Comparison of motion verbs in Persian and English languages (A cognitive and typological approach)

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 1. Department of Linguistics, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Linguistics, Marvdasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran

Abstract

In different languages, motion can be expressed through motion verbs that are encoded differently in different languages. The aim of this research is to compare the motion verbs in both Persian and English languages from the cognitive and typological perspectives based on the theoretical framework of Talmy (2000b) regarding the verb-framed and satellite-framed languages. He (Talmy, 2000b, p. 102) describes “satellite as the grammatical category of any constituent other than a noun phrase or prepositional-phrase complement that is in a sister relation to the verb root”. It can be a bound affix or a free word. According to Talmy, the following can act as satellites in languages:
“1- English verb particles, 2- German separable and inseparable verb prefixes, 3- Latin or Russian verb prefixes, 4- Chinese verb complements, 5- Lahu non head versatile verbs, 6- Caddo incorporated nouns, 6- Atsugewi polysynthetic affixes around the verb root.”
Levin (1993) classified the verbs in terms of motion, measure, avoid, color, communication, weather, etc. Ferez (2008) investigated the motion verbs in English and Spanish languages. This comparison showed similarities and differences between two languages. One of the similarities is that both languages have Path verbs. He also found that both languages have more Walking verbs than Running or Jumping verbs. One of the differences that was found was that path verb lexicon in Spanish is larger in size than English. In Iran, Azkia (2012) investigated motion in Persian language from the cognitive and typological approach. After collecting 435 motion verbs based on Talmy’s definition of motion events from “Sokhan” and “Moin” dictionaries, she analyzed them based on congnitive and typological framework. She also analayzed them under lexicalization pattern.
She found that in Persian language, 3 forms of satellites, namely “Figure”, “Path” and “Ground”, can be located beside the verb. She also drew the following diagram, while mentioning it is just a hypothesis and extensive research should be done to confirm it (Azkia, 2012, p. 251):
 
Figure > Path > Ground
Afrashi and Hemmati (2016), Nateghi (2012), and Mesgar khoyi (2013 & 2016) have worked on motion verbs and motion events, too.
Based on sorted corpus of Azkia (2012), 180; and a total of 360 motion verbs (Persian and English) were collected, checked and translated in the context of sentence using bilingual and monolingual dictionaries (Oxford, Aryanpur and Amid). Then, they were compared in terms of being verb-framed or satellite-framed, classification of semantic elements and the dominant satellite. Our research involved discussion and analysis of data collected about manner, path, ground and figure.
We divided path into 5 parts in Persian that involved:

Satellite-framed specified path, in this kind of path, the path shows the exact path (e.g. so`ud kardan); 2- verb-framed specified path (e.g. afrāštan); 3- verb-framed unspecified path (e.g. āvardan); 4- satellite-framed unspecified path (e.g. tey kardan); and 5- satellite-verb-framed specified path (e.g. bar afrāštan). Also, we divided path into 3 parts in English language that involved:
Satellite-framed specified path (e.g. come out); 2- verb-framed specified path (e.g. crash); and 3- verb-framed unspecified path (e.g. traverse). Manner in Persian language is divided into two parts:
In satellite-framed verbs (e.g. pilipili kardan); 2- in verb-framed verbs (e.g. šalidan). In English it has two forms too:
In satellite-framed verbs (e.g. overturn) and in verb-framed verbs (e.g. dance). Figure and ground can be found in Persian language in the form of satellite-framed:
Figure in verbs like “šāne zadan” and ground in verbs like “havā kardan”. In English, figure can be seen in verbs like “weight lift” and “iron” in the form of satellite-framed and verb-framed, respectively, and ground is seen in the form of verb-framed in a verb like “fly”.

The prefixes and co-verbs mentioned here are examples of satellites in Persian language:
1-      bāz / bar (bāz gaštan / bar gaštan): back / opposite
2-      boland (boland kardan): upward
3-      xārej (xārej šodan): outside
4-      dāxel (daxel šodan): inside
5-      nazdik (nazdik šodan): near, front
6-      vāred (vāred šodan): inside
The results showed that the Persian language, unlike English tends to be more satellite-framed. Manner and path are the dominant satellites in the Persian and English, respectively. Finally, the semantic elements of Persian language are more satellite-framed than the English language. Each of these two languages has its own special classification toward Talmy’s theory. We can draw the satellites hierarchical diagram in both languages as follows:
 
Persian language:
Manner > Specified Path > Unspecified Path > Figure > Ground
English language:
Specified Path > Manner / Figure
 

Keywords


 
References
Afrashi, A., & Hemmati, T. (2016). Motion events and the strategies of translating path: The case study of Hobbit. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 7(13), 109-134 [In Persian].
Alonso, R. (2013). Motion events in L2 acquisition: The boundary-crossing constraint in English & Spanish, US-China Foreign Language11(10), 738-750. 
Amid, H. (1994).  Amid persian dictionary (4nd ed)Tehran: Amirkabir [In Persian].
Aryanpur Kashani, A., & Aryanpur Kashani, M. (1983). The Persian-English pocket dictionary. Tehran: Amirkabir [in Persian].
Aryanpur Kashani, A., & Aryanpur Kashani, M. (1994). The English-Persian collegiate dictionary (3nd ed). Tehran: Amirkabir [in Persian].
Azkia, N. (2012). Motion in Persian: A cognitive and typological approach (PhD dissertation)Islamic Azad University Science and Research branch, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
Azkia, N., Sasani, F., & Afrashi, A. (2015). Lexicalization as a framework for explaining non-simple verbs in Persian. Zabanpazhuhi, 7(14), 31-57 [In Persian].
Babai, H. (2011). Lexicalization of motion event in Persian. Theory and Practice in Language Studies1(2) 157-162.
Cifuentes-Férez, P. (2008). Motion in English and Spanish: A perspective from cognitive linguistics, typology and psycholinguistics (PhD dissertation), Universisdad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals (2nd ed).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dabirmoghaddam, M. (2004). Theoretical linguistics: Emergence and development of generative grammar (2nd ed).Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
Golfam, A. (2006). Principles of grammar. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
Golfam, A., Afrashi, A., & Moghaddam, Gh. (2014). Conceptualization of the Persian simple verbs of motion: A cognitive approach. Journal of Western Iranian Languages and Dialects1(3), 103-122 [In Persian].
Hamedi Shirvan, Z. & Sharifi, Sh. (2014). A Typological analysis of satellite in the event structure of motion verbs in Persian. Language Related Research,5(2), 71-89 [In Persian].
Hornby, A. S. (2005). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (7nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternationA preliminary investigation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  Mesgarkhoyi, M. (2013). Representation of path in Persian motion verbs. Farhangestan, 9, 74-92 [In Persian].
  Mesgarkhoyi, M. (2016). Representation of manner information in Farsi motion verbs according to lexicalization patterns Theory. A Journal of Comparative Linguistic Researches5(10), 75-90 [In Persian].
 Nateghi, A. (2012). Analysis of Russian motion verbs with прu- and у- prefixes and their expression in Persian (Master disertation). Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
  Rasekhmahand, M. (2007). Principles of cognitive linguistics. Boukhara, 63, 172-191 [In Persian]
Rojo, A. & J. Valenzuela (2003). Fictive motion in English and Spanish, IJES3(2), 123-149.
Slobin, D. I. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1, 7- 26.
Slobin, D. I. (1996a). From thought and language to thinking for speaking. In J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson. (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 96-70). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Slobin, D. I. (1996b). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English & Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson. (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (pp. 195-219). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1997a). Mind, code, and text. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type (pp. 437-467). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. (1997b). The origins of grammaticizable notions: Beyond the individual Mind. In D. I. Slobin, (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition (Vol. 5. pp. 265-323). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds). Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 107-138). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Slobin, D. I. (2008). Relation between paths of motion and paths of vision: A cross linguistic and developmental exploration. In V. M. Gathercole (Ed.), Routes to LanguageStudies in Honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp.197-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tai, J. H-Y., & Su, Sh. (2013). Encoding motion events in Taiwan sign Language and Mandarin Chinese: Some typological implications. Breaking Down the Barriers, 4(1), 79-98.
Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol II). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2007). Lexical typologies. In T. Shopen, (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Universals (Vol. 3. 2nd ed. pp. 66-169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallentin, M., Nielsen, A. H., Vuust, P., Dohn, A., Roepstorff, A., & Lund, T. E. (2011). BOLD response to motion verbs in left posterior middle temporal gyrus during. Brain & Language119, 221-225.