Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Wiley-Blackwell Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


Language Planning as a Sociolinguistic Experiment

By: Ernst Jahr

Provides richly detailed insight into the uniqueness of the Norwegian language development. Marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian nation following centuries of Danish rule

New from Cambridge University Press!


Acquiring Phonology: A Cross-Generational Case-Study

By Neil Smith

The study also highlights the constructs of current linguistic theory, arguing for distinctive features and the notion 'onset' and against some of the claims of Optimality Theory and Usage-based accounts.

New from Brill!


Language Production and Interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition

By Henk Zeevat

The importance of Henk Zeevat's new monograph cannot be overstated. [...] I recommend it to anyone who combines interests in language, logic, and computation [...]. David Beaver, University of Texas at Austin

Query Details

Query Subject:   Semantics: Verbs as Motion Events
Author:   Neda Azkia
Submitter Email:  click here to access email

Linguistic LingField(s):  Semantics

Query:   I am Ph.D. student of linguistics and my thesis is focused on "Motion in
Persian". I am compiling my data now, but the problem is the exact
criteria of choosing the motion events. And the other question is on the
conflation of concepts.

For example the verb 'blow' is for 'wind,' so we can say that the figure
concept 'wind' has been conflated in this verb. However, I have seen
that in some theses they consider this verb to be a conflation of motion
and cause.

1. What are the criteria of choosing a verb as a motion event? I've read
Talmy's definition but I couldn't find the borderline in between. For
example some say that 'rain' is not a motion event but Talmy considers
it as a motion verb.

2. Paula Ferez considered the verb 'blow' with conflation of motion and
cause. But the question is the conflation of figure (wind) in this surface
element? Don't you think that the figure is conflated in this expression?

If anyone can point me towards sources with describing the criteria of
choosing motion events and/or information on the conflation of
concepts, I would be most grateful.

Many thanks,
LL Issue: 22.408
Date posted: 23-Jan-2011


Sums main page