Fiche du document
2021
- ISIDORE Id: 10670/1.6cc6b9...
- hal: hal-03984295
- doi: 10.35520/diadorim.2021.v23n1a43123
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.35520/diadorim.2021.v23n1a43123
info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Sujets proches
KineticsCiter ce document
Bert Cappelle, « Roll up / Venez: An introduction to corpus-based research in motion typology », HAL SHS (Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société), ID : 10.35520/diadorim.2021.v23n1a43123
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
This paper highlights some facets of motion typology, applied here to mainly English and French.These two languages are not perfect examples of satellite-framed and verb-framed languages, inLeonard Talmy’s well-known typology, but they can nonetheless be shown to differ in a numberof related respects: compared to English (and other Germanic languages), French (like otherRomance languages) is quite constrained in its use of Manner-of-motion verbs. French alsolacks true particles – Path satellites without a Ground that can be syntactically detached fromthe verb. Drawing on some of my previous research, I briefly discuss two simple but apparentlysufficiently efficient corpus-based translation studies that reveal that these differences show upwhen we compare English texts originally written in English with English texts translated fromFrench vs. English texts translated from German (or other Germanic languages). A third, morerecent, study contrasts a single English novel with its French and Dutch translations, focusingon expressions of visual motion. Here, too, some of the basic encoding preferences (satellite-framedvs. verb-framed) that these languages exhibit for actual motion appear to apply, byand large, for visual motion. This paper also lists some precursors of Talmy, one of whom isfamously linked with the linguistic relative hypothesis. It is suggested that French, because ofits typological nature, may not urge its speakers to convey much detail (neither of Manner nor ofPath) in the encoding of motion. It remains an open question, one that goes beyond the purviewof corpus linguistics, whether this stylistic difference is matched with a deeper cognitive one.
