Source-Goal Asymmetries in Motion Representation: Implications for Language Production and Comprehension

Cognitive Science

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1064-1092

  Papafragou, Anna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Goal; Language acquisition; Motion; Path verb; Source; Spatial cognition; Spatial language; Spatial memory; Verb learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651511543     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01107.x     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Arnold, J. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference continuation. Discourse Processes, 31, 137-162.
2. Arsenijevič, B. (2005). VP semantics as a temporal structure. In M. Salzmann & L. Vicente (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st syntax AiO meeting (pp. 17-42). Leiden: Leiden Papers in Linguistics.
3. Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 385-436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Bowerman, M., De León, L., & Choi, S. (1995). Verbs, particles, and spatial semantics: Learning to talk about spatial actions in typologically different languages. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 101-110). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
5. Casasola, M., & Cohen, L. B. (2002). Infant categorization of containment, support, and tight-fit spatial relationships. Developmental Science, 5, 247-264.
6. Casasola, M., Cohen, L. B., & Chiarello, E. (2003). Six-month-old infants' categorization of containment spatial relations. Child Development, 74, 1-15.
7. Clark, H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27-63). New York: Academic Press.
8. Clark, E. V., & Carpenter, K. L. (1989). The notion of source in language acquistion. Language, 65(1), 1-30.
9. Crawford, L. E., Regier, T., & Huttenlocher, J. (2000). Linguistic and non-linguistic spatial categorization. Cognition, 75, 209-235.
10. Csibra, G., Bíró, S., Koós, O., & Gergely, G. (2003). One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cognitive Science, 27, 111-133.
11. Filip, H. (2003). Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 11, 55-101.
12. Fisher, C., Hall, D. G., Rakowitz, S., & Gleitman, L. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. In L. Gleitman & B. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of the lexicon (pp. 333-375). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Freeman, N. H., Sinha, C. G., & Stedmon, J. A. (1980). The allative bias in three-year-olds is almost proof against task naturalness. Journal of Child Language, 8, 283-296.
14. Gehrke, B. (2005). The prepositional aspect of Slavic prefixes and the goal-source asymmetry. In Online Proceedings from ESSLI Workshop "Formal Semantics and Cross-Linguistic Data". Nijmegen: Radboud Universit.
15. Gennari, S., Sloman, S., Malt, B., & Fitch, T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49-79.
16. Gruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reprinted by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN. Reprinted 1976 as part of Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics New York: North-Holland.
17. Hayward, W. G., & Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition, 55, 39-84.
18. Hitch, G. J., Halliday, M. S., Schaafstal, A. M., & Heffernan, T. M. (1991). Speech, 'inner speech', and the development of short-term memory: Effects of picture-labeling on recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 220-234.
19. Ihara, H., & Fujita, I. (2000). A cognitive approach to errors in case marking in Japanese agrammatism: The priority of the goal -ni over the source -Kara. In A. Foolen & F. Van der Leek (Eds.), Construction in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 123-140). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
20. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Johanson, M., Selimis, S., & Papafragou, A. (2009). Cross-linguistic biases in the semantics and acquisition of spatial language. Proceedings from the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
23. Johnston, J. R., & Slobin, D. (1978). The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish. Journal of Child Language, 6, 529-545.
24. Katis, D., & Selimis, S. (2005). The development of metaphoric motion: Evidence from Greek children's narratives. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley, CA: BLS.
25. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.
26. Lakusta, L. (2005). Source and goal asymmetry in non-linguistic motion event representations. Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University.
27. Lakusta, L., & Carey, S. (2008). Pre-linguistic encoding of source and goal paths. Ms., Harvard University.
28. Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2005). Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1-33.
29. Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2007). Goal bias in language and in non-linguistic motion event representations. Poster presented at the Society for Research in Language Development, April, Boston, MA.
30. Lakusta, L., Wagner, L., O'Hearn, K., & Landau, B. (2007). Conceptual foundations of spatial language: Evidence for a goal bias in infants. Language Learning and Development, 3, 179-197.
31. Lakusta, L., Wessel, A., & Landau, B. (2006). Goal bias in non-linguistic motion event representations: The role of intentionality. Poster presented at the Vision Science Society Annual Meeting, May, Sarasota.
32. Lakusta, L., Yoshida, H., Landau, B., & Smith, L. (2006). Cross-linguistic evidence for a goal/source asymmetry: The case of Japanese. Poster presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, June, Kyoto, Japan.
33. Landau, B. (2010). Spatial language, spatial cognition: Origins, development, and interaction. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
34. Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). "What" and "where" in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217-255.
35. Landau, B., & Stecker, D. (1990). Objects and places: Geometric and syntactic representations in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 5, 287-312.
36. Landau, B., & Zukowski, A. (2003). Objects, motions and paths: Spatial language in children with Williams syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology, 23, 107-139.
37. Levinson, S. (2006). Grammars of space. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
38. Li, P., Dunham, Y., & Carey, S. (2009). Of substance: The nature of language effects on entity construal. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 487-524.
39. Luo, Y., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Can a self-propelled box have a goal? Psychological reasoning in 5-month-old infants Psychological Science, 16, 601-608.
40. Malt, B., Sloman, S., Gennari, S., Shi, M., & Wang, Y. (1999). Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 230-262.
41. Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1976). Some of the thousand words a picture is worth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 2, 529-540.
42. Markovskaya, E. (2006). Goal-source asymmetry and Russian spatial prefixes. Nordlyd: Tromsø working papers in linguistics, 33 (Special issue on Adpositions, Ed. P. Svenonius), (pp. 200-219). Tromsø: CASTL.
43. Miller, G., & Johnson-Laird, P. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Naigles, L., & Terrazas, P. (1998). Motion-verb generalizations in English and Spanish: Influences of language and syntax. Psychological Science, 9, 363-369.
45. Nam, S. (2004). Goal and source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, Leipzig.
46. Palmer, S. (2000). Working memory: A developmental study of phonological recoding. Memory, 8, 179-193.
47. Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle, 'n' roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84, 189-219.
48. Papafragou, A., & Selimis, S. (2010a). Event categorization and language: A cross-linguistic study of motion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 224-260.
49. Papafragou, A., & Selimis, S. (2010b). Lexical and structural biases in the acquisition of motion verbs. Language Learning and Development, 6(2), 87-115.
50. Pruden, S. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Maguire, M., Meyers, M., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2004). Foundations of verb learning: Infants form categories of path and manner in motion events. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, C. E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 461-472). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
51. Pulverman, R., Sootsman, J., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2003). Infants' non-linguistic processing of motion events: One-year-old English speakers are interested in manner and path. In C. E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the Stanford Child Language Research Forum. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
52. Quinn, P. C. (2007). On the infant's prelinguistic conceptions of spatial relations. In J. M. Plumert & J. P. Spencer (Eds.), The emerging spatial mind (pp. 117-141). New York: Oxford University Press.
53. Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. Regier, T. (1997). Constraints on the learning of spatial terms: A computational investigation. In R. Goldstone, P. Schyns & D. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 36: Mechanisms of perceptual learning (pp. 171-271). San Diego: Academic Press.
55. Regier, T., & Carlson, L. (2001). Grounding spatial language in perception: An empirical and computational investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 273-298.
56. Regier, T., & Zheng, M. (2007). Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31, 705-719.
57. Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2009). Extracting paths and manners: Linguistic and conceptual biases in the acquisition of spatial language. In K. Franich, K. M. Iserman, & L. L. Keil (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
58. Stefanowitsch, A., & Rohlde, A. (2004). The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
59. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57-149). New York: Cambridge University Press.
60. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition, 69, 1-34.
62. Woodward, A. L. (2003). Infants' developing understanding of the link between looker and object. Developmental Science, 6, 297-311.
63. Woodward, A. L., & Guajardo, J. J. (2002). Infants' understanding of the point gesture as an object-directed action. Cognitive Development, 17, 1061-1084.
64. Zheng, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2002). Thought before language: How deaf and hearing children express motion events across cultures. Cognition, 85, 145-175.