Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events

Abstract

This study examines how reference to spatial boundaries can make speakers of English represent or understand a motion event as temporally bounded. Spatial boundaries can be implied by (a) the path expressed by a directional item, (b) the so-called -landmark‖ (Langacker, 1987) serving as ‗support' for the path, and (c) the moving entity. Importantly, one and the same entity in the real world can also be conceptualized as either primarily delimited (bounded) or extended (nonbounded).After setting the stage with an example (section 1) and dealing with some important terminological preliminaries (section 2), we take a closer look at the concept of boundaries (section 3). We then set up a four-way classification of directional prepositions in English (section 4), based on whether they refer to a path that is extended and, if so, on whether that path is specified or not for having or lacking an endboundary.In the subsequent sections (5-7), we zoom in on the aspectual role played by adverbial particles, on the possible influence of the object NP of directional prepositions, and briefly on the role played by the NP referring to the moving entity.The most important findings of this study are summarized in section 8.

How children express caused motion events in Chinese and English: Universal and language-specific influences

“…In contrast, although across also encodes extended Path, it involves a clear end-boundary, that is a delimited Path. In fact, the event in (31a) actually involves crossing two boundaries, one at the beginning of the event and the other at the end, which corresponded to the left and right sides of a ground in our stimuli (here the river banks) (see Cappelle and Declerck, 2005:896 for a similar explanation). As for into, it expresses a nonextended Path with an inherent boundary, namely the reaching of a boundary.…”

“…According to Cappelle and Declerck (2005), up/down items such as (31c) encode extended Path which is neutral with regard to the presence or absence of a boundary (2005:899-900). In contrast, although across also encodes extended Path, it involves a clear end-boundary, that is a delimited Path.…”

Dowty’s aspectual tests: standing the test of time but failing the test of aspect

“…Brinton 1985;Cappelle and Declerck 2005;Hay et al 1999;Jackendoff 1996;Olsen 1994;Wagner 2006; among many others). Nonetheless, usually a combination of two tests at least is required.…”

“…e.g. Cappelle andDeclerck 2005 andDepraetere 1995. ) In contrast to telic situations, atelic situations do not have an inherent endpoint but only an arbitrary one.…”

Le modèle cognitif et la TOE : deux points de vue sur l’identité sémantique des unités polysémiques

“…Quant au modèle cognitif de Lakoff et Langacker, il est appliqué au domaine de la préfixation du russe par Janda (1986Janda ( , 1988, Flier (1975Flier ( , 1985, Plungjan (2001) et aux particules prépositionnelles et adverbiales de l'anglais par Brugman (1988), Rudzka-Ostyn (2003), Cappelle & Declerck (2005), pour ne citer qu'eux. Selon ce modèle théorique, la description de la sémantique d'un item polysémique doit être présentée sous forme d'un réseau structuré des valeurs dont une est centrale ou prototypique.…”