1.

Write a coherent essay on the typological distinction between Verb-framed and Satelliteframed languages, clarifying the distinction, backing it up with evidence as given by
Slobin and Kopecka, mentioning any other element that you think is important to the
discussion. Further issues that you should consider are the following:
Slobin argues for thinking for speaking. What does this mean? Is it different from
the viewpoint defended by Pederson et al. and if so, how?
Which methodology (Slobins vs. Pederson et al.s) is more convincing and why?
How can a multimodal view on language bring new elements into the discussion?

< Ameka and Essegbey (2013) state that the diversity in the coding of the core schema
of motion, it's the reason why there is traditional typology of languages: verb-framed
languages and satellite-framed languages. According to Slobin (2000) core schema
means motion+path, languages differ when it's about the attention they pay to the
manner of motion. In the case of the verbed-framed languages the path is expresses in
the verb ( languages as: Italian, Spanish, French, etc.), on the other hand, in the case of
satellite-framed languages the path is expressed in a satellite, examples of satelliteframed languages are: Russian, English, Dutch, Chinese, etc.)
Starting with these ideas maybe we can ask ourselves if the language we speak can
influence the way we think in and the way in which we express ourselves. According to
the researchers, language is one of the factors which influences our thinking. As it's
presented in Dan Slobin's article (2000), Stephen Pinker (1994:58) argues the following: "
there is no scientific evidence that languages dramatically shape their ways of
thinking". As an answer, Slobin (2000) claims that people cannot avoid the influence that
the language has on their thinking when trying to process or formulate some messages.
Slobin (2000) continues by stating that this process it not the same for every language:
"On deeper examination, however, it seems that such online process vary considerably
from language to language, both for producers and receivers of messages" (Slobin,
2000:107).
In his analysis, Slobin (2000) argues that no one can speak about an experience
without "adopting" a perspective, and in most of the cases the language plays a role on
the perspective that people will take. Slobin (2000) claims that experiences are "filtered
through language into verbalized events".(ibid.)
Dan Slobin (2000) examines the human motion and tried to see what are the
differences in "thinking for speaking", in his study he decided to analyse two languages
which are not from the same category: French- which is a verb-framed language and
English which is a satellite-framed language.

In his paper, Slobin (2000) speaks about the following sentences:

"a. He ran into the house.
b.Il est entr dans la maison en courant
'He entered in the house by running.'(idem:108)
According to Slobin( 2000), the verb "run" describes the manner of movement, and if we
want to understand what presents us the path- the author says that is the particle "in",
on the other hand in French the manner is presented by the "en courant" and the path is
given by the verb.
Slobin goes on speaking about the patterns of lexicalization, which influence the
description of manner and he claims that as a result "thinking for speaking varies
systematically on the basis of such patterns" (ibid.)
Slobin( 2000) states that languages have a special construction type and according to this
type, languages make speakers "to deal differently with the events encoded in the
construction-in this instance motion events" (Slobin, 2000:109)
According to Slobin (2000), in the case of verb-framed languages the verb slot is
occupied by a path verb. As for the satellite-framed languages, Slobin claims that in
their case " direction is encoded "outside of the main verb, leaving that slot open for an
array of manner verbs" (ibid.)
In his paper, Slobin (2000) also speaks about manner verbs used by children, and in
the case of English speaking children there is a sample of 1186 motion clauses, as for
the French children or Italian children this number is lower, as a conclusion Slobin
claims that in the case of the children that speak English it's clear that their lexicon in
this field is very developed even at an early age which can serve as an evidence that
languages have an impact in the way they perceive the conceptual space "for purposes
of thinking for speaking" (idem:121)
According to Gaucker (2011) the language of the speaker (verb-framed language or
satellite-framed language) can affect his cognitive power. Pederson (1998) after studying
13 languages, tried to show that people's way of talking about spatial relations in their
languages has an impact on their thinking about spatial relations. According to this
position in some languages as Dutch or English, the speakers tend to describe things
using terms such as "left", "right". Also, the experiment of Pederson (1998) showed that

people who speak Japanese used to reconstruct the arrangements in a particular way so
it had a relation to their own bodies.
Kopecka (2006) investigated the semantic structure of motion verbs in French and
tried to compare it with the typology of Talmy (2000) on the motion events. Kopecka
(2006) argues that the verb-framed languages can express the path not only in the verb,
but also in a prefix-which is a characteristic for satellite-framed languages such as
Russian or Swedish.
As it was stated earlier, Kopecka investigated the semantic stucture of motion verbs
in French by paying a particular attention to the prefixes.
According to the typology of Talmy (2000) a pattern of Romance languages is the fact
that they prefer the lexicalization of path of motion in the verb (and French is not an
exception). Talmy claims that in the case of satellite-framed languages the path is
expressed in a satellite that can be a prefix. As a contrary, Kopecka argues that this
situation is valid even in the case of French language. She provides some examples that
have the aim to prove her "theory".
In the following example Kopecka wants us to see that the path is in the verb and the
manner is encoded in "en courant" which is a gerund:
Verb-framed pattern:
"Pierre est entr dans l'cole en courant."
'Pierre entered th school running.'
Kopecka (2006:84)
According to Kopecka (2006) French language has around" fifteen verbs lexicalizing
the notion of path, including the verbs 'arriver' "arrive", 'descendre' "go down", 'longer'
"go along", 'monter' "go up", 'partir' "leave", 'passer' "pass by", etc. (idem:85)
In the following examples Kopecka shows that even French -which is a verb-framed
language can express the path is a prefix:
Satellite-framed pattern:
"Pierre s'est enfui de l'cole "

'Pierre ran away (escaped from school)'

"Les abeilles se sont envoles de la ruche"

'The bees flew away from the hive"
(ibid.)
Kopecka states that French language has around 60 prefixes and they are coming
from Latin and Greek. She claims that 11 of these prefixes give a spatial meaning and
also the notion of path.
Examples of prefixes:
a(d)-"to, toward"-ac-courir "run to"
par- "by, all over"- par-courir "go all over"
sur-"on, over"- sur-voler "fly over"
(idem:86)
According to Kopecka, the process of prefixation in French is associated with a large
variety of lexicalization patterns. Tamly (2000) speaks about the main lexicalization
patterns concerning the verbs and the elements expressed in them, and these patterns
are the following:
-motion+path
-motion+manner/cause
-motion+figure
Tamly (2000) states that the first two categories are the most frequent in all the
languages. As Kopecka argues, these models are not characteristic for French language
too because "the prefixation process- allow it to encode in the verb not only the manner
of motion, but also the figure and even the ground" (idem:89)
>
2. Consider the appendix with sentences with posture verbs in Ese Ejja, an Amazonian
language. How would you describe the basic logic of the uses of these verbs and how do
they relate to the use of posture verbs in both Dutch and English (considering basic uses
as well as grammaticalisations) as described by Lemmens and Newman?
< Newman (2002) states that these posture verbs: sitting, lying and standing' have

a very important role in our everyday life and these verbs are "a common source for
further semantic extension" (Newman, 2002:1)

According to Newman these verbs have a sense of extension through time and a
very "strong contrast between the spatial configurations involved: a compact shape
associated with sitting; an upright, vertical elongation with standing; a horizontal
elongation in the case of lying" (ibid.)
Newman states that the posture verbs can help us conceptualize the position of some
things or objects, and he illustrates this in the follow examples:
"The computer sits on the table"
"The house stands on a private property."
"Her clothes are lying on the floor"
(idem:7)
In these examples, Newman wants to show us what is the central meaning of the
posture verbs and they do not refer to humans that are lying, sitting or standing.
According to him, these sentences are locational because they indicate us where the
objects are located, and he claims that in English language we can use posture verbs to
refer to non-humans but their use in this kind of situations is limited.
Newman (2002) speaks also about the extensions based on continuation through
time, and he states that posture verbs can be used as "auxiliaries which simultaneously
classify a subject referent in terms of posture as well as functioning as a tense/aspect
modality (TAM) marker" (idem:12)
In the Appendix on Ese Ejja posture verbs, there are sentences where '-ani', '-ba'e" and
'-neki" are used to form the progressive aspect. They are auxiliaries and as in the case of
Mbay presented in Newmans paper, they can also appear with or without the subject
prefixes.
(6) Exawi kejo yani. (Not: eneki be.standing)
Exawi ke -jo
eani
Banana field -LOC TAM- be.sitting
There are bananas (lit: sitting) in the field (cut on the ground).
(7) Exawi kejo eba'e. (Not: eneki be.standing)
exawi ke
-jo
eba'e
banana field -LOC TAM- be.floating
There are bananas (lit: floating) in the field (still in the tree).
(8) Shixe kejo eneki. (Not: eba'e be.floating/Not: yani be.sitting)
Shiwe ke
-jo
eneki
corn field - LOC TAM- be.standing
There is corn in the field (lit: Corn stands in the field).
According to Newman, the posture verbs can develop different types of TAM markers
in languages and he states the following "...more research is needed in order to write a

full account of the different grammaticalization paths that each of the posture verbs can
follow" (idem:16).
As for Dutch posture verbs, Lemmens (2003) states that experienced a process of
auxiliation "the posture verbs can occur as matrix verbs to an infinitival complement, a
construction which has acquired the aspectual values progressive and/ or habitual"
(Lemmens, 2003:134). In other words it means that someone is doing something while
being in a specific posture, and he provides some examples: "ik zit te lezen' I sit to
read'=( am reading) or "ik sta te wachen 'I stand to wait' (=am waiting) (ibid.)
As for the examples from the appendix there are sentences providing examples on the
grammaticalization paths of Ese Ejja posture verbs.
(9a) Oya tatajo
aniani,
oya tata
-jo
ani
-ani
3.ABS dense -LOC be.sitting -sit
(11)

Esho'i taaaki. (Not: taaaneki)

esho'i taaa -(ne)ki
NPF- child shout -stand
The child is standing shouting.

Actually in the majority of the examples we can see the progressive aspect, but there is
no example on habitual aspect, but there are some examples where the posture verbs
have grammaticalized into auxiliaries.
(10) Jackson (oya) exawi eshe ixyapoba'e.
Jackson oya exawi eshe ixya -po
-ba'e
Jackson 3.ABS banana raw
eat -AUX.itr -float
Jackson is eating a banana (suspended in the arms of his mum).
According to Newman (2002) it's important to understand what are the properties of the
posture verbs across languages, he claims that by studying the posture verbs at all levels
it's worth it keeping in mind the lexicalization of the concepts, their grammaticalization
but also their figurative extensions. As well, Newman (2002) points out that not all the
languages use the posture verbs sit, lie and stand to the same extent, and he
speaks about English by stating that there are some extensions of the original or basic
meaning of the posture verbs, but they didnt grammaticalized into auxiliaries for
example, which is not the case of Ese Ejja posture verbs.>

3.
< According to Lakoff (1987) it is normal for a word to have more than one meaning,

and in most of the cases there is no link between these two meanings.
Since these words are pronounced and written in the same way but only their meaning
is different that's why they are called homonyms. In order to explain that, Lakoff
provides some examples, among them the following: the word "open":
"We open doors and open presents, and though the actions described by the words are very
different" ( Lakoff,1987:416)
As Lakoff states, in the case where a verb that has two senses that are are somehow
related and it's not easy to see the difference, we should call it "polysemy". Lakoff
provides the following definition of polysemy: " the cases where there is one lexical
item with a family of related senses" (ibid.)
As it is illustrated in Lakoff's paper (1987), Fillmore speaks about the adjective"long"
that has two senses( spatial and temporal). The sense which is considered to be central is
the spatial one, and the temporal sense "it is related to it via metaphor" (idem:417)
In his paper, Lakoff (1987) speaks about the prototypical uses of lexical items, and he
claims that in the case of some words, some of their senses may be more representative.
"The senses of a word are related to one another more or less closely by various means,
one of which is conceptual metaphor" (ibid.) Also Lakoff explains that the relationship
between the senses of a word are defined by the metaphorical mapping that relates the
ICMs.
As Martin( 2000) claims the study of metaphoric process plays an important role in
cognitive studies, and the metaphorical conceptualization is seen as an element which
can interact with grammatical processes, thant is why it is considered to be an
important semantic phenomenon.
In order to explain that, because in some cases it's really difficult to determine the
senses of some prepositions, actually because their "network" of senses.
If we think about the preposition through I think we should have in mind the fact that
all the speakers, especially those who learn a foreign language should have the ability to
perceive the concept of space, and also the fact that the objects have dimensions, some
of these dimensions are lets say stored in our memory thanks to our daily life
experience, but on the other hand some of these dimensions are not easy to be perceived
because there are conceptual ( for example when you are a teacher of astronomy and
you are talking with your pupils about the universe and space, there are things that
they never saw, thats why it demands for more effort from the mind of the speakers.)

Before I will go start to present the semantic analysis of through using the prototype
model, I will quote from Martin (2000), who speaks about the dimensionality of
prepositions:The domain in which prepositions are conceptualized is threedimensional space: its specifications and parameters will completely determine the
semantic analysis that is appropriate. The three canonical dimensions of space (height,
length and width) are conceptualized in language, and more specifically, in
prepositional usage, as zero dimensional, when the LM entity is conceived of as a point
with irrelevant internal structure. (Martin, 2000:16)
In the appendix regarding the preposition through there are some sentences that
follow the pattern go+through, but not all of them refer to real or spatial motion.
(0) The bus went through the tunnel.
In this example there is real trajectory, and the motion is not abstract. As for the
following example :
(0) Weve been through that before with you.

We cannot be sure that here through refers to a spatial context, in can be a nonspatial one.
In the following sentence :
(0) The plane flew through the clouds into the higher sunny sky.
there is a is a case of real motion; the subject ( in this case the plane) is the objects that
moves.
As for the following examples:
(0) He went through the door.
(0) The bullet went straight through the glass.
(0) The sun came through the window.
In these sentences, we can think about motion and at the same time we can imagine a passage or
a trajectory ( something that goes through a point and after that out of it).

The senses put together into some groups which will help to understand how its
network of senses works, of course there are going to be some meanings which are
going to be more specific and representatives, but they will help people get the
meanings of through.
I think that the analysis of Lakoff for the preposition over and the semantic analysis
on the preposition through they do complement each other, proving that the

prototype works when it comes to helping the speakers to understand the senses of the
prepositions..>