Spatial asymmetries and variation: On the role of the Ground in Place, Goal, and Source constructions
Creators: name: Nintemann, Julia
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: spatial relations
types of Ground
typology

description: This presentation was given as part of the workshop "Spatial (a)symmetries across languages" during the 57th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea.
description: Keywords: spatial relations, types of Ground, typology, asymmetries, variation

It has already been recognized in linguistic research that there are asymmetries in the coding of spatial relations, especially between the two dynamic relations Goal and Source (cf., e.g., Ikegami 1987, Bourdin 1997, or, more recently, Kopecka & Vuillermet 2021). However, it still has to be investigated to what extent the type of Ground (cf. Talmy 1978) influences these (a)symmetries. This talk aims to fill this gap by analyzing different types of Grounds in Place, Goal, and Source constructions. It will be shown that asymmetries and also variation in the coding of spatial relations do indeed often occur with different types of Ground. The Ground position may be filled by common nouns, proper names, spatial adverbs, but also personal and interrogative pronouns. In many languages, the type of Ground determines which kind of construction is used to express Place, Goal, or Source. As demonstrated by Stolz et al. (2014), for example, toponyms are more often zero-marked in Ground position than common nouns cross-linguistically. Stolz & Nintemann (2024) take up this issue and show that name categories often obey rules different from those of common nouns – not only but especially – when they are involved in constructions with spatial meanings. However, it is not only names that follow their own rules. Incorporating other types of Ground into this comparison, it will be shown that many languages have specific rules for different categories in constructions of spatial relations. 

In Gurindji [Pama-Nyungan], for example, there is both asymmetry and variation in the coding of Goal, which is generally expressed with an allative suffix (e.g., kaja-ngkurra [land-all] ‘to the land’; Meakins & McConvell [2021: 391]). However, depending on the type of Ground, different rules apply. Toponyms are the only category that allows for zero-marking (e.g., Jinparrak-Ø [Jinparrak-Ø] ‘to Jinparrak’; Meakins & McConvell [2021: 493]). Animate goals, on the other hand, usually take the dative suffix (e.g., nyununy-ku jaju-wu [your-dat grandmother-dat] ‘to your maternal grandmother’; Meakins & McConvell [2021: 76]). With spatial interrogatives, Goal is more often expressed with the locative marker (wanyji-ka [which-loc] ‘where’) than with the allative marker (wanyji-kurra [which-all] ‘where to’) (cf. Meakins & McConvell [2021: 309]), although both forms exist and the locative marker cannot be used to mark a Goal with other types of Ground. There is thus asymmetry in Gurindji Goal constructions in that there is one type of Ground that allows for zero-marking as opposed to the  obligatory overt marking of other Grounds. Furthermore, there is variation as different case markers are used for the same purpose with different types of Grounds.

The talk will show that asymmetries and variation in the coding of Place, Goal, and Source relations depending on the type of Ground are common phenomena in languages all over the world. For this purpose, a sample of 50 languages from different areas and of different affiliations will be examined with regard to spatial relations from a functional-typological perspective. The data will primarily be taken from descriptive grammars, complemented by primary sources and input from language experts. 

 

References

Bourdin, Philippe (1997), On Goal-bias across languages: Modal, configurational and orientation parameters, in B. Palek (ed.), Proceedings of LP'96: Typology, item orderings and universals, (Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague, August 20-22, 1996), Prague: Karolinum - Charles University Press, 186–218.

Ikegami, Yoshiko (1987), 'Source' and 'Goal': A case of linguistic dissymmetry, in R. Dirven, and G. Radden (eds.), Concept of case, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 122–146.

Kopecka, Anetta and Marine Vuillermet (2021), Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages, Studies in Language 45(1), 2–35.

Meakins, Felicity and Patrick McConvell (2021), A grammar of Gurindji: As spoken by Violet Wadrill, Ronnie Wavehill, Dandy Danbayarri, Biddy Wavehill, Topsy Dodd Ngarnjal, Long Johnny Kijngayarri, Banjo Ryan, Pincher Nyurrmiari and Blanche Bulngari (Mouton Grammar Library 91), Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

Stolz, Thomas and Julia Nintemann (2024), Special Onymic Grammar in typological perspective: Cross-linguistic data, recurrent patterns, functional explanations (Studia Typologica 34), Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Stolz, Thomas, Christel Stolz, and Sander Lestrade (2014), The Crosslinguistics of Zero-Marking of Spatial Relations (Studia Typologica 15), Berlin: De Gruyter.

Talmy, Leonard (1978), Figure and ground in complex sentences, in J. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, and E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language: Volume 4: Syntax, Palo Alto/Ca.: Stanford University Press, 625–649.