Walks Up Hill (1pp-camera) 30. ++Girl Kicks Ball From Bench (3pp) 31. ±Girl Rolls Toy Car Towards 32. ±Boy Rushes Out of Garage (3pp) Boundary crossing 33. ±Boy Hops To Tree (3pp) 34. ++Woman Throws Ball From Tree (1pp) 35. ++Man Kicks Ball To Bench (1pp) 36. ±Woman Makes Dog Come To Her (1pp) 37. –Man Runs Straight Away (1pp) 38. ±Boy Rolls Toy Car Away (3pp) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Acta Linguistica Hafniensia Taylor & Francis

Typological features of Telugu: defining the parameters of post-Talmian motion event typology

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/typological-features-of-telugu-defining-the-parameters-of-post-talmian-GDMQESzR11

References (50)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
ISSN
1949-0763
eISSN
0374-0463
DOI
10.1080/03740463.2022.2132563
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2022.2132563 Typological features of Telugu: defining the parameters of post-Talmian motion event typology a,b c d Viswanatha Naidu , Jordan Zlatev and Joost van de Weijer Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Centre for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India; Centre for Languages and Literature, Cognitive Semiotics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, Sweden ABSTRACT Recent research in motion event typology has moved beyond the binary Talmian division of “verb-framed” and “satellite-framed” languages and has established the existence of at least four distinct typological clusters, instan- tiated by, for example, Swedish (Germanic), French (Romance), Thai (Tai-Kadai) and Telugu (Dravidian). In this paper, we focus on characteristic features of Telugu, as a representative of the fourth cluster. In the study, 30 native Telugu speakers described video-recorded translocative events, in which the factors boundedness, viewpoint and causation were manipulated. Using the model Holistic Spatial Semantics, we show that Telugu speakers (a) preferentially used Direction verbs rather than Path verbs, (b) predominantly used case markers rather than verbs for encoding Path, (c) extensively used Landmark and Region expressions, and (d) frequently used Manner verbs in situations of “boundary- crossing” unlike speakers of typical “verb-framed” languages. We propose these features to be criterial of the fourth typological cluster mentioned above, a claim to be investigated in future research. KEYWORDS Boundary-crossing constraint; case-marking; Dravidian; Holistic Spatial Semantics; path; post-Talmian motion event typology; Telugu 1. Introduction When discussing the semantic typology of motion events, a traditional point of departure is the influential claim that languages fall into two types with respect to how they express the semantic category Path (Talmy 1985, 2000). On the one side are so-called “verb-framed” languages like Spanish, in which Path is said to be typically encoded by verbs like entró (“enter”) as in (1). On the other side are “satellite-framed” languages like English, where Path is CONTACT Viswanatha Naidu viswanath.iiit@gmail.com Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, Göteborg SE-405 30, Sweden We consistently use initial capital letters for semantic categories like Path and Manner, to distinguish these from hypothetical cognitive/experiential categories like bounded and unbounded motion (cf. Zlatev 1997; Zlatev et al. 2021). These semantic categories appear in the third row in all examples and are explained in Section 2. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 V. NAIDU ET AL. most commonly expressed by a so-called “satellite” to the verb (root), such as the particle/preposition into in (2). During the past two decades, however, this binary typology has been shown to be lacking both empirically and theoretically. Recurrent issues include (a) that the classification is unable to capture variation within a single language (e.g., Berthele 2013) and variation across languages supposedly belonging to the same type (e.g., Bohnemeyer et al. 2007; Ibarretxe-Antuñano 2009; Morita 2011; Matsumoto 2003; Lewandowski 2021); (b) the need to extend the number of types (Slobin 2004; Zlatev and Peerapat 2004; Fortis and Vittrant 2016); and (c) the vagueness in the definitions of the key concepts Path, Manner, and even Motion (Zlatev, Blomberg, and Caroline 2010; Croft et al. 2010; Imbert 2012; Blomberg 2014). (1) La botella entró flotando a la cueva (Spanish) the bottle enter.PST floating to the cave Figure Path+Motion Manner+Motion Path Landmark “The bottle floated into the cave.” (2) The bottle floated into the cave. (Talmy 2000, 227) Reviewing such problems and proposed alternatives, Naidu et al. (2018) and Zlatev et al. (2021) proposed the term post-Talmian as characteristic of the state of the field today. With this term, the authors acknowledge their indebtedness to the seminal work of Talmy, but mark that the field has moved beyond it. To justify this claim, Naidu et al. (2018) compared motion event expressions in Thai, an “equipollently-framed” language according to Slobin (2004), with those in Telugu, a Dravidian language spoken in south- ern India. Conducting an elicitation study based on “frog stories” (i.e., eliciting narratives based on a well-known picture book by Mayer 1969; cf. Berman and Slobin 1994), the authors revealed substantial differences between the languages in terms of the semantic categories that were most frequently expressed, and of the structural means by which they were expressed. Since neither Telugu nor Thai fit easily into the original “verb- framed” or “satellite-framed” types, Naidu et al. (2018, 20) formulated the hypothesis that within a post-Talmian motion event typology, the Talmian types “will appear as only two such clusters, while serial verb languages like Thai (e.g., Ewe and Vietnamese) and languages like Telugu (e.g., Tamil and Finnish) will fall into clusters that are distinct from these, as well as from each other, thus giving us (at least) four distinct typological prototypes.” Using the conceptual framework of Holistic Spatial Semantics, first proposed by Zlatev (1997), and subsequently revised and developed (Zlatev 2007; Blomberg 2014; Naidu et al. 2018), Zlatev et al. (2021) tested this hypothesis using systematic elicitation of different kinds of motion situations (Zlatev, Blomberg, and David 2010). They presented short video clips with human and animal actors to native speakers of Swedish, French, Thai, and Telugu. Given the ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 3 similarities and differences between the motion event descriptions found in the four languages, the authors conclude that the proposal of “four distinct typolo- gical clusters in motion event semantics” has been confirmed “by demonstrating (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Swedish, French, Thai and Telugu motion event descriptions differ from one another to such an extent that each language can be seen as instantiating a distinct typological cluster” (Zlatev et al. 2021, 84). In this approach to motion event typology, typological clusters are character- ized by prototypical patterns in ways to express a (hypothetically) universal set of semantic categories (see Section 2). The first two clusters approximate the original Talmian types, with Swedish and French as representatives, but the expression patterns are much more complex than a specification of how Path (and Manner) are expressed. Notably, linguistic strategies to express motion vary depending on the type of situation. For instance, in uncaused-unbound motion situation types, the French speakers encoded Path seldom, and rather used Direction terms as in (3). In contrast, in uncaused-bound motion situations they expressed Path frequently. (3) Un monsieur monte sur une colline en courant. (French) a man climb.up.PRS on a hill running Figure Motion+Direction Region Landmark Manner ‘A man runs up a hill.’ (Zlatev et al. 2021, 76) Thai (and other serial-verb languages like Ewe, Akan, Mandarin) represent a distinct cluster of languages in which the categories of Manner, Path and Direction are expressed by distinct serial verbs as in (4), while Path is commonly also co-expressed in prepositions. The latter also express Region, an important category which is generally neglected in Talmian typology (Zlatev et al. 2021). (4) puying doen khâw pay nay hɔ ̂ ŋ (Thai) woman walk enter go in room Figure Motion Motion Motion Region Landmark +Manner +Path +Direction ‘A woman walks into a room.’ (Zlatev et al. 2021, 78) Finally, Telugu speakers rely not on any of these options, but rather on nominal case-marking as the predominant means of expressing Path, reser- ving verbs for Manner and Direction, as in (5). (5) pillawādu skūlu-ki parigettu-kuMtū wacc-ā-du. _ _ _ boy school-DAT run-PTCP come-PST-3SG.M Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Direction+Motion Path:End FoR:VC ‘A boy came to the school running.’ (Naidu and Duggirala 2011, 186) All examples without a language attributed are in Telugu. The symbol M in Telugu examples covers nasals homorganic with the following consonant. 4 V. NAIDU ET AL. On the basis of an elicitation-based study using the same methodology as the present study, Zlatev et al. (2021) showed how Telugu displays patterns that differ both qualitatively and quantitatively from those in the other three languages and can therefore serve as the hypothetical core of a fourth typological cluster. But what features can be used as criterial for this cluster? We explore this question in the present article with a more extensive data set than those used in Naidu et al. (2018) and Zlatev et al. (2021). We do so in an inductive Manner in Sections 3 and 4, after first explaining our theoretical framework in Section 2. The relevance of the study is also enhanced by the fact that the many languages spoken in India, belonging to widely different language families, have received relatively little attention in motion event semantics. In the few studies that have been reported, Narasimhan (2003) concludes rather quickly that Hindi fits the Talmian “verb-framed” type, and Pederson (2006) does the same for Tamil (see also Slobin et al. 2011, 134). However, these authors ignored the difference between generic deictic verbs like those in the Tamil example (6) and the Hindi example (7), on the one hand, and Path verbs like entrer (“enter”) and sortir (“exit”) in French, on the other hand. In (6), the most essential element of Path, specifying the endpoint of the motion event, is in fact expressed not in the verb, but in the dative case marker. (6) oru payyaṉ aṟai-kk-ul pōṉāṉ. (Tamil) one boy room-DAT-in go.PST.AGR Figure Landmark Direction+Motion Path:End FoR:VC Region:In ‘A boy went into the room.’ (7) ladkā kamrē-mē ga-yā. (Hindi) boy room-in go-PST.AGR Figure Landmark Direction+Motion Region:In FoR:VC ‘A boy went into the room.’ Pederson (2006) based his conclusions on the assumption that Tamil, like Spanish and French, follows the so-called boundary-crossing constraint The present data for Telugu consists of that of the 20 speakers that was used by Zlatev et al. (2021), and 10 additional speakers. The first author collected examples (6)-(9) by eliciting intuitions from five native speakers of Tamil and Hindi. In (7), despite the fact that the dative case -ko is absent, the translocative interpretation is preferred to a locative one of ‘going around’ by native speakers of Hindi. This constraint states that Manner verbs (e.g., run, walk, crawl, ride) cannot express motion events with translational (or in our terms: translocative) motion. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 5 (Aske 1989; Slobin and Nini 1994; Slobin 1997; Ibarretxe-Antuñano and Luna 2013; Fagard et al. 2013) in a particular way: Like many languages, Tamil has a largish class of Manner-of-motion verbs which by themselves do not indicate translational motion. If translational motion is to be indicated, a motion verb (principally “go” or “come”) must combine with the Manner-of-motion verb (Pederson 2006, 415). This is hardly true, however, as native speakers of Hindi and Tamil fully approve of sentences in which a Manner-expressing verb combines with a Path-expressing case as in (8), and in which Path is not explicitly (overtly) coded, but can be inferred pragmatically (covertly), as in (9). (8) oru payyan aṟai-kk-ul otiṉāṉ. (Tamil) one boy room-DAT-in run.PST.AGR Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Path:End Region:In ‘A boy ran into the room.’ (9) ladkā kamrē-mē bhāgā. (Hindi) boy room-in run.PST.AGR Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Region:In ‘A boy ran in/into the room.’ These examples suggest that Pederson’s analysis was biased towards Talmy’s (2000) binary typology in several respects. First, the analysis ignores the difference between generic deictic verbs like those in the Tamil example (6) and the Hindi example (7), on the one hand, and Path verbs. Notably, Özçalışkan, (2013) regards such generic deictic verbs as neutral and therefore differentiates them from Path verbs. Second, the analysis bypasses the role of case markers, which are neither verbs nor “satellites” to the verb. Third, the importance of Region nouns is not recognized. These are the kind of biases that we aim to avoid in our study of motion event expression in Telugu, by adopting the open-ended frame- work and methodology described in Section 2. Sections 3 and 4 provide While example (9) is ambiguous between a locative (‘ran inside the room’) and a translocative (‘ran into the room’) interpretation, the context is likely to resolve this. For instance, if the boy is in a hurry to answer a call coming from the room, the translocative interpretation would be clearly preferred. The notion of case marker is very controversial in the literature (Hudson 1995; Blake 2001; Schiffman 2004; Haspelmath et al. 2005; Butt 2006; Asbury 2008; Corbett and Noonan 2008; Malchukov and Spencer 2008; Iggesen 2013), and it is beyond the scope of the present paper to resolve it. For present purposes we consider case as a linguistic category, marked by a bound morpheme on nouns (thus excluding unbound morphemes like prepositions), and expressing the agentive (i.e., agent, patient), grammatical (i.e., subject, object), or spatial (i.e., source, goal) role played by the entity marked. We focus on the latter, given the context of the study. 6 V. NAIDU ET AL. a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of the data, respectively, allowing us to spell out typological features of Telugu, and thus of the hypothe- tical “fourth cluster” in motion event semantics, to be tested in future research, as we explain in the discussion in Section 5. Section 6 con- cludes the paper. 2. Theory and methodology 2.1. Holistic Spatial Semantics Holistic Spatial Semantics (henceforth, HSS) has been described rather extensively in recent publications (Naidu et al. 2018; Zlatev et al. 2021). Here we provide a summary with examples from Telugu. The framework derives its name from the claim that spatial meaning is expressed by the whole spatial utterance, and not by a specific form class like prepositions. Yet, this “holism” is only partial, since different parts of an utterance, belonging grammatically to different form classes like verb, adverb and case marker, map onto the following 10 semantic categories: 1. Figure: the focal entity 2. Landmark: one or more physical entities in relation to which the location or translocation of the Figure may be specified 3. Region: an area of space, usually defined in relation to the Landmark 4. Motion: perceived change of the position of the Figure 5. Frame of Reference (FoR): a system of reference points and vectors, with three kinds: a. Object-centered (OC): based on a Landmark, or on the Figure itself b. Viewpoint-centered (VC): based on the perspective of an observer c. Geocentric (GC): based on “absolute”, geo-cardinal lines that remain constant to changes of Viewpoints, Objects, and Figures (e.g., east- west, up-down) 6. Path: bounded translocation, with respect to Beginning, Middle and/ or End 7. Direction: unbounded translocation, along one or more “lines” defined by a FoR (e.g., upwards, towards the speaker). 8. Manner: various aspects of how motion takes place, such as bodily locomotion, use of vehicle etc. 9. Shape: the geometrical form of the trajectory of movement (e.g., zigzag, straight) 10. Cause + Agent: the force that makes the Figure move (e.g., ballistic, co- motion) and the entity that is behind this force. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 7 These categories are grounded in human embodiment, but not reducible to it, and are flexible enough to adapt to the conventions of any particular language (Zlatev 1997; Naidu et al. 2018). Further, the way these semantic categories map onto the form classes that express them can be (a) composi- tional (one-to-one), (b) conflated (many-to-one) or (c) distributed (one-to- many); these mappings are expected to differ extensively across languages. Importantly, HSS makes a systematic distinction between the categories Direction (typically expressing unbounded motion as in up and come here), and Path (construing the event with respect to Beginning (e.g., from X), Middle (e.g., cross X) and End (e.g., to X)). The two categories have been shown to behave differently across languages (Zlatev et al. 2021) and there- fore should not be conflated. For example, in (10) the speaker does not express Direction, but rather Path and Region. (10) oka magawādu baMti-ni pai-ki wisir-ā-du. _ _ one man ball-ACC above-DAT throw-PST-3SG.M Agent Figure Region:Above+Path:End Cause+Motion ‘A man threw the ball upward.’ (Literally: “to the above”) (Event 11, Participant 2) Concerning motion event typology, HSS does not a priori assume a particular number of distinct language types. Rather, it endorses an open- ended methodology allowing the systematic examination of motion event expression using different methods of elicitation such as native speaker intuitions based on questionnaires (Zlatev 1997), narratives (Naidu et al. 2018), and motion event descriptions based on videos (Zlatev et al. 2021). 2.2. Materials and participants The elicitation tool used in this study was developed in the Phenomenology and Typology of Motion (PATOM) project (Zlatev et al. 2021), for the purpose of testing and further elaborating the theory of Holistic Spatial Semantics. Out of the total of 52 clips, 38 showed a translocative motion event (i.e., where the Figure changes in average position relative to a specific Frame of Reference) while the remaining 14 showed a non-translocative motion situation where this is not the case (for example, a woman shaking a blanket). The clips were between five and eight seconds long, depending on how long it took a particular motion situation to end naturally. For the present study, only the translocative motion events were analyzed and the other motion situations were treated as fillers, as shown in Table 1. Appendix B contains a specification of all the target stimuli. This code signifies that this was a description of event 11 by participant 2. This and all further examples are taken from the data of the present study. 8 V. NAIDU ET AL. Table 1. Distribution of motion event stimuli along the taxonomy of motion situations. Type of motion event Uncaused Caused Translocative, bounded (target) 12 8 Translocative, unbounded (target) 12 6 Non-translocative, bounded (filler) 4 2 Non-translocative, unbounded (filler) 4 4 Figure 1. Screenshots of two caused-bounded situations, (a) from a viewpoint that is parallel to the movement, and (b) orthogonal to the movement (Zlatev et al. 2021, 68). The Direction of the target motion events was systematically balanced (towards/away from the camera; up/down), as well as their boundedness (bounded vs. unbounded), causation (caused vs. non-caused), angle of view- point (parallel vs. orthogonal to the motion of the moving object) and the actors’ gender (male vs. female). Two examples are shown in Figure 1. As participants in the study, thirty adult speakers (mean age 21.9 years; 15 female) were recruited from the undergraduate and postgraduate students registered at the University of Hyderabad, India. They were all native speak- ers of Telugu, with knowledge of Hindi, English or both from their school or college education. The participants signed a form of informed consent and were compensated for their participation. 2.3. Procedure and analysis Each participant was tested individually by the first author, a Telugu native speaker himself. Written instructions were given, stating that after viewing each video clip, the participant should describe it in a way that is as natural and colloquial as possible. Each clip was played only once. The descriptions were audio recorded using a Sony ICD-MP3 recorder and later transcribed for analysis. The total number of clauses and motion event descriptions (see below) for the different event types are shown in Table 2. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 9 Table 2. Number of clauses and motion event descriptions produced for each category of stimuli (with number of stimuli given in parenthesis). Motion events Clauses Motion Event Descriptions Uncaused-unbounded (12) 584 366 Uncaused-bounded (12) 624 365 Caused-unbounded (6) 265 189 Caused-bounded (8) 362 244 Total 1835 1164 The annotation was semi-automatized, following the procedure devel- oped in the PATOM project (see Zlatev et al. 2021). The following steps detail how this was done for the present data. First, the descriptions of the video clips were analysed in terms of clauses and motion event descriptions. The latter were operationally defined as expressions with motion verbs, consisting of: (a) one finite clause as in (10) above, (b) one participle clause with a non-finite verb as in (11), or (c) two clauses that had the same semantic Figure, as in (12). (11) ammāyi iMt-lō-ki rā-gāne . . . girl home-in-DAT come-PTCP Figure Landmark Direction+Motion Region:In FoR:VC Path:End ‘After a girl having come home, . . . ’ (Event 16, Participant 1) (12) ammāyi cettu daggara nuMci geMtu-tū weḷ-tuM-di. _ _ girl tree near ABL hopping-PTCP go-PRS-3SG.F Figure Landmark Region: Path: Manner+Motion Direction+Motion Near Begin FoR:VC FoR:OC FoR:OC ‘A girl is going away from a tree hopping.’ (Event 2, Participant 1) While finite Telugu verbs inflect for tense and agreement with the gramma- tical subject as in (10) and the second verb in (12), non-finite verbs like that in (11), and the first verb in (12) are marked with relevant tense-mood suffixes and are therefore regarded as defining clauses in Telugu grammar (Krishnamurti and Gwynn 1985; Jayaseelan 2004; Kissock 2014). Thus defined, Telugu motion event descriptions correspond to what is typically expressed by single clauses in most other languages and can therefore be used as a basis for cross-linguistic comparisons. A list of the unique word forms in the transcripts were subsequently tagged with an English translation and a value for one or more HSS cate- gories, providing a “lexicon” of the descriptions. The words in the descrip- tions were then automatically tagged on the basis of this lexicon, and 10 V. NAIDU ET AL. subsequently checked and corrected when necessary. For example, in (12), ammāyi “girl” was correctly tagged as Figure, but in caused-motion expres- sions this category needed to be replaced by Agent. As a result of this analysis procedure, the data were analysed in terms of motion event descriptions, glossed and coded for the ten HSS categories. Of these, the following five categories, with their possible values, are of parti- cular importance for the analysis in the following sections: • Direction: Up, Down (FoR: GC), Left, Right, Towards, Away from (FoR: VC/OC), Forward, Backward (FoR: OC) • Path: Begin, Middle, End • Manner: Body (walk vs. run), Speed (rush vs. stroll), Vehicle (ride vs. fly ), Medium (sink vs. fall), Attitude (stride vs. stagger) • Region: In, Out, Below, Above, Surface, Against, Between, Among, Surround, Near, Far • Landmark: open-ended 3. Qualitative analysis In this section we describe patterns concerning the expression of each of the five HSS categories listed above, illustrated with examples from the present study. A list of all expressions for the categories Path, Direction, Manner and Region is given in Appendix A. 3.1. Direction As pointed out earlier, the category of Direction applies only to elements of unbounded translocation, while Path concerns bounded translocation. The two categories were often combined in a motion event description, as shown in (13) and (14). Expressions of Direction were commonly Viewpoint- centered: deictic verbs like waccu “come” and weḷḷu “go”, Directional adverbs like kudi “right” and edama “left”, or deictic adverbs like dūramgā “far-off”. _ _ (13) oka pustakālu unna gadi-lō nuMdi ammāyi a books there room-in ABL girl Landmark Path: Figure Region:In Begin edama waipu nuMdi bayata-ku weḷḷ-iM-di. _ _ _ left side ABL out-DAT go-PST-3.SG.F Direction:VC Path:Begin Region:Out Direction+Motion Path:End FoR:VC ‘A girl went out from the left side of the room with books.’ (Event 4, Participant 6) ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 11 (14) oka āwida baMti-ni wisirēs-iM-di tana-ku dūraMgā. one she ball-ACC throw-PST-3.SG.F she-DAT faroff Agent Figure Cause+Motion Landmark Direction:VC Path:End ‘A woman threw the ball far-off from her.’ (Event 34, Participant 22) Direction could also be expressed with the help of an Object-centered FoR, combining a Region noun like muMdu (“front”) with a Path case-marker, as in (15), or a Geocentric FoR as in (16), through verbs such as ekku “ascend” and digu “descend”. (15) oka papa bomma kāru-nu muMdu-ku tōs-iM-di. one girl toy car-ACC front-DAT pushed-PST-3SG.F Agent Figure FoR:OC Cause+Motion ‘A girl pushed a toy car forward.’ (Event 31, Participant 10) (16) oka abbāyi koMda-la-nu ekk-ā-du. _ _ a boy hill-PL-ACC ascend-PST-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Manner+Motion FoR:GC ‘A boy climbed the hills.’ (Event 20, Participant 14) 3.2. Path As stated in Section 2, HSS allows for three kinds of mapping patterns between form classes and semantic categories: composition, distribution and confla - tion. While all three were attested in the data, composition was dominant for Path, as in all descriptions shown so far. In these examples, Path is exclusively expressed through the case markers nuMdi (ABL) and - ku/-ki (“to”), without conflating Motion. The form nuMci/nuMdi, exemplified in (13) above, is derived from the accusative case marker -n and the verb uMdi “having been there” (Krishnamurti and Gwynn 1985; Krishnamurti 2003, 241). Unlike -ku/- ki, it is commonly, but not always, written separately from the nominal to which it applies. Nevertheless, we regard both forms as bound morphemes, as neither can be used separately. In addition, Telugu writing practice is not well standardized (Sproat 2003; Singh 2006) and cannot always be relied on as evidence for distinguishing between bound and free morphemes. Encoding Path in case markers without conflating Motion clearly differs from the pattern in the so-called “verb-framed” languages like Spanish, where Path and Motion are typically conflated in the verb (e.g., Slobin 2004). There were some motion event descriptions with Path verbs in the data, as in (17), but even in these descriptions Path was also coded by the dative casemarker, and thus distributed over the verb 12 V. NAIDU ET AL. and the case marker. When Path is distributed in languages like Spanish or French, this is over a verb which is dominant, and a preposition, more or less “required by the verb” as in (1). This is a pattern that is quite distinct from Telugu. (17) oka wyakti mellagā tana gadi-lō-ki prawēśiMc-ā-du. a man slowly his room-in-DAT enter-PST-3SG.M Figure Manner Landmark Path+Motion Region:In Path:End Path:End ‘A man slowly entered his room.’ (Event 13, Participant 11) 3.3. Manner Manner was expressed by finite verbs as in (18), or by verb-participles as in (19). Further, when either Path or Direction was expressed in the main verb, Manner was always expressed in a non-finite form as in (19). Any attempt to express Manner in the final, finite verb, and Direction in a non-finite participle, would be ungrammatical, as illustrated in (20). (18) oka atanu rōddu mīda uruku-tunnā-du. _ _ _ a he road above run-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Region:Above Manner+Motion ‘A man is running along the road.’ (Event 3, Participant 30) (19) oka atanu praśāMtamaina rōddu paina urukkuM-tu weḷ-tunnā-du. _ _ _ _ a he pleasant road above run-PTCP go-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Region: Manner Direction Above +Motion +Motion FoR:VC ‘A man is going along the pleasant road running.’ (Event 3, Participant 20) (20) *oka atanu praśāMtamaina rōddu paina weḷḷukun-tu uruku-tunnā-du. _ _ _ _ a he pleasant road above go-PTCP run-PRS-3SG.M ‘A man is running along the pleasant road going.’ 3.4. Region and landmark In line with the findings of Naidu et al. (2018), Region-expressing nouns (also known as “nouns of space and time”, “nominal adverbs”, or “adverbial nouns”, We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out. It may be acceptable in a scenario where the two motion events take place in sequential order, i.e., going followed by running. This is not the case in (20) as there is only one motion event. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 13 see Krishnamurti and Gwynn 1985) were found to be essential for the motion event descriptions. Typically, they were compounded with a Landmark expres- sion, as shown in many of the preceding examples and in (21). However, with the exception of -lō “in” they can also stand on their own as shown in example (10). Interestingly, together with Direction verbs like ekku (“ascend”) it is not idiomatic to use the dative case marker -ku without a Region noun, as illustrated in (22). Thus, the specification of Region is a precondition for Direction in such contexts. In contrast, the accusative case marker -ni may occur freely in such constructions, as shown in (23). (21) annayya koMda-mīda-ku ekku-tunnā-du. _ _ brother hill-above-DAT ascend-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Manner+Motion Region:Above FoR:GC Path:End ‘A brother is climbing the hill.’ (Event 20, Participant 17) (22) ??annayya koMda-ku ekku-tunnā-du. _ _ brother hill-DAT ascend-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Manner+Motion Path:End ‘A man is climbing the hill.’ (23) oka magawādu koMda-ni ekku-tunnā-du. _ _ _ a man hill-ACC ascend-PRS-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Manner+Motion FoR:GC ‘A man is climbing the hill.’ (Event 20, Participant 2) 3.5. Summary The qualitative evidence presented in this section shows three distinctive features in the way Telugu speakers describe motion events: • extensive use of generic Direction verbs • apparent dominance of case markers over verbs for expressing Path • common use of Landmark/Region expressions But are these features sufficiently frequent to be regarded as characteristic for Telugu, and hypothetically, the fourth cluster of languages that the present study aims to define? It is impossible to answer this question based on only Such uses may be found in children’s speech as well as in second language learners of Telugu (Usha Rani and Sailaja 2004). 14 V. NAIDU ET AL. a qualitative analysis, so we present a quantitative analysis of the data in the next section. 4. Quantitative analysis In this section, we subject the three features established as typical for Telugu motion event descriptions to a statistical analysis. In addition, we address a fourth feature, claimed to be definitional for so-called “verb-framed” languages: the boundary-crossing constraint (see Section 1). 4.1. Extensive use of direction verbs Figure 2 shows how often Direction (mostly Viewpoint-centered, and pre- dominantly expressed by deictic verbs), Manner, Path and Cause were expressed in the main verbs. Caused motion events were unsurprisingly characterized by the presence of a verb expressing Cause, but also by Direction and Manner verbs. Overall, Direction was expressed in the main verb approximately three to five times more often than Path or Manner. Path was expressed in the main verb only in the descriptions of uncaused- bounded motion events. Across all four conditions, Manner was expressed more often than Path, but still considerably less often than Direction. The finding that Direction verbs in general, and deictic verbs in particular, are so dominant in Telugu motion event expressions, supports the proposal to distinguish it from languages like Spanish and French, on the one hand, and at least to some degree, from languages like Swedish and English, where deictic verbs may be a common, but hardly dominant strategy. Thus, we may 17 18 1 1 0 0 0 Uncaused, unbounded Uncaused, bounded Caused, unbounded Caused, bounded Direction Manner Path Cause Figure 2. Direction, manner, path, and cause in main verbs. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 15 regard this a criterial feature of Telugu and its corresponding cluster in an extended motion event typology. 4.2. Path expressed in case-marking There were only 4 types and 18 tokens of Path-expressions through verbs in the descriptions, while Path was expressed by case markers 935 times (Figure 3). In fact, for three of the four event types, not a single Path verb was used. Another notable point in this context was the fact that whenever a Path verb was used, there was also a case marker to express it, making Path distributed, as in (17). A two-tailed paired t-test showed that the probability of choosing a Path-marking case marker over a Path-marking verb was statistically significant (t = 23.393, df = 29, p = 0.000). A Telugu case marker that expresses Path can be combined with a main verb that expresses Path, Direction or Manner, as shown in Table 3. When Path is simultaneously expressed in the verb, it becomes distributed, as illustrated in (17). When the main verb expresses Direction, Path and Direction become co-expressed in the same descrip- tion, as in (13). Finally, when a Manner verb is used as the main verb, 50 18 0 0 0 Uncaused, unbounded Uncaused, bounded Caused, unbounded Caused, bounded Case markers Path verbs Figure 3. Expression of Path in case markers and verbs in all motion event descriptions. Table 3. Three types of Telugu constructions where Path is coded in a case marker. Main verb Case marker Effect 1 Path Path Path is distributed in the description 2 Direction Path Path + Deixis composition (deictic) 3 Manner Path Path + Manner composition Boundary-crossing constraint violated 16 V. NAIDU ET AL. the so-called “boundary-crossing constraint” is violated. This is illu- strated in example (24) and further discussed in Section 4.4. (24) oka ammāyi toMdaragā oka sed-lōpali-ki parigettu-tuM-di. a girl rushingly a shed-inside-DAT run-PRS-3SG.F Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Region:In Path:End ‘A girl is running into the shed in a rush.’ (Event 16, Participant 29) It should be noted that case markers cannot be regarded as “satellites” even in the Talmian framework, where the term was defined as “any constituent other than a nominal or prepositional phrase complement that is in sister relation to the verb root” (Talmy 2000, 222). What is less often noted is that Talmy, soon after stating this definition, qualifies how Path can be expressed in “satellite-framed” languages: Although the core schema in satellite-framed languages is largely expressed by the satellite alone, it is also often expressed by the combina- tion of a satellite plus a preposition, or sometimes by a preposition alone. Such a “preposition” itself can consist not only of a free adposition, but also of a nominal inflection, or sometimes of a construction containing a “locative noun” (Talmy 2000, 222). But this assumes that “satellites” somehow remain the main strategy for the expression of Path while other adnominal constructions are second- ary. Apart from problems with blurring the category of “satellite- framing” such extension can be accused of assuming in advance that prepositions, and even more so case-marking are subordinate means when it comes to Path expression. As was shown above, this was clearly not the case for Telugu, which on the whole appears to favour an (ad) nominal pattern (nouns, cases) rather than an (ad)verbal (verbs, adverbs) pattern of Path expression (see Naidu et al. 2018). This is further discussed below. 4.3. Region and landmark The feature of expressing Region and/or Landmark nominally was clearly characteristic for the Telugu motion event descriptions. There was not a single translocative motion event description without at least one of these two categories. Region was expressed by a set of dedicated spatial nouns, while Landmark was expressed by a noun or a pronoun. With the exception of the uncaused-unbounded event type, Region expressions (1022 tokens in ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 17 246 247 Uncaused, unbounded Uncaused, bounded Caused, unbounded Caused, bounded Region Landmark Figure 4. Landmark and Region expressions in the four motion event types. total) were more frequently used than Landmark expressions (765 tokens in total) as shown in Figure 4. If we consider all instances of the five HSS categories under discussion (Path, Direction, Manner, Region, Landmark), and compare whether they were expressed (ad)nominally or (ad)verbally, as shown in Figure 5, the former form classes predominated for all types of translocative events. A two-tailed paired t-test also confirmed that the higher frequency of the 600 521 400 311 312 Uncaused, unbounded Uncaused, bounded Caused, unbounded Caused, bounded Nominal + adnominal Verbal + adverbal Figure 5. (Ad)nominal (nouns, cases) vs. (ad)verbal (verbs, adverbs). 18 V. NAIDU ET AL. (ad)nominals over (ad)verbals was statistically significant (t = 14.737, df = 29, p = 0.000). 4.4. Breaking the “boundary-crossing constraint” As pointed out in Section 1, the so-called “boundary-crossing constraint” stating that a Manner verb cannot be used to describe a situation where a boundary is crossed is said to be criterial for “verb-framed” languages like French. For example, in (25), the typical meaning is that the person is running inside, rather than into, the garden. (25) Marie a cour-u dans le jardin. (French) Marie AUX run-PTCP in DEF garden ‘Mary ran in the garden.’ While research has shown that in some allegedly “verb-framed” languages like Spanish and Turkish, the constraint is not always obeyed either, for example for rapid/instantaneous motion verbs such as Turkish daliyar “drive”, or punctual vertical motion such as Spanish tirarse (“plunge/throw oneself”) (Naigles et al. 1998; Özçalışkan 2013), Path verbs are clearly the norm in such languages. In contrast, in our Telugu data, as in (24), Manner verbs in boundary crossing events including parigettu/uruku “run”, dūru “penetrate/rush/ squeeze in”, geMtu “hop”, jāgiMg “jog”, duMku “jump” were common. As Figure 6. Path, Manner and Direction in the expression of uncaused-bounded events with boundary-crossing (see Appendix B for classification of the different kinds of events in the stimulus material of the study). ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 19 shown in Figure 6, these were not as common as Direction expressions, but more common than Path expressions. Thus, we may regard this pattern as one more characteristic feature of Telugu, in addition to the three listed at the end of the previous section. 5. Discussion While the study of Zlatev et al. (2021) was explicitly comparative, allow- ing the authors to contrast Telugu explicitly with Swedish, French and Thai, the present study allowed us to spell out in more detail four characteristic features of Telugu – and hypothetically, of the typological cluster to which it belongs. Using Holistic Spatial Semantics (Zlatev 1997; Blomberg 2014; Naidu et al. 2018), and focusing on how the semantic categories Path, Direction, Manner, Region and Landmark were expressed, we can generalize these characteristics in terms of the follow- ing four typological features: (a) Motion event descriptions require verbs, either finite or non-finite, and it is natural to focus on this parameter in typology. In Telugu, verbs predominantly express Direction (either Geocentric or Viewpoint-centered) rather than Path. Manner verbs play an inter- mediary role. (b) Limiting Path to the expression of bounded translocation (with the values Beginning, Middle, End), we established that it is predomi- nantly expressed in Telugu through bound case-markers rather than verbs. In general, we consider that it is correct to regard Path as a central semantic category of motion events, but not as the pivotal criterion for typological classification, which is one of the reasons why we reject the notion of “framing”, and the derivative categories of “verb-framed” and “satellite-framed” languages. (c) When taking the semantic categories Region and Landmark into consideration, we see that Telugu utilizes predominantly nominal and adnominal form classes, what we called an (ad)nominal strategy, rather than verbal and adverbal form classes, the (ad)verbal strategy. This distinguishes Telugu not only from Thai, as shown by Naidu et al. (2018), but also from languages like English on the one hand, and Spanish on the other, which are in different ways (ad)verbal. (d) Similarly to languages like English, on the one hand, and Thai, on the other, but distinct from Romance languages, Telugu allows the use of Manner verbs in the description of situations where boundaries are crossed. But unlike the former, it has a preference for Direction to be encoded in the main verb of the clause, in line with the first feature. 20 V. NAIDU ET AL. We propose that these features define the prototype of a typological cluster that is distinct from those that approximate the original Talmian types (with Romance and Germanic languages being given as examples, even though it is mistaken to lump these like this, due to extensive differences; see, e.g., Berthele 2013), as well as from serial-verb languages like Thai. As stated at the onset, our main aim with the study was to establish the criteria for assigning other languages to this fourth typological cluster. While detailed future work is needed for this, we can so far tentatively propose that other Dravidian languages also fulfill these criteria, and hence belong to it. Tamil examples were presented in Section 1, but here we can add examples from Malayalam (26–27) and Kannada (28–29) showing: (a) main Direction verbs in (26) and (28), (b) case-makers expressing Path in all examples, (c) Regions nouns in all examples and (d) violations of the “boundary-crossing constraints” in (27) and (29). In other words, indications for all the proposed typological features. (26) oru ānkutti muri-kkə akatt-ēkkə pō-yi. (Malayalam) _ _ _ _ _ _ one boy room-DAT inside-ALL go-PST Figure Landmark Region:In Direction+Motion Path:End ‘A boy went into the room.’ (27) oru ānkutti muri-kkə akatt-ēkkə ōd-i. (Malayalam) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ one boy room-DAT inside-ALL run-PST Figure Landmark Region:In Manner+Motion Path:End ‘A boy ran into the room.’ (28) obba huduga kōneya-oḷa-ge hō-da-nu. (Kannada) _ _ one boy room-in-DAT go-PST-3SG.M Figure Landmark Direction+Motion Region:In FoR:VC Path:End ‘A boy went into the room.’ (29) obba huduga kōneya-oḷa-ge ōdi-da-nu. (Kannada) _ _ _ one boy room-in-DAT run-PST-3SG.M Figure Landmark Manner+Motion Region:In FoR:VC Path:End ‘A boy ran into the room.’ In addition, we may consider other, genetically unrelated, agglutinating lan- guages such as Turkish, which is usually considered “verb-framed” in the Talmian tradition (e.g., Özçalışkan and Slobin 1999). We can observe strong similarities between Turkish and the examples given above, including the use of ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 21 main Direction verb, Path expressed in the case marker and the presence of a Region noun (30). It is only the last feature that appears to differ, since Turkish is usually reported as being sensitive to the boundary-crossing constraint (Özçalışkan 2013) Yet, once we are freed from the straitjacket of a binary typology, and we operate with distinct clusters for, e.g., Spanish and Telugu, we could ask, to which cluster does a language like Turkish belong? Our proposed answer is that it would belong to the same cluster as Telugu, given the number of shared features. Other languages such as Finnish, which on the contrary have traditionally been classified within the “satellite-framed” con- struct, could very likely belong to this cluster as well, as recent work is suggesting (Tuuri 2021). (30) Top yuvarlan-arak tepe-den aşağı in-di. (Turkish) ball roll-CONN hill-ABL downness descend-PST Figure Manner+Motion Landmark Region: Direction+Motion Path:Begin Below FoR:GC ‘The ball descended the hill while rolling.’ (Furman 2012, 3) 6. Conclusions Talmian motion event typology has contributed to many insights on motion expression across different languages over the past few decades. However, there is increasing agreement that the two original types are insufficient to capture all observed linguistic diversity (e.g., Fortis and Vittrant 2016). Using new empirical data from a language belonging to a language family that has been relatively unstudied (i.e., Dravidian), and a new theoretical framework, this article contributes to expanding the theoretical and empirical scope of post-Talmian motion event typology. While it is high time to leave Talmy’s typology, we agree with Beavers et al. (2010, 332) that “any viable account should illuminate why Talmy’s typology is so close to being right”, and our approach does indeed help us in this way. Some, but not all, languages that have been analyzed as belonging to the “verb-framed” and “satellite-framed” types will corre- spond to two of an open number of typological clusters in a generalized post-Talmian motion event typology. Our main conclusion is that Telugu should be considered an example of a cluster that has earlier been conflated with others, due to the limits of an over-constrained typology. On the basis of the elicited material, complemen- ted with native speaker intuitions, we conclude that this cluster can be characterised by four typological features: (a) preferential use of Direction verbs rather than Path verbs, (b) case markers to encode Path, (c) extensive use of Landmark and Region expressions, and (d) frequent use of Manner verbs in “boundary-crossing” situations. 22 V. NAIDU ET AL. We have suggested that these features help to distinguish Telugu from languages arguably belonging to distinct clusters, like French, Swedish and Thai (Zlatev et al. 2021), and at the same time help identify other languages that belong to the same cluster, both genealo- gically close ones like Tamil, and distant ones like Turkish and Finnish. Further detailed studies are necessary to support this claim and to understand the parameters of this typological cluster. Holistic Spatial Semantics, whose primary objective is to study the expression of space and motion from a usage-based and open-ended perspective, and the methodology that we use in the present study, should be able to contribute to this enterprise. To sum up, further research is needed to fully understand the nature of the fourth cluster instantiated by Telugu. To achieve this goal, the typological features identified in the present study should be of help. Similarly, the other three clusters proposed by Zlatev et al. (2021) need to be complemented with the study of more languages, in order to understand the parameters of variation in post-Talmian motion event typology. Acknowledgments We wish to thank all the participants in the study, and the PATOM project (funded by the Swedish Research Council, grant 2015-01583) for providing the theoretical and methodological framework of the study. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Ditte Boeg Thomsen, the editor of the journal, for extensive feedback, which helped us improve the paper to a considerable extent. An earlier version of this study, titled “Actual Motion Expressions in Telugu” was presented by Viswanatha Naidu at the 35th South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable (SALA-35) held in Paris in October 2019, and he would like to thank the participants for their feedback. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Notes on contributors Viswanatha Naidu is Assistant Professor at the University of Hyderabad and work- ing towards his PhD in Linguistics at the University of Gothenburg. His primary research interests are within cognitive linguistics, specifically the cross-linguistic characterization of semantic categories, with focus on Indian languages. Jordan Zlatev is Professor of General Linguistics and Director of Research for the Division of Cognitive Semiotics at Lund University. His current research focuses on motion in experience and language, and more generally on language in relation to other semiotic systems like gesture and depiction, as well as to consciousness. He is editor-in-chief of Public Journal of Semiotics. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 23 Joost van de Weijer is a researcher at the Centre for Languages and Literature, and at the Humanities Lab, both at Lund University. He teaches courses in psycholinguistics and in the statistical analysis of experimental data, and provides methodological support for ongoing research projects within various areas of language and speech. ORCID Jordan Zlatev http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6096-4763 Joost van de Weijer http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9843-3143 References Asbury, Anna R. 2008. The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Doctoral disserta- tion. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Aske, Jon. 1989. “Path Predicates in English and Spanish: A Closer Look.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 15: 1–14. doi:10.3765/bls.v15i0.1753. Beavers, John, Beth Levin, and Shiao Wei Tham. 2010. “The Typology of Motion Events Revisited.” Journal of Linguistics 46: 331–377. Berman, Ruth, and Dan I. Slobin. 1994. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum. Berthele, Raphael. 2013. “Disentangling Manner from Path: Evidence from Varieties of German and Romance.” In Variation and Change in the Encoding of Motion Events, edited by Julian Goschler and Anatol Stefanowitsch, 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/hcp.41.03ber. Blake, Barry. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blomberg, Johan. 2014. Motion in language and experience: Actual and non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Doctoral dissertation. Lund: Lund University. Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas J. Enfield, James Essegbey, Iraide Ibarretxe- Antuñano, Sotaro Kita, Friederike Lüpke, and Felix K. Ameka. 2007. “Principles of Event Segmentation in Language: The Case of Motion Events.” Language 83 (3): 495–532. Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G., and Michael Noonan (eds.). 2008. Case and Grammatical Relations. Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Croft, William, Jóhanna Barðdal, Willem B. Hollmann, Violeta Sotirova, and Chiaki Taoka. 2010. “Revising Talmy’s Typological Classification of Complex Event Constructions.” In Contrastive Construction Grammar, edited by Hans Boas, 201–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fagard, Benjamin, Jordan Zlatev, Anetta Kopecka, Massimo Cerruti, and Johan Blomberg. 2013. “The Expression of Motion Events: A Quantitative Study of Six Typologically Varied Languages.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 39 (1): 364–379. doi:10.3765/bls.v39i1.3893. Fortis, Jean-Michel, and Alice Vittrant. 2016. “Path-Expressing Constructions: Toward a Typology.” STUF 69 (3): 341–374. doi:10.1515/stuf-2016-0015. Furman, Reyhan. 2012. Caused motion events in Turkish: Verbal and gestural representation in adults and children. Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie. 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 24 V. NAIDU ET AL. Hudson, Richard. 1995. “Does English Really Have Case?” Journal of Linguistics 31 (2): 375–392. doi:10.1017/S0022226700015644. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2009. “Path Salience in Motion Events.” In Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, edited by Jiansheng Guo, Elena Lieven, Nancy Budwig, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Keiko Nakamura, and Şeyda Özçalışkan, 403–414. New York: Psychology Press. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide, and Luna Filipović. 2013. “Lexicalisation Patterns and Translation.” Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications 23: 251–283. Iggesen, Oliver A. 2013. ”Number of Cases.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Imbert, Caroline. 2012. “Path: Ways Typology Has Walked Through It.” Language and Linguistics Compass 6 (4): 236–258. doi:10.1002/lnc3.329. Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 2004. “The Serial Verb Construction in Malayalam.” In Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, edited by Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan, 67–91. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kissock, Madelyn J. 2014. “Evidence for ‘Finiteness’ in Telugu.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32 (1): 29–58. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju, and John Peter Lucius Gwynn. 1985. A Grammar of Modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Lewandowski, Wojciech. 2021. “Variable Motion Event Encoding Within Languages and Language Types: A Usage-Based Perspective.” Language and Cognition 13 (1): 34–65. doi:10.1017/langcog.2020.25. Malchukov, Andrej, and Andrew Spencer. 2008. The Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matsumoto, Yo. 2003. “Typologies of Lexicalization Patterns and Event Integration: Clarifications and Reformulations.” In Empirical and Theoretical Investigations into Language: A Festschrift for Masaru Kajita, edited by Shuji Chiba, 403–418. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Morita, Takahiro. 2011. “Intratypological Variations in Motion Events in Japanese and French. Manner and Deixis as Parameters for Cross-Linguistic Comparison.” CogniTextes: Revue de L’association Française de Linguistique Cognitive 6. doi:10. 4000/cognitextes.498. Naidu, Viswanatha, and Vasanta Duggirala. 2011. “On Verbalizing Motion in Telugu.” Indian Linguistics 72: 180–194. Naidu, Viswanatha, Jordan Zlatev, Vasanta Duggirala, Joost van de Weijer, Simon Devylder, and Johan Blomberg. 2018. “Holistic Spatial Semantics and Post-Talmian Motion Event Typology: A Case Study of Thai and Telugu.” Cognitive Semiotics 11 (2). doi:10.1515/cogsem-2018-2002. Naigles, Letitia R., Ann R. Eisenberg, Edward T. Kako, Melissa Highter, and Nancy McGraw. 1998. “Speaking of Motion: Verb Use in English and Spanish.” Language and Cognitive Processes 13 (5): 521–549. Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 2003. “Motion Events and the Lexicon: A Case Study of Hindi.” Lingua 113 (2): 123–160. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00068-2. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 25 Özçalışkan, Şeyda. 2013. “Ways of Crossing a Spatial Boundary in Typologically Distinct Languages.” Applied Psycholinguistics 36 (2): 485–508. Özçalışkan, Şeyda, and Dan I. Slobin. 1999. “Learning How to Search for the Frog: Expression of Manner of Motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish.” In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development Vol. 2, edited by Annabel Greenhill, Heather Littlefield, and Cheryl Tano, 541–552. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press. Pederson, Eric. 2006. “Spatial Language in Tamil.” In Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, edited by Stephen Levinson and David Wilkins, 400–436. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffman, Harold F. 2004. “The Tamil Case System.” In South Indian Horizons: Felicitation Volume for Francois Gros on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, edited by Jean-Luc Chevillard and Ewa Wilden, 293–322. Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry. Singh, Anil Kumar. 2006. “A Computational Phonetic Model for Indian Language Scripts.” Paper given at Constraints on Spelling Changes: Fifth International Workshop on Writing Systems, Nijmegen. Slobin, Dan I. 1997. “Mind, Code, and Text.” In Essays on Language Function and Language Type Dedicated to T. Givón, edited by Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson, 437–467. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slobin, Dan I. 2004. “The Many Ways to Search for a Frog: Linguistic Typology and the Expression of Motion Events.” In Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, edited by Sven Strömqvist and Ludo Verhoeven, 219–258. Mahwah, N.J: Laurence Erlbaum. Slobin, Dan I., Melissa Bowerman, Penelope Brown, Sonja Eisenbeiß, and Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2011. “Putting Things in Places.” In Event Representation in Language and Cognition, edited by Jürgen Bohnemeyer and Eric Pederson, 134–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slobin, Dan I., and Nini Hoiting. 1994. “Reference to Movement in Spoken and Signed Languages: Typological Considerations.” Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20 (1): 487–505. Sproat, Richard. 2003. “A Formal Computational Analysis of Indic Scripts.” In International symposium on Indic Scripts: Past and Future, Tokyo. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. “Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, volume 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, edited by Tim Shopen, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Vol. 2. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Tuuri, Emilia. 2021. “Concerning Variation in Encoding Spatial Motion: Evidence from Finnish.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1–22. doi:10.1017/S0332586521000202. Usha Rani, A., and V. Sailaja. 2004. ”Acquisition of the Non-Nominative Subject in Telugu.” In Non-Nominative Subjects. Vol. 2, edited by Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri V. Subbarao, 209–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zlatev, Jordan. 1997. Situated Embodiment: Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning. Stockholm: Gotab. 26 V. NAIDU ET AL. Zlatev, Jordan. 2007. “Spatial Semantics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, 318–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zlatev, Jordan, Johan Blomberg, and Caroline David. 2010. “Translocation, Language and the Categorization of Motion.” In Language, Cognition, and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions, edited by Vyvyan Evans and Paul Chilton, 389–418. London: Equinox. Zlatev, Jordan, Johan Blomberg, Simon Devylder, Viswanatha Naidu, and Joost van de Weijer. 2021. “Motion Event Descriptions in Swedish, French, Thai and Telugu: A Study in Post-Talmian Motion Event Typology.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 53 (1): 58–90. doi:10.1080/03740463.2020.1865692. Zlatev, Jordan, and Peerapat Yangklang. 2004. “A Third Way to Travel.” In Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, edited by Sven Strömqvist and Ludo Verhoeven, 191–218. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum. ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 27 Appendix A Types and tokens of expressions for the main semantic categories (e.g., Path), grouped by form-classes (e.g., verb). Path Verbs prawēśiMcu (‘enter’) 13 cērukonu (‘reach’) 3 eMtar (‘enter’) 2 Total 18 Case markers -ki/-ku (DAT) 602 nuMci (ABL) 311 guMdā (‘via’) 7 waraku (‘until’) 7 dwārā (‘via’) 7 mīdugā (‘via’) 1 Total 935 Direction Verbs weḷḷu/pōwu (‘go’) 325 waccu (‘come’) 200 ekku (‘ascend’) 80 digu (‘descend’) 63 tīsukeḷḷu (‘take (go) out’) 11 tīsukoccu (‘take (come) out’) 11 padu (‘fall’) 6 eguraweśādu (‘tossed up’) 1 wenakki weḷḷu (‘return’) 1 Total 698 Nouns apwards (‘upwards’) 1 paina (‘above’) 1 Total 2 28 V. NAIDU ET AL. Manner Verbs parigettu (‘run’) 244 naducu (‘walk’) 130 ekku (‘ascend’) 77 kūrconu (‘sit’) 73 digu (‘descend’) 63 niMconi (‘stand’) 61 jāgiMg (‘jogging’) 54 kottu (‘hit’) 35 _ _ uruku (‘run’) 32 tirugu (turn) 31 geMtu (‘hop’) 28 eguru (‘fly’) 23 wākiMg (‘walking’) 18 kuMtu (‘limp’) 15 paltī (‘somersault’) 11 tippu (‘turn’) 10 padu (‘fall’) 6 ranniMgu (‘running’) 6 ānukonu (‘lean’) 5 parugu (‘run’) 5 dūku (‘jump’) 4 dommari (‘somersault’) 2 jaMp (‘jump’) 2 waMgi (‘bend’) 2 dāns (‘dance’) 1 dūripovu (‘penetrate’) 1 gilli (‘pinch’) 1 kik (‘kick’) 1 lēputū (‘wake up’ causative) 1 nidralēci (‘wake up’) 1 pākutū (‘crawling’) 1 somarsāltu (‘somersault’) 1 Total 945 Adverbs mellagā (‘slowly’) 45 nemmadigā (‘slowly’) 21 cinnagā (’slowly’) 12 wēgaMgā (‘fast’) 11 guMdraMgā (‘round’) 5 nidānaMgā (‘slowly’) 5 slōgā (‘slowly’) 5 kappalāga (‘like a frog’) 4 fāst (‘fast’) 3 spīdgā (‘speedily’) 3 kāMgā (‘calmly’) 1 kōtilāgā (‘like a monkey’) 1 tomdaragā (‘quickly’) 1 twaragā (‘quickly’) 1 Total 118 ACTA LINGUISTICA HAFNIENSIA 29 Region Nouns lō/lōpala (‘in/inside’) 375 paina (‘above’) 150 bayata (‘outside’) 161 daggara (‘near’) 116 kiMda (‘below’) 82 mīda (‘above’) 44 muMdu (‘front’) 34 dūram (‘far’) 16 kudiwaipu (‘right side’) 10 pakkana (‘beside’) 8 edaMa (‘left’) 5 madhya (‘middle’) 5 akkada (‘there’) 3 ān (‘on’) 2 cuttu (‘around’) 2 _ _ daun (‘down’) 2 dāni (‘in that’) 1 fraMt (‘front’) 1 ikkada (‘here’) 1 insaid (‘inside’) 1 na (‘end’) 1 saidu (‘side’) 1 wadda (‘near’) 1 Total 1022 The verbs ekku and digu express primarily Direction (and hence are glossed as ‘ascend’ and ’descend’), but also conflate an aspect of Manner that has to do with bodily motion. Hence, they have been coded as expressing both categories, here and in the qualitative analysis. But they were calculated only for their main category Direction in the quantitative analysis in Section 4. Appendix B The 38 translocative stimuli, classed as bounded or not (the first ±) and as caused or not (the second ±). “1pp” and “3pp” refer to the angle of the viewpoint in relation to the movement of the figure: 1pp = parallel to the movement; 3pp = orthogonal to the motion of the moving object. Stimuli representing events with boundary crossing are marked. 1. –Woman Walks Up Hill (1pp) 2. ±Girl Hops From Tree (3pp) 3. –Man Runs Towards (1pp) 4. ±Girl Walks Out of Room (1pp) Boundary crossing 5. ±Man Runs To Tree (3pp) 6. –Boy Runs Away (1pp) 7. –Man Walks Down Hill (1pp) 8. ±Woman Walks Out of Hut (3pp) Boundary crossing 9. ++Boy Puts Cat Into Car (3pp) Boundary crossing (Continued) 30 V. NAIDU ET AL. (Continued). 10. –Woman Runs Straight Towards (1pp) 11. ±Man Throws Ball Up 12. –Boy Walks Down Hill (1pp) 13. ±Boy Walks Into Room (1pp) Boundary crossing 14. ±Woman Walks Out of Room (1pp) Boundary crossing 15. –Boy Climbs Down Tree (3pp) 16. ±Girl Rushes Into Hut (3pp) Boundary crossing 17. ++Girl Takes Cat Out of Car (1pp) Boundary crossing 18. ±Girl Throws Ball From Cliff 19. ±Man Walks Into Garage (3pp) Boundary crossing 20. –Boy Climbs Up Cliff (3pp) 21. ++Man Puts Cat Into Car (1pp) Boundary crossing 22. –Girl Runs Down Hill (3pp) 23. ++Boy Throws Ball To Tree 24. ++Woman Takes Cat Out of Car (3pp) Boundary crossing 25. –Man Runs Up Hill (3pp) 26. ±Man Walks Into Room (1pp) Boundary crossing 27. ±Woman Runs From Tree (3pp) 28. ±Man Makes Dog Come To Him (1pp) 29. –Girl Walks Up Hill (1pp-camera) 30. ++Girl Kicks Ball From Bench (3pp) 31. ±Girl Rolls Toy Car Towards 32. ±Boy Rushes Out of Garage (3pp) Boundary crossing 33. ±Boy Hops To Tree (3pp) 34. ++Woman Throws Ball From Tree (1pp) 35. ++Man Kicks Ball To Bench (1pp) 36. ±Woman Makes Dog Come To Her (1pp) 37. –Man Runs Straight Away (1pp) 38. ±Boy Rolls Toy Car Away (3pp)

Journal

Acta Linguistica HafniensiaTaylor & Francis

Published: Jul 3, 2022

Keywords: Boundary-crossing constraint; case-marking; Dravidian; Holistic Spatial Semantics; path; post-Talmian motion event typology; Telugu

There are no references for this article.