Revisiting Talmy’s Framing Typology
Organizer: Naoyuki Ono (Tohoku University)
Commentator: Yo Matsumoto (Kobe University)
Speaker 1: Kimi Akita (Osaka University)
Speaker 2: Tamayo Saito (Tohoku University)
Speaker 3: Ryan Spring (Tohoku University)
Talmy’s (1985, 1991, 1996) proposal that languages across the world can be divided into two
major types: verb-framed and satellite-framed languages, is one of the most intriguing proposals incognitive approaches to linguistic typology. In so-called satellite-framed languages like English,
motion events are typically expressed in terms of MANNER verbs combined with PATH denoting
satellites, as in John walked to school. In verb-framed languages like Japanese, the same motion
events are typically expressed via verbs denoting both MOTION and PATH (e.g. iku “go”) with theMANNER component encoded elsewhere, such as in subsidiary verbs in participial form (e.g.
aruku “walk” ), as in Taro-wa gakko-ni aruite it-ta “Taroo walked to school”.
Talmy’s typology of event-framing patterns has been studied from many different angles. For
example, proposals have been made that a third type of language, equipollent-framed languages,
should be included in the above dichotomy (Slobin 1996), that the distinction between the verb andthe satellite has been reconstrued from the difference between head and non-head constituents(Matsumoto 2003), and that the typology arises not from distinct language types, but from theinventory of lexical resources for encoding different lexicalization patterns (Beavers et al. 2010).
There is also ample research in the realm of second language acquisition to show the validity of theeffect of framing differences on speakers across distinct language types (Cadierno 2008).
This workshop aims to discuss some of the important issues that arise from recent research
trends concerning the cross-linguistic typology of event framing. The workshop starts with theorganizer’s introduction to the framing typology and some relevant theoretical and empiricalproblems, and is then followed by three presentations dealing with independent but cross-related
topics. After all of the papers are presented, the commentator will make remarks about the papers
and raise questions to promote discussion with the audience.
Summaries of the papers to be presented in the workshop follow below.
Speaker 1: Kimi Akita (Osaka University)
Manner and the Framing Typology
The majority of studies in the framing typology has been concerned with how each language
encodes framing information, such as path of motion, in a clause. The typology of mannerexpressions appears to be correlated with the framing typology (Wienold 1995), but only to someextent (Matsumoto 2003/2011; Beavers et al. 2010). The present study focuses on prototypicality ofmanner (“Manner-Concomitance” continuum in Talmy 1991, 2000) as another essential factor inmanner typology (cf. Slobin 1997; Croft et al. 2010). The relevance of prototypicality will be
discussed for three facets of the typology of manner-of-motion expressions: lexicalization patterns(whether a type of manner can be encoded in the verb), event integration (whether a manner verb
can cooccur with a path satellite), and manner salience (what kind of morphosyntactic realization ispreferred for a type of manner). Importantly, the proposed generalizations are expected to hold
across framing types. The present discussion thus stresses the significance of fine-grained,
encyclopedic semantics in a cognitive typology (cf. Iwata 2002; Boas 2008).
Speaker 2: Tamayo Saito (Tohoku University)
Semantic Focus in the Framing Typology
The premise of this presentation is that semantic focus in sentence constructions affects wherelanguages fall in Talmy’s (1985) typology. I claim that satellite-framed expressions areresult-focused and that verb-framed expressions are action-focused. This semantic focus is aby-product of the interaction of several factors such as: figure and ground (Talmy 1978), assertionand presupposition (Levinson 1983), deletion principle of discourse (Kuno 1982), profile
determinant (Langacker 2008), and information structure (Fukuchi 1985). When the culmination ofthese principles is applied to Talmy’s typology, we can see that the semantic focus tends to beplaced on action in verb-framed sentences and on result in satellite-framed sentences.
Speakers select framing patterns depending on whether they choose to emphasize action or
result, which explains why a single language has both framing patterns available to it.
Speaker 3: Ryan Spring (Tohoku University)
Talmy’s Typology and Second Language AcquisitionSeveral studies on the acquisition of second language motion event framing have been conducted(Cadierno 2004, Inagaki 2002, Navarro and Nicholadis 2005, amongst others). Some studies havefocus on language production (Cadierno 2004, Spring and Horie 2013, etc.) while others havefocused on language comprehension (Inagaki 2001, 2002). This talk will report on some of themajor findings in the field of second language framing acquisition and compare and contrast theresults to show the similarities and differences in the effects on second language production andsecond language comprehension. It will also examine some new research, conducted by the author,
which indicates similar results in the second language acquisition of change-of-state events. In
examining these studies, I conclude that Talmy’s typology has an influence on the second language
acquisition of both motion events and change-of-state events and that it affects both second

language production and comprehension, although in slightly different ways.

References
Beavers, John, Beth Levin, and Shiao Wei Tham. (2010) “The typology of motion expressions
revisited.” Journal of Linguistics 46: pp. 331-377.
Cadierno, T. (2004) “Expressing motion events in a second language: A cognitive typologicalperspective.” In M. Achard and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language
acquisition, and foreign language teaching pp.13-49. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.
Caiderno, T. (2008) “Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language.” In N. Ellis and P.
Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition
pp.239-275. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cadierno, T. and Lund, K. (2004) “Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition: Motion
events in a typological framework.” In B. VanPatten, J. Wiliams, S. Rott, and M. Overstreet(eds.), From-meaning connections in second language acquisition. pp. 139-154. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Croft, William, Jóhanna Barðdal, Willem Hollmann, Violeta Sotirova, and Chiaki Taoka. (2010)“Revisiting Talmy’s typological classification of complex events.” In Hans Boas, ed.,Contrastive

Construction

Grammar,pp.

201-235.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John

Benjamins.
Fukuchi, H. (1985) Danwa no Kozo [Structure of Discourse], Taishukan Shoten, Tokyo.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko (1990) “HAVE/GET/MAKE/LET + object + (to-) infinitive in the SUECorpus,” In S. Tsuchida, Z. Uwano, and S. Yamada (eds.), Bumpo to imi no aida: Kunihiro
Tetsuya kyoju kanreki taikan kinen robunshu (Between grammar and meaning: A festschrift
for professor Tetsuya Kunihiro), pp. 181-203, Kuroshio, Tokyo.
Inagaki, S. (2001) “Motion verbs with goal PPs in L2 acquisition of English and Japanese.” Studiesin Second Language Acquisition 23, pp.153-170.
Inagaki, S. (2002) “Japanese learners' acquisition of English manner-of-motion verbs withlocational/directional PPs.” In Second Language Research 2002; 18; 3. Sage Publications.
Kuno, S. (1982) “Discourse Deletion: Case studies from English, Japanese, and Russian”, Journalof Semantics 1:1, pp. 61-93.
Langacker, R. W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press, NewYork.
Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Talmy, L. (1978) “Figure and ground in complex sentences”, In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.)
Universals of human language, vol. 4 Syntax. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Matsumoto, Yo (2003) “Typologies of lexicalization patterns and event integration: Clarifications
and reformulations.” In Shuji Chiba, et al. (eds.) Emprical and Theoretical Investigations
into language: A festschrift for Masaru Kajita. pp. 403-418, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Navarro, S. and Nicoladis, E. (2005) “Describing motion events in adult L2 Spanish narratives.” InD. Eddington (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanishand Portuguese as First and Second Languages pp.102-107. Cascadilla Proceedings Project,Somerville, MA.
Slobin, Dan I. (1996) “Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish.”

InShibatani, Masayoshi and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Theirform and meaning, pp. 195-219, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Slobin, Dan I. (1997) “Mind, code, and text.” In Joan Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A.
Thompson, (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T.
Givón, pp. 437-467. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Spring, R. "and Horie, K. (2013) “How cognitive linguistics affects second language acquisition: A
study of Japanese and Chinese learners of English.” In Cognitive Linguistics, Vol 24 (4) pp.
689-710.
Talmy, Leonard (1985) “Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms.” In Shopen,
Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description 3: grammatical categories andthe lexicon. pp. 57-149. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Talmy, Leonard (1991) “Path to realization: a typology of event conflation.” Proceedings of theBerkeley Linguistics Society 17, pp. 480-591.
Talmy, Leonard (1996) “The windowing of attention in language.” In: Shibatani, Masayoshi andSandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning. pp.
235-287. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Talmy, Leonard. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume II: Typology and Process inConcept Structuring. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wienold, Götz. (1995) “Lexical and conceptual structures in expressions for movement and space:
With reference to Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Indonesian as compared to English andGerman.” In Urs Egli, Peter E. Pause, Christoph Schwarze, Armin von Stechow, and Götz
Wienold, (eds.), Lexical Knowledge in the Organisation of Language, pp. 301-340. JohnBenjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.