{"title":"Semantic coercion: Rethinking motion verbs in Thinking-For-Speaking","authors":"Imed Louhichi","doi":"10.30845/ijll.v6n2p13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The categorization of motion verbs in THINKING-FOR-SPEAKING (TfS) research paradigm entails some theoretical problems that need to be addressed. This conclusion is motivated by the examination of motion verb types listed in Berman &Slobin (1994, p. 198) for Spanish and English narrators of ‘the frog story’ (Mayer, 1969). These lists show a range of semantically different verb types including verbs describing MANNER VIA MOTION (e.g., climb), CAUSE VIA MOTION (e.g., push), PATH VIA MOTION (e.g., come), SOUND-EMISSION (e.g., buzz), and ACTION (e.g., knock). We argue that in the absence of any clear theoretical framework for why, how and whether these verbs should be categorized as motion verbs, TfS research runs the risk of slipping into inconsistency. To this end, interdisciplinary insights about the behavior of motion verbs in English suggest that SEMANTIC COERCION – the process whereby non-motion verbs are coerced into the expression of motion meanings – merits more attention in TfS research than it currently receives. The notion of MOTIONIZATIONis offered as a first step in this direction.","PeriodicalId":409958,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Language & Linguistics","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Language & Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30845/ijll.v6n2p13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The categorization of motion verbs in THINKING-FOR-SPEAKING (TfS) research paradigm entails some theoretical problems that need to be addressed. This conclusion is motivated by the examination of motion verb types listed in Berman &Slobin (1994, p. 198) for Spanish and English narrators of ‘the frog story’ (Mayer, 1969). These lists show a range of semantically different verb types including verbs describing MANNER VIA MOTION (e.g., climb), CAUSE VIA MOTION (e.g., push), PATH VIA MOTION (e.g., come), SOUND-EMISSION (e.g., buzz), and ACTION (e.g., knock). We argue that in the absence of any clear theoretical framework for why, how and whether these verbs should be categorized as motion verbs, TfS research runs the risk of slipping into inconsistency. To this end, interdisciplinary insights about the behavior of motion verbs in English suggest that SEMANTIC COERCION – the process whereby non-motion verbs are coerced into the expression of motion meanings – merits more attention in TfS research than it currently receives. The notion of MOTIONIZATIONis offered as a first step in this direction.
换句话说研究范式中动作动词的分类存在一些理论问题需要解决。这一结论是由Berman和slobin (1994, p. 198)对“青蛙故事”(Mayer, 1969)的西班牙语和英语叙述者所列出的动作动词类型的研究得出的。这些列表显示了一系列语义上不同的动词类型,包括描述动作方式(例如,爬),动作原因(例如,推),动作路径(例如,来),声音发射(例如,嗡嗡声)和动作(例如,敲门)的动词。我们认为,由于缺乏任何明确的理论框架来解释这些动词为什么、如何以及是否应该被归类为运动动词,TfS研究有陷入不一致的风险。为此,关于英语运动动词行为的跨学科见解表明,语义强迫——非运动动词被强迫表达运动意义的过程——在运动动词研究中值得比目前得到更多的关注。motionization概念是朝着这个方向迈出的第一步。