Motion-event Typology and Scene Setting in English, Japanese, and Mandarin
Amanda Brown and Hanxiao (Luciano) Yan
Syracuse University, USA
Description of motion is an area of substantial crosslinguistic difference. Talmy (1991, 2000)
proposed that expression of Manner of motion, i.e. the way in which a protagonist moves (e.g.
jump, roll), depends on how Path of motion, i.e. the trajectory followed by the protagonist (e.g.
up, down), is expressed. Satellite-framed languages, e.g. English, generally lexicalize Path of
motion in adverbials, e.g. up, and Manner of motion in verbs, e.g. roll, and frequently mention
both elements explicitly in speech. Verb-framed languages, such as Japanese, typically lexicalize
Path in main verbs and Manner in adverbials or subordinated verbs and often omit Manner fromspeech. Empirical work in a range of languages has provided substantial empirical support forthis analysis (e.g. Brown & Gullberg, 2008; Georgakopoulos et al., 2019; Gerwien, &Stutterheim, 2018; Hickmann et al., 2018; Li, 2015; Negueruela et al.,2004; Özçalışkan, 2015;
Özçalışkan and Slobin 2003; Slobin 1996, 1997, 2004a, 2004b, 2006; Stam, 2006 inter al.).
Slobin (2004b) proposed a third category, equipollently-framed languages, e.g. Mandarin, whichlexicalize Manner and Path in ‘equipollent’ elements, e.g. serial verbs. However, mixed findings
exist on the frequency of mention of Manner at least in Mandarin (frequent in Brown & Chen,
2013; Chui, 2009, 2011, 2012; Duncan, 2006; less frequent in Chen, 2007; Chen and Guo, 2009,2010; Guo and Chen, 2009).
The basic typological distinction in dynamic descriptions of motion is argued to have
implications for other areas of rhetorical structure, for example static “scene-setting”, i.e.
description of the context in which motion takes place, which allows information about the
motion to be inferred when not explicitly expressed (Slobin 1996). However, examining whether
scene setting patterns in line with the typology for dynamic motion description is underexplored(see Cadierno, 2004, for Spanish versus Danish), especially in the third typological category ofequipollently-framed languages. Thus, this study explores scene setting cross-linguistically
across the typology: in English, Japanese, and Mandarin.
Narrative descriptions of purpose-designed animated events containing motion were elicitedfrom native speakers of satellite-framed English (n=13), where Manner and Path are commonly
expressed and consequently less scene-setting was expected, native speakers of verb-framed
Japanese (n=15), where Manner in particular is less commonly expressed and consequently morescene-setting was expected, and equipotently-framed Mandarin (n=13), where findings on thefrequency of Manner expression are to some extent mixed. Narratives were divided into clauses
following Berman and Slobin (1994). Clauses were then identified as (1) dynamic motion,
containing explicit of motion of Motion, with possible inclusion of a Figure on a Ground, or (2)static scene setting, where physical elements of the scene were described using existential or
locative expressions (excluding emotion, facial expression of characters). In addition, construal

of (3) Manner and (4) Path of motion were identified. Two example narratives from English
describing the same motion event follow: the first with no scene setting and the second withscene setting identified in bold, and target Manner and Path underlined.
(1)

dynamic motion: triangle man goes down the ramp
dynamic motion: he's twirling
dynamic motion: he grabs tomato man
dynamic motion: and they go off to the left(2)

static locative/existential scene setting: so there's the ledge again and the slope and the
low groundstatic locative/existential scene setting: and tomato's on the bottom
static locative/existential scene setting: and the triangle man's up top
neither dynamic nor scene setting: still frowningneither dynamic nor scene setting: tomato's still smilingdynamic motion: triangle thing {does the little..} has to turn itself around multiple times
dynamic motion: to get down to the bottom of the hill
dynamic motion: and then they just kind of roll off together

Analyses across languages revealed that speakers of all languages mentioned Path of motion to ahigh degree. English speakers mentioned Manner significantly more frequently and employed
scene setting significantly less frequently than Mandarin speakers. Japanese speakers did not
significantly differ from either English or Mandarin speakers in frequency of mention of Manneror scene setting, indicating an intermediary position.
These results support Slobin’s (1996) general hypothesis that less explicit depiction of motion,
specifically Manner, yields more explicit static scene setting. Results are in line with researchshowing Mandarin speakers’ focus on location versus English speakers’ focus on trajectory (Liaoet al., 2020), and with the topic/comment structure in Mandarin, which “sets a spatial, temporal,
or individual framework” (Chafe, 1976:50). Results relate interestingly to the status of Chinese
as a paratactic, discourse oriented language, where frequent omissions include subjects but also
prepositions (Yu, 1993). Results will also be discussed with respect to the differing findings
regarding expression of Manner in Mandarin Chinese (Brown & Chen, 2013; Chen, 2007; Chui,2009; Duncan, 2005, Guo & Chen, 2009), specifically with different event types.

Reconsideration of Japanese Right Dislocation Constructions (RDCs)
in comparison with Germanic Languages
Kaori Furuya
University of North Texas
Comparing with Ott and De Vries’ (2016) observations of Germanic Right Dislocation
Constructions (RDCs), this paper reconsiders the clausal nature of Japanese counterparts withpreverbal null elements by examining the identification of the null categories. Ott and Dries (2016)
argue that the bi-clausal analysis of Germanic RDCs is universally correct because theconstructions can be derived in a manner familiar from deletion-based accounts of sluicing andfragment answers in the bi-clausal analysis. They provide cross-linguistic parallelisms drawn fromJapanese as an unrelated language. Contra Ott and de Vries’ (2016) proposal, however, based on
novel data with the combination of adverbial phrases and DPs postverbally from Japanese, thepresent paper argues for the mono-clausal analysis at least for Japanese.
Unlike Germanic languages, Japanese is a pro-drop and a strict head-final language. This
language has also been reported to allow various categories to occur postverbally (e.g. Simon
1989). The prevailing analysis assumes the bi-clausal structure with pro (e.g. Kuno 1987).
However, the preverbal null element in a Japanese RDC does not always seem to be pro. A RDC
can include the combination of an adverbial and a DP on the right periphery in (1).
(1)
Context: Ken asked whether Mr. Tanaka made the box over other.
Tanaka-san-ga[e] tukurimashita-yo tegiwayoku sono hako-o.
Tanaka-Mr-Nom
made-Prt
efficiently
the box-Acc‘Mr. Tanaka made iti; he made the boxi efficiently.’‘Mr. Suzuki made the box efficiently.’(1) can yield two interpretations. The first interpretation is bi-clausal, and the null object is theanaphoric use of pro in the first clause while the second clause is taken as afterthoughts (Kuno
1987). The other is mono-clausal, and the preverbal null element is referentially determined by thepair of the adverbial and the DP. Significantly, the null category is not pro for the second
interpretation because the postverbal elements are taken as to be part of the single clause and yet
the pro-form cannot include the adverbial reading besides that of DP. This challenges to the biclausal analysis or the uniform treatment of the construction.
Under the assumption that the verb is overtly raised to T (Hayashi & Fujii 2015, Sato &Hayashi 2018), I suggest the mono-clausal analysis with VP movement in the schematic structure(2), where VP undergoes movement while the verb is raised to T. This analysis explains the second
interpretation, the reference of the null category and the correct word order of the RDC (1).
(2)
[S … ti Verb ] [ VP Adv DP-Acci tv ]i
To support the mono-clausal analysis, I show that Japanese shows parallelisms withGermanic languages in light of the four properties observed by Ott and De Vries (2016). Yet, I
exhibit that those properties displayed by Japanese counterparts are explained by the mono-clausal
analysis. The first property is concerning Condition C effects, which the Japanese RDC (3a) also
shows with a DP and optionally an adverbial postverbally. I propose the schematic structure (3b).
(3)
a. *Mary-wa karei-ni[e] miseta, (sotto) [Johni-no tegami ]-o.
Mary-Top he-Dat
showed quietly John-Gen letter-Acc

'Mary showed [e] i, Johni’s letter (quietly).'(Adapted from Abe 1999)
b. [Pronouni tk Verb] [(Adv) Namei-NP tV]k(3) shows a violation of Condition C when the pronoun corefers with the name in the postverbal
DP. Particularly, when the adverbial occurs postverbally, the preverbal null element should be thetrace of the postverbal elements, but it cannot be the pro-form for the same reason as in (1).
I present three supporting arguments for the present proposal of the mono-clausal structure
for some Japanese RDCs, in comparison with Ott and De Vries’ (2016) observations of Germanic
languages: case obligatorily matches, R-expressions, and scopes of negation.
The present paper examines Japanese RDCs in comparison with Ott and De Vries’ (2016)
observations of Germanic RDCs. Contra Ott and De Vries’ claim of the universality of the biclausal analysis for RDCs, it argues for the mono-clausal analysis of some Japanese RDCs withnew data from multiple constructions including adverbials postverbally although the mono-clausal
analysis is not popular in the Japanese literature and cross-linguistically (but Simon 1989 forJapanese, Takano 2007 for Turkish; Manetta 2012; Simpson and Choudhury 2015 for Hindi). If
this is on the right track, the postposed elements in RDCs are not always a secondary piece of
information added later for conformation or clarification. Instead, they are part of a single clause
while deaccented (Simon 1989).
Selected references: Ott, D. and M. d. Vries. 2016. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2): 639–690. Sato, Y. and Hayashi, S. 2018. String-Vacuous
Head Movement in Japanese: New Evidence from Verb-Echo Answers. Syntax 21.1, 72-90.

Pro-form no in Japanese
Asuka Isono (Kyushu Sangyo University)
Synopsis: It has not been fully established whether Japanese has NP-ellipsis. Saito and Murasugi(1990) provide an NP-deletion analysis for Japanese, using examples like (1) that involve themovement of a possessor phrase (e.g., Mariko-no “Mariko-Gen”) into the spec of DP with deletion of
the NP complement (e.g., taido “attitude”) of D in the second nominal. In some dialects, such as
Nagasaki Japanese (NJ), however, pro-forms such as to appear, as in (2). Maeda and Takahashi (M&T)(2016) defend the NP-ellipsis analysis by applying haplology, deleting one of the consecutive nos asin (3), to data like (1) in Standard Japanese (SJ), and treating that pro-form no (to) as an -n headcontaining what Merchant (2001) calls the E(llipsis)-feature, as in (4). M&T (2016) assume that the nhead to instructs PF not to pronounce its complement.
(1) Haruna-no taido-wa
Mariko-no
yorimo rippadatta. (Standard Japanese)
Haruna-Gen attitude-Top Mariko-Gen
than good(2) Haruna-n
taido-wa
Mariko-n
to yorimo rippayatta. (Nagasaki Japanese)
Haruna-Gen attitude-Top Mariko-Gen one than good‘lit. Haruna’s attitude was better than Mariko’s one.’(M&T 2016)(3) a. Mariko-no taido→ b. Mariko-no no→c. Mariko-no
Mariko-Gen attitude
Marko-Gen one(4) a. [DP Mariko-n [D' [nP [NP taidoN ] ton ] D ]](NJ)
(M&T 2016)b. [DP Mariko-no[D' [nP [NP taidoN ] non ] D ]](SJ)
However, Hiraiwa (2016) develops a light noun analysis using haplology, as in (5), where light nouns,
including no (to in NJ), occupy n position, and (1) and (2) can be analyzed as in (6).
(5) [DP [D' [nP XP n ] D ]](Hiraiwa 2016)(6) a. [DP Mariko-n [D' [nP NP ton ] D ]] (NJ) b. [DP Mariko-no [D' [nP NP non ] D ]](SJ)In this presentation, first, I show that to with the E(llipsis)-feature in M&T (2016) is not identical withthe traditional pro-form, for the following reasons. 1) The conventional pro-form occurs with a relative
clause (RC) and in a context with no linguistic antecedent. 2) The pro-form cannot refer to a respected
person. These points can be made because the ordinary pro-form to is irrelevant to deletion. Second, I
show that Hiraiwa’s (2016) light noun analysis directly represents data found in the dialect of Nagasaki
city (NC) and on the nature of the pro-form, while M&T’s analysis requires an additional explanation
regarding the n genitive in NC.
Nature of the Pro-Form and NC Data: I first argue that to in M&T’s (2016) analysis has different
properties from the genuine pro-form. I also present a set of data from NC that Hiraiwa’s (2016) lightnoun analysis accounts for but for which M&T (2016) would require additional explanation.
It is widely known that the pro-form no (to in NJ) also occurs with an RC. The examples in (7) arefrom NJ. Because the movement of the RC into the spec of DP is not involved, the condition that NPdeletion can occur only when the Spec agrees with the head is not satisfied in (7b). Thus, to occurringwith an RC does not involve NP-ellipsis (see also Miyamoto 2016).
(7) a. Mariko-n-to (Noun Phrase)
b. Mariko-ga
mita to (RC)Mariko-Gen-one
Mariko-Nom mita one‘lit. Mariko’s one’‘the one Mariko saw’
Here, I show that the traditional to with a noun phrase also does not involve deletion. As proposed by
Lasnik and Saito (1992), NP-ellipsis requires a linguistic antecedent, while the pro-form does not. As
in (8), NP-ellipsis is infelicitous in the absence of a linguistic antecedent. When the antecedent “book”
is linguistically expressed, either the pro-form one or NP-ellipsis is possible, as exemplified in (11). In
Japanese, to (or no) is available without a linguistic antecedent, as in (9), giving the same result as the
RC in (10) (see Miyamoto 2016 for RCs). Thus, to (no) does not involve deletion in either noun phrasesor RCs. This means that to involving deletion should be different, in M&T’s analysis, from the ordinary
pro-form in (9) and (10).
[Context: At the bookstore, Hanako is asking a clerk.] (see also Saruwatari 2016)

(8) Hanako: Excuse me, I’m looking for Haruki Murakami’s *(new one).
(9) Hanako: Murakami Haruki-n
to-basagashitoru to batten.
(NJ)
Murakami Haruki-Gen one-Acc look.for
Prog Fin though‘lit. I’m looking for Haruki Murakami’s one.’(10) Hanako: Murakami Haruki-ga
kaita
to-ba
sagashitoru to batten.
(NJ)
Murakami Haruki-Nom wrote one-Acc
look.for Prog Fin though‘lit. I’m looking for the one that Haruki Murakami wrote.’(11) Hanako: Whose book is selling best in this shop?
Clerk: Haruki Murakami’s (new one).
Moreover, the pro-form to (or no in SJ) in (7) cannot refer to a person who is respected. If to is only arealization of the ellipsis feature, it does not have this restriction. Thus, what M&T call “the alleged
pro-form to” must be different from the genuine pro-form.
M&T’s (2016) examples like (2) are taken from dialects existing in the southeastern or somenorthern part of Nagasaki prefecture. In NC, the dialect spoken in the central part of the prefecture, theantecedent noun phrase and the second noun phrase carry distinct forms of the genitive marker, as
shown in (12): -no in the former and -n in the latter (see Saruwatari 2016). Only when the head noun
is a light noun (such as toki, tokoro, and the pro-form to), the genitive marker must be -n. Thus, when
the head noun is an abstract noun (such as taido “attitude”), the genitive marker should be -no.
(12) Haruna-no taido-wa
Mariko-n to yorimo rippayatta. (NC) (cf. (2) )(13) the case where -n is used in NC (see also Saruwatari 2016)
a. Hanako n/*no toki (NC)b. Hanako n/*no tokoro (NC)
Hanako Gen time
Hanako Gen place‘Hanako’s time’‘Hanako’s place’c. Osaka n/*no mon (NC)d. Kobe n/*no niki
(NC)
Osaka Gen person
Kobe Gen around‘Osakan’‘around Kobe’
Although to in (12) is not the traditional pro-form given in M&T’s analysis, the n genitive marker must
appear in NC as other light nouns. If to were the realization of the E(llipsis)-feature and if it instructed
PF not to pronounce its complement taido, the genitive marker preceding to would be no in NC, andit would not need to be n here. Importantly, although pro-forms do not stand for abstract nouns (asstated in Okutsu 1974), they do so when used in a natural context with a comparison of two (or more)things (as Kinsui 1994). Therefore, to (no) in (1), (2), and (12) can be considered to be the traditional
pro-form. Hiraiwa’s (2016) analysis, in which light nouns such as to (no in SJ) occupy the n position,
as in (6), can capture the -n genitive in NC, while M&T’s (2016) analysis requires an additional
explanation for the -n genitive and its connection to other light nouns.
Selected References: Hiraiwa, K. (2016) “NP-Ellipsis: A Comparative Syntax of Japanese andOkinawan,” NLLT 34(4), 1345–1387. Kinsui, S. (1994) “Nihongo-no Iwayuru N’-Sakujo nitsuite (Onthe So-Called N’-Ellipsis in Japanese),” paper presented at Nanzan University Symposium on theJapanese Language, Nanzan University. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito (1992) Move α: Conditions on Its
Application and Output, MIT Press, Cambridge, Maeda, M. and D. Takahashi (2016) “NP-Ellipsis in
the Nagasaki Dialect of Japanese,” J/K Linguistics 23, 119-132. Merchant, J. (2001) The Syntax ofSilence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Miyamoto, Y(2016) “Meishikunai No Shoryaku Gensho (NP-Ellipsis),” In K. Murasugi, et al. eds.，Nihongo Bunpo
Handobukku: Gengo Riron to Gengo Kakutoku no Kanten Kara (The Handbook of Japanese
Grammar: From the Perspectives of Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition), Kaitakusha, Tokyo,265-298. Okutsu, K. (1974) Seisei Nihon Bunpooron: Meisiku no Koozoo (Generative Grammar ofJapanese: Noun Phrase Structure), Taishyukan, Tokyo. Saito, M. and K. Murasugi (1990) “N′Deletion in Japanese” The University of Connecticut Working Paper in Linguistics III, 87-107.
Saruwatari, A (2016) Nominative and Genitive Cases in Japanese: From Dialectal and CrossLinguistic Perspectives, Doctoral dissertation, Osaka University.
＊ This presentation is a revised version of my doctoral thesis (Saruwatari 2016) and a poster
presentation at the 17th SICOGG, held at Kyung Hee University on August 7, 2015.

The Gap Use of By with Compound Verbs
Tsutomu Iwamiya
Graduate School of Osaka University
1. Introduction: The gap use of the English preposition by is employed to show the numerical gap
between two values in comparative structures (Hirasawa 2013).
(1) a. He was younger by two and a half years ...
b. Molly has reduced her finger’s fee by ten dollars as a favor to him. (Hirasawa 2013:96).
A variety of adjectives and verbs can co-occur with by in the gap meaning. However, the comparative
structure becomes more productive as a ‘construction’ when three locative prefixes, over-, under-, andout-, are attached to verbs. This empirical corpus research demonstrates evidence for the claim (all thedata shown below are collected from NOW Corpus).
2. The Gap Use of By with Compound Verbs(2) a. Miller projected the district will overspend by $200,000 this year ... (US 2019)b. ... the NHS routinely underspent by a billion or two every year. (GB 2019)c. ... the New Democrats would be outspending the Liberals by $1.5 billion … (CA 2017)
The numbers coming after the preposition indicate the gap between two expenditures. Notably, inexample (2), their verbal base spend cannot substitute any of its compound verbs (e.g., the district will
spend by $200,000 is grammatically incorrect).
(3)

a. Officials claim the average adult is overeating by 300 calories a day, … (NZ 2017)b. China has probably under-reported its emissions by up to 20 percent … (US 2012)
c. … the GOP also outvoted Democrats by more than 120,000 votes … (CA 2018)
Furthermore, as found in the examples above, the verb can be either transitive or intransitive withdifferent unit nouns following the preposition (calorie, percent and vote), depending on the kind ofverbs used.
While out-Vs inevitably require the object as a competitor (Iwamiya 2020), the standardized value
for comparison functions as an object of over-Vs and under-Vs. However, when the object is indefinite
and readily inferable, it is implicitly hidden; therefore, the verb is used intransitively. For instance, in
example (3a), the missing object of overeat is food, but not food in particular (Iwata 2008). Each
syntactic structure can be formulated as a ‘construction’ as in example (4), and compound verbs thatcan become the input into each of the constructions are listed below.
(4) a. [NP1 over-Vi NP2 by Numeral Pj] ↔ [X1 SEMi the amountj more than Y2][NP1 under-Vi NP2 by Numeral Pj]↔ [X1 SEMi the amountj less than Y2 ](Y: a standardized value represented by NP2)
over-assess, overbid, overbook, overbuy, overclock, overcount, overcrowd, overdraw,
overestimate, overfeed, overfill, overfulfil, overfund, overload, over-occupy,
overpopulate, overprice, over-report, over-represent, oversell, overshoot, overstaff,
overstate, overstress, overstretch, oversupply, overtax, overvalue, overwork/
underachieve, underbid, undercount, underestimate, underfund, underperform,
underprice, under-report, undersell, undershoot, understate, undervalueb.

[NP1 over-Vi by Numeral Pj] ↔ [X1 SEMi the amountj more than Y][NP1 under-Vi by Numeral Pi] ↔ [X1 SEMi the amountj less than Y](Y: a conventionally-conceived norm).
overeat, overpay, overperform, overproduce, overspend, oversleep, overstay/underpay, underspend
c. [NP1 out-Vi NP2 by Numeral Pj] ↔ [X1 exceeds Y2 by the amountj in SEMi -ing](Y: a competitor who/which can V)
outbid, outdrive, outgross, outgrow, outlast, outlive, outpace, outperform, outrun,
outsell, outscore, outsell, outshoot, outspend, outstay, out-survive, outvote
Various compound verbs can occur with the gap use of by, though their verbal bases cannot (only grow,the verbal base of outgrow, can be used intransitively with by to show a growth rate like the sales grewby 10 %). Typically, the verbs used with by indicate a rise or a fall in number. Thus, it is understandable
that verbs representing money transfer (buy, pay, spend, etc.) and those implying the time passage (last,
sleep, survive, etc.) can be the input for the comparative structure.
However, the intriguing point here is that activity verbs unrelated to money or time relations (book,build, eat, report, run, etc.) can also be an input into the constructions as seen in examples below,
which makes them potentially a very productive process to express the gap in comparative structures.
(5) a. The University of Kentucky has overbooked its dorms by hundreds of students…
(US 2019)
b. …we are still relying on a 35-year old to run our midfield is a problem, especially against
opponents who can outrun you by 12km. (GB 2017)
The reason why these compound verbs in (5) can be used in comparative structures is that the affixationof over-, under-, and out-, can give some subjective standard or norm such as the number of students
that the dorm can accommodate and the distance that you can run in a given time span to each sentence
to express the difference in number.
Presumably, there can be far more verbs that can be the input, but whether the compound verb isaccepted to show a numerical difference ultimately depends on how frequently it is used (Taylor 2012),
as seen from the fact that under-Vs are much less productive than over-Vs. The forms and meanings in
the three comparative structures above are unpredictable, and therefore should be regarded as
constructions.
References: Bauer, Laurie and Rochelle Lieber and Ingo Plag. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to
English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press/ Hirasawa, Shinya. (2013). The Gap Use andOther Related Uses of English Preposition By, the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association Journal
No.13. The Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association/ Iwamiya, Tsutomu. (2020). Out-V Ni Shoujiru
Hikaku Hyougen No Imi No Kousatsu [the Semantic Analysis of Comparative Structures with Out-V].
RANDOM No.40. Tokyo University of Foreign Study/ Iwata, Seiji. (2008). Locative Alternation.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publication/ NOW Corpus. BYU. (https://corpus.byu.edu/now/) / Taylor,John (2012). Mental Corpus. Oxford University Press.