Patterns of Conceptual Encoding in ASL Motion Descriptions
Author(s): SARAH TAUB and DENNIS GALVAN
Source: Sign Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Winter 2001), pp. 175-200
Published by: Gallaudet University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26204836
Accessed: 20-03-2019 20:02 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26204836?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gallaudet University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Sign Language Studies
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SARAH TAUB
DENNIS GALVAN
Patterns of Conceptua
Encoding in ASL Mot
Descriptions
The human mind constructs complex conceptual models
of real-world situations. Yet much of this information is not explicitly
represented in the linguistic messages people use to communicate
about these situations. Languages divide into different typological
groups based on how they encode information about motion
events—in particular, which conceptual elements are encoded and
by what linguistic means. The present study looks at patterns in
American Sign Language, drawing data from adults' retellings of the
story Frog, Where Are You? (Mayer 1969). There appear to be no
absolute restrictions on what meaningful elements can co-occur in
ASL classifier forms; instead, we see tendencies that are most likely
based on cognitive heuristics and communicative strategies.
In this sort of analysis, we look at the conceptual elements that a
language might choose to express, the linguistic "surface" forms that
are available to express them, and the patterns of encoding of con
ceptual elements by particular types of surface forms. Talmy (1985)
examines several conceptual areas (e.g., motion, causation, and tem
poral distribution), but the area that has inspired the most research
concerns motion events.
Sarah Taub, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Linguistics in the Department of
ASL, Linguistics, and Interpretation at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C.
Dennis Galvan, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Psychology in the Department of
Psychology at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. The sign illustrations are
by Liz Dean.
175
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
176 I Sign Language Studies
A motion event—that is, an event in which an entity moves from
place to place or is identified as located at a particular place—may be
divided into a number of basic conceptual pieces: the Figure, or
moving/located entity; the Ground, or landscape against which it
moves; the fact of Motion (or location) itself; and the Path along
which it moves (or location where it stays). We may also identify the
Manner of its movement; Manner is less conceptually unified but
may include the locomotion method of an animate figure (e.g., run
ning, clambering) and local details of the motion (e.g., sliding, bounc
ing, or tumbling). Finally, for some events a Cause, or external event,
is seen as providing the conditions for the motion event.
Talmy used this analysis to identify three different patterns of ex
pressing these elements (see example i). The first grouping (dubbed
path-type by Slobin and Hoiting 1994) expresses Path and Motion in
the verb root; Manner and Ground information, if present at all,
occurs in surrounding elements, or satellites. This group includes Ro
mance, Semitic, and Polynesian languages; (ia) gives an example
from Spanish. The second group (manner-type), consisting of the
other Indo-European languages and Chinese and exemplified by En
glish in (ib), conflates Manner and Motion in the main verb root,
with Path given in satellites; these languages can also combine Cause
and Motion in verb roots. Finally, the figure-type languages conflate
Figure and Motion in the verb root and give Cause, Path, and
Ground in satellites; the Hokan group of Native American languages
are of this type, as exemplified by Atsugewi in (ic).
In later work, Talmy (1991) picked out Path as the "core schema"
of motion events and categorized languages based on how they ex
pressed Path. Languages with Path in the verb root are called verb
framed, and those with Path in satellites are satellite-framed. Thus path
type languages are by definition verb-framed, and all other types are
satellite-framed. Talmy noted that satellite-framed languages could
actually include more Path information per sentence than verb
framed languages because they could concatenate in a single sentence
many satellites specifying complex paths.
While Talmy focused on encoding patterns at the sentence level,
Slobin (1996) looked at whole texts or narratives. One might suppose
that languages such as Spanish, although they encode less Path infor
mation in each sentence, might "catch up" over the course of an
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 177
Example i .
a. Spanish; path-type:
la botella entrô a la cueva flotando
the bottle moved-in to the cave floating
" The bottle entered the cave floating."
b. English; manner-type:
The bottle floated into the cave.
c. Atsugewi; figure-type:
/'-w-
ca
third-person
st'aq'for
a
subject
fro
ic't
runny
matter
to
mo
/
third-person
—►
[c'wast'aq
"Icky
entire
texts
than
stuff
text.
include
compara
persist
ies
as
T
across
an
influ
Evidence
also
tional
Path
a
panying
gestu
example,
motion
move
McN
descri
their
h
and
other
M
made
a
thoro
encoded
gesture
The
conc
is
precedin
languages
some
tak
of
of
whic
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
178 I Sign Language Studies
signed languages have lexical verbs (e.g., run, walk, and throw in
ASL), many of which undergo spatial modulation to show specific
paths; classifiers (or polymorphemic verbs), which incorporate iconic
or semi-iconic articulator configurations and movements (cf. Mc
Donald 1982, Supalla 1982, Schick 1987, Liddell 1995); and referen
tial shifts, in which the signer's face and body represent the face and
body of some referent entity (cf. Emmorey and Reilly 1995).
In a study of narratives by native ASL and English users, Galvan
and Taub (forthcoming) found that ASL signers consistently incorpo
rate much more conceptual information into their descriptions of
motion events than do English speakers. In particular, significantly
more Motion, Path, and Manner information was included, and
there was a strong trend toward including more information about
affect and spatial relations among Figures. Moreover, ASL signers re
peated this information more frequently than English speakers—this
contrast was significant for Motion, Path, Manner, and Affect and
approached significance for Spatial Relations. We also noted a strong
preference in the ASL narratives for expressing conceptual elements
through classifiers and referential shifts.
These findings show the deep influence of iconicity on ASL de
scriptions of motion events. Even when alternate forms (nouns, lexi
cal verbs, fingerspelling, or extended explanations) are available,
signers overwhelmingly use iconic classifiers and referential shifts.
Engberg-Pedersen (1999) notes this phenomenon in Danish Sign
Language and refers to it as a signed-language narrative ideal—in a
signed story, wherever possible, narrators should "show" the infor
mation using iconic forms rather than "describe" it using lexical
forms.
The greater amount and repetition of motion infomiation in ASL
stories can be attributed to iconicity as well. One might conceive of
the repetition of information as linguistic anaphora or agreement, but
in fact the cause might not be specific to language. When multiple
iconic forms of any sort are constructed, they portray many aspects
of the referent event, and each iconic form must "agree" with others
in accurately portraying those aspects; this leads naturally to "redun
dancy" across forms. For example, Galvan and Taub found that in
narratives about a boy, nearly all the forms presenting the boy's Mo
tion and Path through space also contained Figurai information; this
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 179
information consistently (and redundantly) portrayed him as a two
legged animate being. Although we often think of repetition or re
dundancy as boring or unnecessary, the repetition in these iconic
narratives serves an important purpose: It reinforces the viewer's
mental imagery and helps the viewer comprehend new information
that is mixed in with the repeated information.
This line of thought leads directly to the question of conflation
patterns in ASL representations of motion events: Are there con
straints or limits on iconicity in ASL? A priori, because the articula
tors of ASL are objects (i.e., body parts) moving in space, one might
expect that signers would encode all the conceptual information
about a motion event in a seamless flow of iconic representation.
That is, all of Talmy's pieces of a motion event might be conflated
into one classifier form. Previous work, however, has made it clear
that this does not happen. ASL signers do in fact separate different
pieces of the event into different linguistic components.
Supalla (1990) took explicit notice of this issue and pointed out a
number of separation patterns in ASL. Most classifier-based verbs of
motion follow one of two patterns: They may combine Figure infor
mation with Manner of locomotion or with Path information. The
Manner/Figure/Motion verbs use the signer's body to represent the
referent's body, focusing on details of the referent's limbs; examples
include the use of the signer's fingers or hands and forearms to repre
sent the referent's legs and feet. The Path/Figure/Motion verbs, in
contrast, use only the signer's hand or fingers to give an overall view
of the referent; the signer's body is not semantically significant. Ex
amples include the uses of the Flat B hand or extended index finger
to show movement of a person or thing through space. The "two
legged" classifier made by extended index and middle fingers (cl:v)
is an exception in that it may encode both Manner and Path as well
as Figure and Motion. (Although Supalla does not make this observa
tion, the exception could be explained by the fact that the cl:v alone
has a part-whole structure that can show limb movement as well as
the relative freedom of movement of an item articulated solely by a
single hand.)
Supalla noted that these two types of motion verbs often combine
in a series, allowing the signer to express both Manner and Motion
information in the same sentence. Thus, to describe a person limping
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
i8o I Sign Language Studies
up a hill, a signer would first produce a Manner motion verb
the limping body motions and then a Path motion verb show
person's trajectory up the hill. Even though it is physiologica
ble for the signer to move the Manner verb through the uph
signers do not usually do so; instead, they separate a putatively
event into two conceptual chunks articulated in series. Su
ferred to these patterns as arbitrary linguistic restrictions on whi
of an event could appear together in which forms.
One may question Supalla's interpretation, however. Nat
signers do accept some Manner/Figure/Motion verbs that
definite path (Samuel Hawk, personal communication). In
forms, both limb movements and motion along a path ar
salient. For example, picture a man shuffling sideways along
window ledge to reach a trapped cat. Representing his mo
with two index fingers, one for each leg, moving sideway
cat's spatial locus, is acceptable to most signers, although
classes the double-index-finger classifier form as incompatibl
Path information. Moreover, at least some of Supalla's Path/F
Motion forms do incorporate Manner information; for examp
vertical index-finger classifier representing a person's motion
gently up and down to show that the person is walking (rath
say, running). Given this, it may be more accurate to interpr
la's observations as tendencies rather than absolutes. Moreove
might seek a motivation for the tendencies in general cognit
perceptual functioning rather than in arbitrary restrictions.
Slobin and Hoiting (1994) studied verbs of motion in Nethe
Sign Language (SLN), whose classifier system is similar to
nature although not in every detail. They support Supalla's vi
motion events are conceptually separated into different fo
disagree on the details. In particular, whereas Supalla claims t
series of a Manner and a Path motion verb, the Path verb is se
and "reduced," Slobin and Hoiting claim that the Path verb
ally primary. To support this point, they adduced examples f
ken languages that use verb series of Manner and Path verbs;
cases, the Path verb generally functions as the sentence's mai
Slobin and Hoiting also contend that, because (according t
1991) Path is the "core schema" and because ASL verbs of
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 181
necessarily display Path, ASL is a verb-framed, path-type language.
They introduced the notion of complex verb-framed languages; this
type would consist of verb-framed languages such as Turkish, ASL,
and SLN that use verb series to convey motion information.
As additional support for their position, Slobin and Hoiting note
that verb-framed languages characteristically give special treatment to
crossings of boundaries. Satellite-framed languages such as English
treat boundary crossings in the same way as any other Path seg
ment—through the addition of a satellite element specifying that seg
ment (cf. example 2a); these satellites normally follow a verb of
Manner. But verb-framed languages differ. As we have seen (cf. ia
and 2b), for the most part verb-framed languages express Path in the
main verb, with a satellite expressing manner. However, in certain
contexts (called path focused by Slobin and Hoiting), Path may appear
as a satellite with a Manner main verb (as in 2c). Yet those Paths may
never include a boundary crossing. A sentence such as (2d), which
attempts to combine a boundary-crossing Path with a Manner verb,
is unacceptable.
Example 2.
The man ran out of the surf, across the field, and into the ho
el hombre entrô corriendo a la casa
the man moved-in running to the house
el hombre corriô hasta la casa
the man ran up-to the house
* el hombre corriô de la playa en la casa
the man ran from the beach in the house
These examples show the special treatment of boundary crossings
in Spanish, and Slobin and Hoiting provide analogous examples for
French, Turkish, Japanese, and Korean. According to their data, the
same is true for SLN: They found sentences such as (glossed in En
glish) house, man run approach enter, in which the boundary
crossing into the house must be marked by a separate verb. They
cite this analogy between SLN and spoken verb-framed languages to
support their claim that SLN is also a verb-framed language. As we
shall see, ASL has this means and several other resources for encoding
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
i82 I Sign Language Studies
boundary crossings; our Discussion section includes a reanalysis of
the boundary-crossing data and a réévaluation of the claim for cross
linguistic analogies between SLN, ASL, and spoken verb-framed lan
guages.
In the ongoing debate over encoding patterns in signed languages,
we saw a need for corpus-based studies. We chose to look at encod
ing patterns in ten signers' descriptions of a single complex event. In
this event, the signers repeatedly used the cl:v animate classifier to
describe a complex "fall," involving multiple simultaneous Paths and
Figures. Conceptually, elements of Motion, Path, Manner, Figure,
and Ground were present, and the Ground elements included a
boundary crossing. The signers' representations of this event could
tell us whether a constraint exists on how much information a single
cl:v form can encode—either an upper limit on number of concep
tual elements or restrictions on what types of information can co
occur in one form. They could also tell us whether boundary cross
ings are given special treatment in ASL.
Methods
The children's storybook. Frog, Where Are You? (Mayer 1969) was
used as a prompt to elicit narratives from ten adults. This book con
tains pictures only, without accompanying text. The pictures present
a set of conceptual elements that narrators may choose to include,
emphasize, or ignore when retelling the story. Ten deaf, native users
of ASL were videotaped signing the story.
Study
One scene, involving a boy, a dog, and a deer, was coded for this
analysis. Pictures iob-i2a of the book depict this scene: The deer has
run to a cliff with the boy on its head and the dog alongside barking
at the deer. In our focused event, the deer stops, and the boy and
dog fall over the cliff and land in a pond. This scene was chosen
because elements of Figure, Motion, Path, Manner, and Ground
were all present and could all be included in the narration if desired;
in addition, the characters' affect was clearly visible from the pictures.
We investigated the separation and repetition patterns associated
with the classifier V handshape (cl:v) in the primary event of our
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 183
scene, the boy and the dog's fall into the water. This fall is com
plex, involving two Figures and simultaneous Paths from the deer's
head (for the boy) and from the top of the cliff (for the dog), over
the edge of the cliff down, and into the pond. Logically, this event
could have been encoded in one complex form using both hands and
the signer's head: One hand using a cl:v (animate classifier for the
boy) could have started from the forehead (representing the deer),
moved downward in an arc and stopped with a bounce, while the
other hand, also using a CL:v (animate classifier for the dog) would
have started lower and to the side of the neutral signing space (repre
senting the top of the cliff) and moved in a parallel path also ending
with a bounce. Only I of the 37 forms produced by our native sign
ing subjects did this (figure 3). Most forms were far simpler. More
over, every narrator produced at least three cl:v forms, each focusing
on different aspects of the scene. This suggests the existence of lin
guistic or perhaps cognitive constraints on simultaneous encoding of
information.
To give a flavor of our data, we have placed a gloss of one version
of the scene in Appendix I. This signer used three c;l:v forms to
describe the boy and the dog's fall into the pond, and these forms are
shown in figures i, 2, and 3. Footnotes in the transcript indicate
which glosses correspond to these figures.
Figure I illustrates the signer's first cl:v construction. Here the
signer's right hand forms the cl:v, representing the boy, and his left
hand forms the B-shaped flat-object classifier (cl:b), representing the
deer's head. The cl:v starts on top of the cl:b and then moves off
and downward in an arc path, representing the initial location of the
boy on the deer's head and his subsequent path over the cliff's edge
and down. Simultaneously, the signer's referential shift and the scared
expression on his face indicate the boy's distressed emotional state.
Thus, this form presents Figure, Path, Ground, Manner, and Affect
information about the boy's fall, plus his spatial relationship with the
deer.
In figure 2, the second cl:v construction, the signer uses the V
handshape on both hands to represent an animate creature with four
legs; contextual information lets us deduce that this classifier refers to
the dog. The signer moves his hands on a path that arcs forward and
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
V*
Figure i. c:l:vb "animate falls otF"
Figure 2. cl:vv "four-legged animate falls'
A.
Figure 3 . cl:v "animate falls from head"
CL'.vv "two animates intertumble"
Cl:v "animate falls from cliff"
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 185
down, showing the path of the dog over the edge of the cliff. At the
same time, his facial expression shows the carelessness of the dog in
not noticing the cliff. This form therefore includes Figure, Path,
Manner, and Affect information about the dog's fall.
Finally, in figure 3, the signer puts all this information together.
He forms cl:v shapes with both hands, representing the boy and the
dog. At the beginning of the construction, the left-hand cl:v is held
at a midlevel position in signing space, identified with the dog's posi
tion on the ground. The right-hand cl:v is held at the signer's fore
head. In this construction, the signer's head represents the head of
the deer, and thus the cl:v at the signer's head represents the boy on
the deer's head. From these initial positions, both cl:v handshapes
move through signing space: First the left cl:v rises in an arc, and
then the two cl:v handshapes move downward together, revolving
around a common axis, so that the left cl:v ends up on top of the
right one. These movements represent the simultaneous falls of the
boy and the dog over the cliff and their final position with the dog
on the boy's stomach. Thus, this form presents Figure, Path, Ground,
and Manner information about the boy's fall; Figure, Path, and Man
ner information about the dog's fall; and spatial relationships among
the boy, dog, and deer.
The first two forms are typical of our data in that they present over
lapping partial accounts of the same scene: Although figures i and 2
each focus in on a different character, they contain similar information
about the path over the cliff, and most of their information is repeated
in figure 3. Figure 3, however, is not typical of our data: It is the most
complex form produced by any of our subjects and contains nearly all
the conceptual information given in the pictorial prompts. Yet nearly all
of this information had just been presented by the signer in his two
previous cl:v forms; the only new information is the spatial relationship
between the boy and the dog during their falls.
The overall patterns of cl:v use are summarized in table i. Our
ASL signing narrators all repeated the cl:v an average of 3.7 times
with a range of 3 to 5 instances. These cl:v handshapes were com
bined and recombined with different additional information. Out of
37 instances of the cl:v in the "fall," only 1 could be considered an
exact repetition of a preceding form (and this person did use 3 dis
tinct cl:v forms).
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
186 I Sign Language Studies
Table i. Encoding of Conceptual Elements with the cl:v form
Conceptual Categories Scene Elements
Form
Encoded Path Information
ii
Start
Motion + Path +
Animate fall
Figure
(boy or dog)
Arc
V
cl:v
Down End
X
6
X
X
2
X
1
Animate fall
4-legged animal)
cl:vv
Motion + Path +
dual Figure
Dual animate fall
cl:v + cl:v
X X
X
2
(dog:
X
X
2
X
X
1
X
(boy and dog)
1
2
Motion + Path +
Figure 4- Ground
Fall from head
of deer (boy)
cl:v +
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
forehead
(initial landmark)
cl:v + cl:b
5
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
2
X
X
+ cl:b
2 (dog)
X
X
Fall fromc:l:v
cliff
Motion + 2 Paths
Fall from deer
+ 2 Figure +
(boy) and fall
Ground (initial
landmark)
Motion + Path +
Figure + Ground
(bounday
cl:v + cl:v
1
cl:v + cl:b
5
X
X
X X
X
X
from cliff (dog)
animate enters water
(boy or dog)
crossing)
*The arc in this item may have represented continuous aspect rather than arc Path.
Some separation patterns emerged from the data. All signers' cl:v
forms (with one possible exception; see the note to table i) included
Path information. The signers divided the Path into three pieces: the
initial arc (denoting a loss of balance and fall), a downward segment,
and a final bounce. We saw cl:v forms that incorporated the entire
Path (4), the arc and the downward segment (21), the downward
segment and the bounce (2), the arc only (2), and the downward
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
X
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 187
segment only (8). The initial arc was included in 27 forms, while the
bounce was included in 6; moreover, no forms included only the
bounce. This suggests a tendency to focus on the initial part of the
event rather than the end; also, awareness of the lexicalized sign
meaning "fall" (derived from a CL:v with an arc path) may have
influenced signers to include the arc more frequently.
We can divide the cl:v forms into four groups based on the con
ceptual elements that combined with Path: Motion + Figure, show
ing an animate entity falling (12); Motion + dual Figure, showing
the boy and the dog falling together (7); Motion + Figure +
Ground (initial landmark), showing the boy falling from the deer's
head or the dog falling from the cliff (13); and Motion + Figure +
Ground (boundary crossing), showing an animate entity entering the
water (5). Additionally, there was the previously described form that
included separate Paths, Figures, and Motions for the boy and dog,
along with the Ground (initial landmark) of the deer's head (see fig
ure 3). If there is an upper limit on the amount of conceptual infor
mation in a cl:v form, we might expect that the second, third, and
fourth groups and the complex form would accommodate Paths that
are less complex than the first group's paths.
The first group, containing the forms with the fewest additional
elements (Motion + Figure), could combine with Paths of any de
gree of complexity. We should note that two of the forms in this
category actually used both hands to represent all four legs of the
dog, as illustrated in figure 2.
The second group of forms added a second cl:v to represent the
second Figure. In all of these cases, the two hands moved symmetri
cally, either in parallel (for the fall) or in alternation (for a few depic
tions of the bounce). Because of this, we consider these forms to
have a dual Figure (the boy and dog "chunked" together) tracing a
single Path.
The third group of forms incorporated a Ground element repre
senting the initial landmark. In six cases, the signer's head was used
to represent the deer's head; in five cases, the nondominant B hand
shape (cl:b) represented the deer's head (see figure i); and in five
cases, the cl:b represented the cliff. Table i marks the use of this
initial landmark in the column labeled "start."
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
188 I Sign Language Studies
In considering the second and third groups of cl:v fo
found that adding the initial landmark or the complex du
did not affect the allowable complexity of the form's Path.
initial-landmark and the dual-figure forms incorporated one
all three Path elements. A possible exception to this generaliz
the group of forms in which the signer's head was used for t
landmark: None of these six forms included the final bounce. A ref
erential shift is needed to define the signer's head as the deer's head,
and adding the final bounce to that form may have made the form
too complex for most signers.
In the fourth group of forms, the nondominant cl:b represented
a Ground element, the surface of the water, and the cl:v was moved
downward past the cl:b. All five of these forms incorporated only the
downward Path segment. No articulatory constraint limits the Path
of the cl:v; presumably it could move in an initial arc down past the
water to a final bounce, but this never happened. This is a striking
difference from the initial-landmark group, which also incorporated
a single Ground element yet could include any Path elements. It
suggests that the number of conceptual elements is not the only factor
in determining separation patterns and that boundary crossings may
be in some way special in ASL.
Finally, the single most complex form is illustrated in figure 3. It
incorporates arc and downward Path elements for two separate Fig
ures, plus an initial Ground for one Figure, and an ending configura
tion showing a complex Spatial Relationship between the Figures.
We note that before producing this form, the signer had already pro
duced two simpler cl:v forms (figures 1 and 2); nearly all the infor
mation in the complex form had already been presented. This is
consistent with a cognitive constraint on level of complexity: This
much complexity might be comprehensible only when the addressee
has already had a chance to assimilate it in smaller chunks.
To summarize, all signers used at least three different cl:v forms
to describe the fall, showing that some degree of conceptual
separation is necessary for this complex event. Also, all signers re
peated Figure, some Path, and other information in their different
forms, showing the importance of repetition in building up a coher
ent picture of the event. Nearly all the cl:v forms consisted of
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 189
Motion, Figure, Path, and one possible additional element (Ground
element or second Figure chunked with the first). We saw only one
form of greater complexity, which followed (and summarized) two
simpler forms. This suggests that there is a strong tendency to limit
the amount of conceptual information that cl:v forms can express.
But complexity may not be the only factor, as we see from the con
trast in Path complexity between forms with initial landmarks and
forms with boundary crossings.
Study 2
We were intrigued by the apparent constraint that boundary crossings
could co-occur with only straight-line paths. To further investigate
this hypothesis, we examined all other boundary crossings in our
sample of ten ASL narratives. Our definition of "boundary crossing"
included both literal crossings (e.g., boy puts frog in jar) and metaphor
ical ones (e.g., boy looks into hole in tree)', we did this because languages
often use the same resources for describing literal and metaphorical
motion (cf. Lakoff and Turner 1989). There were a total of 19 literal
and 5 metaphorical crossing events, with altogether 89 descriptions
of crossings. The data are summarized in table 2.
The first column in table 2 gives the total number of descriptions
for each crossing; clearly, each signer did not describe each crossing once
and only once. The next column shows the number of crossings indi
cated by prepositions such as in and out (5); no further Path informa
tion was given in these sentences. The next two columns track lexical
verbs such as disappear and enter (ii), which all inflect for straight
paths, and those classifier forms that incorporated straight paths ($3).
Together, these three types account for 78 percent of all crossings. The
last three columns tabulate classifier forms with more complex paths:
first, paths consisting of simple arcs (12); second, paths shaped like an
inverted V, with a straight upward and then a straight downward seg
ment (3); and last, truly complex paths involving shakes, wiggles, or
bounces (5). These types account for 22 percent of all crossings.
We may note that complex paths co-occurred with only six cross
ings: the frog climbing out of the jar; the dog's head entering the jar;
the dog falling out of the window; the boy jumping out of the win
dow; the boy and dog looking over the log; and the boy and dog
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
<D
O
u
X <D
VerbsClasifersClasifersClasifersClasifers
o
o
TotalPreposit nsLexicalStrightArcVPathComplex
fO M '—1 CO M M M '—' (N ^ CN '—^ if; 1/1 M vD
t—i
t-h
£
v
„
i_i 5P w i> ^
°
cola
S ^ ^ u-2 o g ^ S , en c a
22 .2 c ^ '-« > 0 23 n n Prt'CC-S.2
01 r a ^ k u S 0 -c o £ ° m ^ 3 u u
Sn,"1-E ^Si!,'''^<J,JnC,S U o U O C u>
0 &_g 'g 1 V3 £ J o § <3 £ fa S-S J
w O 5 '2 > S o 3 o S o » s 3 o o | a ^
2S^||s
§ TP__,
ca<£"-,£>
S ^ og.sSs°|^^
o q. ^ ^ Z, c 0 S J
oo °§rt§_ .S
"rL .S
^ s s
Subtoal7649 135
£ E. §j~ -^ ■£ M_c jc u «>« -" « « J
—1 ooPP§oooooOoo<d2^"ooC/3-o^222
Table2.BoundaryCrosingsintheNar tives
1.boyputsfroginjar413 2.boygesintobed3 3.frogclimbsout fjar13 43 5.sunriseabovehorizn1 6.dog'shead ntersja 18 431 7.dogfalsout fwindo 21 8.boyjumpsout fwindow2 9.boy/dog o utside2 1.frog oesintohle2 12.gopher ntershole1 13.gophercomesout fhole9 14.bescome utofhive2 15.frog oesinto re hole1 16.owlfiesoutfrehole523 17.der'sheadrise pastrock1 18.boyand ogfalintowater523 19.boyand ogclimboverlog2
« jo _o tic <-ic S -a -a x> -o x <J3 scmjsUc o -a x _o n -0 -o x x x
<D
^
....
4.boyloksintohleintre 514
2.dog/boylokoutwindow2 .
4.frogleavs/disap ears2
Visual(metaphorical)Cros ings n m t m
rHMmt^'Ohoooo^rjcn'tLn^h-^ON
^ ^
10.boy/dogentrforest1
Literal Cro.■£
s ings
1.dog/boylokintojar1 3.boyloksintogrundhole3 5.boy/dglok verlog21
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Subtoal13 291 Total8951 32 5
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 191
climbing over the log. These crossings—and only these crossings—
share the characteristic that the boundary is an impediment to for
ward motion, and the Figure must modify its path to cross it. (The
dog's head entering the jar is a seeming exception, but all but one of
the four complex Path forms for that crossing actually involve a Fig
ure/Ground reversal, in which the jar is depicted as moving onto the
dog's head. If one imagines that scene, one will envision the jar mov
ing upward onto the head, and then the rim moving downward past
the head; the head forces modification of the jar's path. The final jar/
head form is highly complex and deserves further analysis.)
We can immediately make the following observations. First,
boundary crossings may be encoded via a variety of means, including
classifiers, lexical verbs, and prepositions. Second, there is a strong
tendency toward conflating boundary crossings with simple, straight
line paths, but only a tendency, as nearly one-fourth of the classifier
forms had more complex paths. This has more the appearance of a
cognitive heuristic than of an exceptionless rule.
Discussion and Conclusions
Our results support Supalla's claim that ASL signers do in fact sepa
rate a unitary event into different conceptual pieces. Although the
linguistic resources for describing motion events are highly iconic,
this is not a simple, directly depictive kind of iconicity. Instead, the
event is decomposed into pieces that can be presented separately,
and there is a strong tendency to limit the amount of conceptual
information that appears in each iconic form. It does not seem, how
ever, that there is an absolute upper bound on the amount of infor
mation. This suggests that many of the separation patterns in ASL
stem from limitations on cognitive processing rather than on linguis
tic co-occurrence restrictions.
Some evidence exists that seems at first glance to support Slobin
and Hoiting's view that boundary crossings are special. In our se
lected scene, complex paths never appeared in simultaneous con
struction with boundary crossings, whereas they freely co-occurred
with representations of other landmarks. Yet complex paths did co
occur with other boundary crossings in the narratives, notably those
in which the boundary impeded the Figure's motion. We propose
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
192 I Sign Language Studies
that this differential treatment of impeded and nonimpeded boundary
crossings is not due to arbitrary co-occurrence rules but instead to
cognitive factors.
Presumably signers have mental images or models of the entire
motion event they wish to describe. Let us hypothesize that for
boundary crossings they focus their attention on a small piece of the
image immediately surrounding the crossing (cf. Langacker's notion
of scope [1987]). For nonimpeded crossings (e.g., the boy's fall into
water), the immediate neighborhood of the crossing contains only a
straight-line path and no effort on the Figure's part. But for impeded
crossings (e.g., the frog's escape from ajar), the neighborhood con
tains an arc path and potentially complex maneuvering by the Figure.
If signers encode what they construe as being in the crossing's neigh
borhood, they will create forms with straight paths for nonimpeded
crossings and complex paths for impeded ones.
On this analysis, boundary crossings are not given special treat
ment in ASL. When one is to be mentioned, the signer focuses on
it, and it is encoded with a complex or a simple Path depending on
the Path details right at the boundary. But that is not significantly
different from how any other conceptual element gets included in
the narrative. Moreover, even this focus-based encoding is a ten
dency rather than a rule: In a few cases, the signer includes Path
elements that are not right at the crossing (e.g., the frog leaping out
of the jar and bouncing as it hits the floor). The result supports the
claim that spatial descriptions in ASL are constrained and structured
by cognitive factors (assumed to be heuristic and flexible) rather than
linguistic rules (assumed to be arbitrary and exceptionless).
Where, then, does ASL fit in Talmy's typology? Is ASL in fact
verb-framed, as Slobin and Hoiting claim, satellite-framed and man
ner-type, as Supalla's work suggests, or something else? In searching
for an answer, let us look more closely at the treatment of Path,
Manner, and boundary crossings in these types of languages. What
does it mean to say that verb-framed languages give special treatment
to boundary crossings? This analysis draws on Aske (1989).
Satellite-framed languages such as English typically have a Manner
verb plus one or more Path segments in satellites. In these satellites,
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 193
boundary crossings are treated on a par with other Path segments in
that they can appear as just another segment in a complex Path (cf.
The man walked out of the house, across the street, through the park, and
into the church.). In another pattern, a Path segment can appear in the
main verb; once again, boundary crossings receive equal treatment
(e.g., cross, enter, and exit vs. rise, descend, and traverse).
Verb-framed languages (e.g., the Romance languages) also have
two pertinent patterns. In the first, the main verb encodes a Path
segment in the verb; in this case (as in the second satellite-framed
pattern), boundary crossings are treated just the same as any other
Path segment (e.g., French entrer 'enter,' sortir 'exit' vs. descendre 'de
scend,' monter 'rise'). In the second, the sentence may have manner
information in the main verb and location in a satellite. This location
satellite cannot represent a boundary crossing (cf. example 2). Thus,
in verb-framed languages, boundary crossings get expressed only in
verbs, and each requires its own.
A hypothesis that involves the conceptualization of Manner in
each language will account for these facts. Let us suppose that Man
ner verbs in satellite-framed languages include the notion of travel
through space along with their specification of manner of locomo
tion. These verbs will then be path compatible: They allow a specifica
tion of a Path along with them (in their satellites). The verbs do not
impose any limits on the character of that Path; it can be of any
length and involve complexities such as boundary crossings (Aske
[1989] referred to such Path specifications as telic path phrases).
Let us suppose, on the other hand, that Manner verbs in verb
framed languages do not include the notion of travel through space;
they simply specify an action that the Figure is taking (i.e., some
limb-movement type). These verbs will not be path compatible. In
their satellites, they allow a specification only of location (not Path)—
the location where the action is taking place (e.g., Spanish en la casa
'in the house'); Aske (ibid.) referred to such specifications as locative
path phrases. We will have to assume that the location can include
some notion of direction, as seen in example 2c (e.g., Spanish correr
hasta la casa 'run up to the house'). These locations cannot, however,
include a boundary crossing: Once a boundary has been crossed, the
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
194 i Sign Language Studies
space is construed as a different location, and motion from one loca
tion to another necessarily constitutes a Path. Thus, the only way to
express a boundary crossing in these languages is to use a Path verb
that encodes the crossing. This hypothesis matches the facts described
earlier.
Now let us compare the treatment of Manner in ASL. As Supalla
and Slobin and Hoiting observe, lexical Manner verbs (e.g., run)
often appear in construction with Path classifiers or Path verbs, and
these Path forms can encode boundary crossings. Also, as noted ear
lier, the same classifiers that typically express Manner can also include
Path (in contradiction to Supalla). Therefore, manner in ASL is path
compatible and also compatible with boundary crossings. This is not
the same pattern as is observed in spoken verb-framed languages. We
may conclude that ASL is not a verb-framed language. Whether it is a
manner-type or figure-type satellite-framed language—or something
else altogether—remains to be determined.
We may speculate that, contrary to Talmy (1991), the treatment
of Manner rather than Path is the primary motivator for language
typology. Manner that is incompatible with Path would force lan
guages to be verb-framed for the following reason: Path elements
could not be encoded as satellites to (path-free) Manner verbs and
would necessarily be encoded in verbs; this is the definition of verb
framed. If treatment of Path is not the core criterion, then the bare
fact that most ASL verbs of motion contain paths would not force us
to consider ASL to be verb-framed.
Last of all, let us return to Supalla's observation that ASL classifiers
tend to encode either Manner or Path, but not both, and his claim
that this is the result of arbitrary linguistic restrictions on encoding.
Some of the patterns that Supalla noted are conventional facts about
ASL—for example, the fact that signers use extended index fingers
rather than index and middle fingers to represent a referent's legs—
and thus are arbitrary to some degree. But the overall pattern he
observed of a separation between Manner of locomotion and Path
may not be arbitrary at all.
McNeill (1999) reported on a study of gestures that accompany
spoken-language descriptions of motion events; his study involved
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 195
speakers of English, Spanish, and Mandarin, from age 3 up to age 12.
His earlier work (McNeill 1992) showed that these gestures are
tightly bound to the spoken message they accompany and that much
conceptual information may be expressed through these gestures; in
particular, gestures may carry (at least) Path, Manner, and Figure in
formation. The recent study shows that starting at age 3, speakers of
all three languages separate Manner and Path information in their
gestures. That is, the children never produce gestures that include
both Manner and Path information. Adult speakers, however, regu
larly produce such combinations in their gestures. McNeill suggests
that there may be a limit on children's ability to represent motion
events; even though they may recognize the Manner and the Path of
the motion events, they cannot yet recombine them into a single
gestural portrayal.
Given these results, we suggest that the locomotion/path split is a
cognitive universal, not a language-specific one, and that the patterns
of motion verbs in ASL derive from the same cognitive structures as
spoken-language gestures. The fact that most of these patterns seem
to be tendencies rather than absolute rules also supports a cognitive
rather than a linguistic origin.
This proposal could reconcile Supalla and Slobin and Hoiting's
observations with Liddell's (1995) analysis of the use of space in ASL
as "gestural." The discretization of the representation of space and
movement in ASL would not then derive from separate "mor
phemes" in the traditional sense but separate cognitive representa
tions. The logical next step is to link these results to separate
cognitive/perceptual structures in the brain that recognize and repre
sent different aspects of motion events and other structures that inte
grate those representations.
Maintaining the locomotion/path separation in gesture and lan
guage could serve a number of functions. First, it could be conceptu
ally easier to produce expressions that match one's internal
representation of the event. If the process of perception requires this
split, then it might be simpler to match that structure rather than to
recombine the pieces into a single representation. This would fit with
McNeill's observation that combined Manner/Path gestures develop
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
196 I Sign Language Studies
after age 12, when a child is cognitively ready to reintegrate these
elements.
Second, for similar reasons, separated representations might be
easier for an addressee to understand. Why create a complex, fully
integrated classifier when the addressee must break it down again in
the comprehension process? Presenting a separated, "predigested"
form instead would allow the addressee to gradually build up a model
of the event from simpler conceptual pieces. In addition, the repeti
tion of old information with new information would help the ad
dressee reassemble the separated pieces into a coherent whole. The
serial and sequential constructions noted for ASL may in fact be bet
ter suited to communication than a single mimetic portrayal of all the
aspects of a complex event. This hypothesis is supported by the fact
that our only example of a highly complex form follows and repeats
the information in two simpler forms.
Finally, separating out pieces of information allows the expresser
to direct the addressee's attention to particular pieces. As Talmy
(1985) noted, information conflated into one lexical item is "back
grounded" and not available for focus; compare I flew to Hawaii and
I went by plane to Hawaii—in the second, the mode of transport is
available for emphasis. Thus, if signers and gesturers can present par
ticular aspects of the scene in isolation, they can emphasize those
aspects.
To sum up, ASL encodes a great deal of conceptual information
about motion events, significantly more than English and presumably
more than most other spoken languages. This information is largely
presented through referential shift and iconic classifier forms. Yet the
iconic forms do not usually give a fully simultaneous portrayal of all
aspects of complex motion events. Instead, many aspects (Manner of
locomotion, details of Path, different Figures and Ground elements)
are routinely separated into different pieces and presented sequen
tially; moreover, some aspects are presented repeatedly to provide
coherence to the separated presentation. There are general tenden
cies to limit the amount of information in any given form and to split
up certain types of information, but the signer may override them.
This type of separation occurs both in signed languages and in
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 197
gestures accompanying spoken languages; it may be a consequence
of our cognitive and perceptual resources for understanding motion
events rather than of arbitrary rules specific to linguistic stmcture.
Appendix I
ASL transcription of one scene from Frog, Where Are You?
Adult Male, Pictures iob, n, and 12a
Right Hand: CL:v (on top of head) "animate on head"
Both Hands:
Left Hand: cl:y (on side of forehead) "antlers"
Perspective: narrator —»
Translation: The hoy is on the deer's head.
Right Hand: cl:5 (to side of head) "deer"
Both Hands: cl:vv "4-legged animate is running"
Left Hand:
Perspective: narrator —> | deer —»
Translation: The deer is running.
Right Hand: boy cl:v (on head) "animate on head" stuck
Both Hands: cl:vv "4-legged animate
is running"
Left Hand:
Perspective: narr. | boy (scared) —►
Translation: The scared hoy is stuck on the running deer's head.
Right Hand: dog says get-doWNjmper get-do WNimp„
Both Hands: bark (dir: up
(dir: up and side)
and to side)
Left Hand:
Perspective: narrator | dog | narrator | dog (worried about boy) —>
Translation: The concerned dog barks up at the boy and says "get down, get down. "
Right Hand: deer
Both Hands: cl:vv "4-legged animate is running"
Left Hand:
Perspective: narrator | deer ->
Translation: The deer is running
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
198 I Sign Language Studies
Right Hand:
Both Hands: to land cl:bb "flat land to cliff'
Left Hand:
Perspective: narrator —>
Translation: to the cliff.
Right Hand:
Both Hands: cl:vv (same location as the cliff) "4-legged animate stops at cliff" stop
Left Hand:
Perspective: deer (scared) —*
Translation: The scared deer screeches to a halt at the edge of the cliff.
Right Hand: boy
Both Hands: cl:vb (same location ofthe deer's stop and cliff) "animate falls off"1
Left Hand:
Perspective: narrator | boy (scared) —»
Translation: The scared boy falls off the deer's head and over the cliff.
Right Hand: dog
Both Hands: with cl:vv (at cliff location) "4-legged animate falls"
Left Hand:
Perspective: narrator | dog —*
Translation: With the dog, the dog falls,
Right Hand: doesn't-notice
Both Hands: cl:vv (at cliff space) "4-legged animate falls'"
Left Hand:
Perspective: | narrator | dog —>
Translation: without noticing (the cliff) the dog falls.
Right Hand: Cl:v (at head) "animate falls from head" —►
Both Hands: cl:vv "two animates
intertumble"3
Left Hand: cl:v (at cliff location)
Perspective: boy (scared) —*
Translation:
the
As
two
the
of
boy
them
falls
from
the
intertumbling
1.
Figure
l
represents
this
form.
2.
Figure
2
represents
this
form.
3.
Figure
3
represents
this
entire
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
"an
head
until
line.
Patterns of Conceptual Encoding | 199
Appendix 2
ASL Transcription Conventions
The glosses of ASL in Appendix I consist of five lines. The top three lines
describe what the signer's hands are doing: The first, labeled "Right Hand,"
shows the right hand when it acts alone; the second, labeled "Both Hands,"
shows what the hands do together; and the third, labeled "Left Hand,"
shows what the left hand does on its own. The fourth line gives the persona
assumed by the signer: narrator, boy, deer, or dog. The fifth line shows the
English translation of the ASL sentence. Vertical lines indicate the end of
one persona and the assumption of a new persona. Personas' affect is some
times described in parentheses.
Lexical items are glossed by English words in small capital letters (e.g.,
dog). A dash joining two English words indicates a multiword gloss of a
lexical sign (e.g., doesn't-notice). The subscript "imper" indicates that the
verb has the imperative inflection.
Classifier glosses consist of the letters cl, followed by an abbreviation
for the classifier handshape, followed by a description of the classifier's
meaning. For some classifiers, a parenthetical note gives additional place
ment information. For example,
cl:y (on side of forehead) "antlers"
denotes a Y-shaped classifier placed at the side of the signer's forehead to
indicate antlers. Classifier handshapes appearing in this transcript include the
following:
V—index and middle fingers extended from a closed fist; fingers may be
curved or straight
Y—thumb and pinky finger extended from a closed fist
5—all fingers and thumb extended and spread
B—all fingers extended and touching; thumb may touch fingers or be
extended outward
References
Aske, J. 1989. Path Predicates in English and Spanish: A Closer Look. In
Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
i—14. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Engberg-Pedersen, E. 1999. Path- and Ground-Denoting Expressions in
Descriptions of Motion Events in Danish Sign Language: A Typological
Perspective. Paper presented at the Sixth International Cognitive Lin
guistics Conference, July, Stockholm, Sweden.
Emmorey, K., and J. S. Reilly. 1995. Theoretical Issues Relating Language,
Gesture, and Space: An Overview. In Language, Gesture, and Space, ed.
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
200 I Sign Language Studies
K. Emmorey and J. Reilly. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
ates.
Galvan, D., and S. Taub. Forthcoming. The Encoding of Motion Informa
tion in American Sign Language. In The Frog Story Revisited, ed. R.
Berman, D. Slobin, S. Strömqvist, and L. Verhoeven. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
LakofF, G., and M. Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason. Chicago: Univer
sity of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Liddell, S. 1995. Real, Surrogate, and Token Space: Grammatical Conse
quences in ASL. In Language, Gesture, and Space, ed. K. Emmorey and J.
Reilly. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, M. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York, Dial Press.
McDonald, B. 1982. Aspects of the American Sign Language Predicate Sys
tem. Ph.D. diss., State University of New York, Buffalo.
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 1999. An Ontogenetic Universal and Several Cross-Linguistic Dif
ferences in Thinking for Speaking. Paper presented at the Sixth Interna
tional Cognitive Linguistics Conference, July, Stockholm, Sweden.
Schick, B. 1987. The Acquisition of Classifier Predicates in American Sign
Language. Ph.D. diss., Purdue University.
Slobin, D. 1996. Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and
Spanish. In Essays in Semantics, ed. M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slobin, D., and N. Hoiting. 1994. Reference to Movement in Spoken and
Signed Languages: Typological Considerations. In Proceedings of the
Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Supalla, T. 1982. Structure and Acquisition ofVerbs of Motion and Location
in American Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., University of California, San
Diego.
. 1990. Serial Verbs of Motion in ASL. In Theoretical Issues in Sign
Language Research, Vol. 1 : Linguistics, ed. S. D. Fischer and P. Siple, 127
52. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical
Forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description Vol. 3: Grammatical
Categories and the Lexicon, ed T. Shopen, 36-149. Cambridge: Cam
bridge University Press.
. 1991. Paths to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation. In
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Soci
ety, 480-519. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
This content downloaded from 143.50.34.113 on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:02:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms