Grammars of Space Editor: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity Stephcn C. Levinson Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Nij~negen

Edi~or,s: This scries looks at the role of language in human cognition - language in both its Stephen C.Levinson ~~niversal.psychological aspects and its variable, cult~~ralaspects. Studies will focus on the rclation between semantic and conceptual categories and processes. especially as Mci.~I'lcoic~k Ir~.s/i/~irr,/hrl-'.\j~c.holirr,~~,isric~.r these are illuminated by cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies, the st~~dyof language acquisition and concept~~aldevelopment. and the study of the relation of speech pro- David P. Wilkins duction and comprehension to other kinds of behaviour in social context. Books come Cer7ror,firApho.sio (117rlRelorc,tl I>i.sor~l~~~s.VANCHCS. M(cl.r;rrc,:. Cr11~fi)rriici principally, though not exclusively. from research associated with the Max Planck Insti- tute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, and in particular the Language and Cognition Group.

Books in this serics: I. Jan Nuyts and Eric Pederson (eds.) LLIII~LLCISC(III~Coiice/~.l)t~r~~li;~tio~i 2. David McNeill (ed.) LLOI~LI~I~C(11id Gex.l)t~~re 3. Melissa Bowernian and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.) LLIII~LIOS~Accl~lisilio~i clnrl Co~~cc~pf~r~rIDev~lo~~ii~eiif 4. Gunter Senft (ed.) Sysrc.117.s r!j'Norizirial Cltrs.r~ficnriori 5. Stephen C. Levinson Spclce iil LCI~I~LILI,~~u~idCogrlitio~i 6. Stephen C. Levinson and David P. Wilkins (eds.) G1*~11ii1iic1r.sof SI~LI~C

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS CAM8RII)GI~UNIVERSII'Y PRESS Cambridge. New York. Melbourne. Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, SZo Paulo Cambridge University Press Contents The Edinburgh Building. Cambridge CB2 2RU. UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/978052167 178 1 0 Cambridge University Press 2006

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without List qfjgures page ix the written permission of Cambridge University Press. List of tables xi First published 2006 List of contributors xiv Preface xv Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A ccrtcrlogc~erc.corcl,for t1ii.s poblicutio17 i.s ~zvcril~zhl~~,fronithe British Lihrnry 1 The background to the study of the language of space STEPHEN C. LEVINSON AND DAVID P. WILKINS Lihrczr:~~f'Cori,~rc..s.s Ccztcrloguing in Publication clntu 1.1 Spatial language and cognition Grammars of space /edited by Stephen C. Levinson and David P. Wilkins 1.2 Nature of this book p. cm. -(Language, culture, and cognition: 6) 1.3 The language sample Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.4 Controlled comparison: the stimuli ISBN 0-52 1-85583-7 - ISBN 0-521 -67178-7 (pbk.) 1.5 Patterns of variation I. Space and time in language. 2. Psycholinguistics. 3. Semantics. 1.6 Conclusion I. Levinson, Stephen C. 11. Wilkins, David (David P.) 111. Title. IV. Scries. P37.5.S65G736 2006 2 Towards an Arrernte grammar of space 4011.43- dc22 20050158 18 DAVID P. WILKINS 2.1 The language and its speakers ISBN- I3 978-0-521-85583-9 hardback 2.2 Brief overview of the main features of Arrernte grammar ISBN-I0 0-52 1-85583-7 hardback 2.3 Topological relations ISBN- I3 978-0-52 1-67 178- 1 paperback 2.4 Motion ISBN- I0 0-52 1-67 178-7 paperback 2.5 Frames of reference 2.6 Conclusion 3 Sketch of a Jaminjung grammar of space EVA SCHULTZE-BERNDT 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The language and its speakers 3.3 Grammatical and lexical resources for spatial description 3.4 Topological relations 3.5 Motion 3.6 Frames of reference 3.7 Summary Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of 4 Prolegomenon to a Warrwa grammar of space URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and WILLIAM B. MCGREGOR does not guarantee that any content on such websites is. or will remain, accurate or appropriate. 4.1 The Warrwa language and its speakers 4.2 Overview of Warrwa grammar 4.3 Topological relations 9.4 Motion 4.4 Motiol~ 9.5 Frames of rcfcrcncc 4.5 I;ramc\ ol' rcl'cre~~cc 9.6 Conclusion 4.0 Conclus~on 10 Elements of the grammar of space in Ewe 5 The languagc of space in YCli Dnye FELIX K. AMEKA AND JAMES ESSEGBEY S'flil'HI;N ('. 1.EVINSON 10.1 The lang~~agcant1 its rclcvancc for spatial Inng~~ngc 5. 1 Thc language ant1 CLIIILI~C of Rosscl 1sl;11id 5.2 Somc salient I'cnturc\ ol' the gralnmar 10.2 Grammatical ovcrvicw 5.3 Tol)ological rclations 10.3 Topological rclations 5.4 Frame\ ol' rcl'crcncc 10.4 F~.amc~of rcfcrcncc 5.5 Dcisis 10.5 Motion 5.6 Motion tlcscription 10.6 Concluion 5.7 Conclusions 11 Spatial language in Tamil 6 PI-olegomenato a Kilivila grammar of space ERIC PEDERSON C; U N T 1: R S E N F I' I I. I Ta~iiilant1 Tamils 6. l Introtluction 1 1.2 Grammatical sketch 6.2 Kilivila - the Inngl~agcoi'tlic Trobriand Islantlcrs 1 1.3 Topological rclations 6.3 To1)ological relalions 1 1.4 Motion cvcnts 6.4 Motion 1 1.5 Deixis and ~~;IITICSof r~ferc~~cc 6.5 Frnmc 01' rcl'crcncc 1 1.6 Conclusions 6.6 Summary ant1 conclutling remarks 12 A grammar of space in Japanese 7 A sketch of the grammar of space in Tzeltal SOTARO KlTA PENEI.OI'E l3ROWN 12.1 Introduction 7.1 Introduction 12.2 Very brief g~lmmaticaloverview of the langungc 7.2 Grammatical resources for spatial description 12.3 Location 7.3 Static location 12.4 Motion 7.4 Motion 12.5 Contcxt~~alIhctors for the choice oi' I'rnlncs of rcfcrcncc 7.5 Frame.; of rd'crcncc 12.6 Conclusions 7.6 Conclusion 13 Some properties of spatial description in Dutch 8 Spatial reference in Yukatek Maya: a survey MIRIAM VAN STADEN, MELISSA ROWERMAN AND J~~RGENIlOHNEMEYER AND CHRISTEL STOLZ MARIET VERHELST 8. I Introtluction 13.1 Introduction 8.2 The langu;~gcand its speakers 13.2 Di~tch:thc lang~~agcand its speakers S..3 Somc clement\ of YM morphosyntnx 13.3 Grammatical background to spatial descriptions in Dutch 8.4 Topological rclations 13.4 Topological rclations 8.5 Motion 13.5 Motion descriptions 8.0 fr;imcs of rcfcrcncc 13.6 Conclusion 8.7 Conclutlin: remarks 13.7 Discufiion 9 Approaching space in Til-iyci 21-ammar 14 Patterns in the data: towards a semantic typology of spatial S I: I< Ci l O M I': I R A description 9. I Introtluction: Tiriyh and its spcnkcrs STEPHEN C. I.EVINSON AND DAVID P. WII.KINS 9.2 A brief ovcrvicw ol'Tiriy6 grammar 14.1 Universals and particulars: vari~~tionand its limit in scmantic 9.3 Topology typology ... VIII Contents

14.2 Topology 14.3 Motion 14.4 Frames of reference 14.5 Conclusions

Appendices References Author index Language/Language,filmily index Subject index 1 The background to the study of the language of space

Stephen C. Levirzsorz and David I? Wilkins

1.1 Spatial language and cognition Spatial cognition is a fi~nda~nentaldesign requirement for every mobile species with a fixed territory or home base. And there is little doubt that it plays a central role in human thinking and reasoning. Indeed, the evidence for that centrality is all around us, in our language where spatial ~uetaphorsare used for Inany other domains, in the obvious cognitive utility of diagrams and tables, and in the special role of place in memory. The idea that space is a fundamental intuition built into our nature goes back at least to Kant (1768), and the idea that our apperception of space is governed by cognitive universals informs much current cognitive science. But in some ways human spatial cognition is puzzling. First, it is unspec- tacular - we are not as a species, compared to bees or pigeons, bats or whales, particularly good at finding our way around. Second, hurnan spatial cognition is obviously variable - hunters, sailors and taxi-drivers are in a different league from the ordinary city-dweller. This suggests that Inany aspects of effective spatial thinking depend on cultural factors, which in turn suggests limits to cognitive universals in this area. The language of space becomes an important focus of research, then, for a number of reasons. First, it may help to reveal the underlying conceptual struc- ture in human spatial thinking, which may be much hardel- to extract from an inarticulate species. Naturally. univel-sals of spatial thinking should be reflected in universal conceptualizations ill spatial language. Second, and contrastively, the very variability of language promises an interesting insight into the possible cultural variability of spatial thinking. Third, this reasoning presumes a close correlation between spatial language and spatial thinking - essentially, a (pos- sibly partial) isomorphism between semantics and conceptual structure. Where we have linguistic universals, the correlation may be presu~nedto be driven by cognitive universals. But where we have cultural divergences, language may not so much reflect underlying cognition, as actively drive it. All this suggests a natural line of research, namely a parallel, independent investigation of spatial language and human spatial thinking. In a concerted 2 Steplzen C. Levinsorz and Davirl I? Wi1kin.c Background to the study of the language of space effort over nearly a decade, in a project involving over forty researchers and as many languages, researchers at the Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Psycholin- guistics have tried to pursue these parallel investigations in as many cultures Stasis Kinesis of independent tradition as possible. The outcome has been surprising. Human spatial thinking is indeed quite variable, sometimes based on incommensurate Non-angular- Angular conceptual systems. Languages reflect this variability, for semantic distinctions do indeed closely match conceptual structure. Moreover, sometimes there is a good case for supposing that language, and more broadly communication systems, are causal factors in inducing specific ways of thinking about space. These correlations between language and cognition, and the methods employed Intrinsic Relative Absolute to probe non-linguistic spatial thinking, are the subject of the companion volume Figure 1 .I Conceptual subdivisions of the spatial domain to this book, Space in lan~uageand cognition. These findings give the subject of spatial language a new and vital interest. Since linguistic differences can have cognitive consequences, what exactly are to illuminate the issues at hand, and each paper represents a summary of in- the limits to the variation? What kind of semantic typology can be constructed depth research, which has been subject to extensive mutual discussion. This to encompass the variation? If fundamental spatial concepts are not given in kind of collaborative work is rare in the social sciences, and we hope that it will advance but vary from language to language, how can children acquire such inspire more joint efforts of this kind. notions? Is there a conceptual bedrock of spatial ideas on which children build? This book therefore provides a unique window on how an important concep- These and many further fundamental questions arise. tual domain may be coded differentially across languages. For many researchers This books deals centrally with linguistic variation in this domain. It illus- in linguistics and cognitive science the degree of diversity will come as a pro- trates in detail how languages may mismatch on fundamental spatial distinc- found surprise. On the other hand, the existence of underlying constraints on tions. But it also suggests a number of constraints and a restricted inventory the spatial imagination is also clearly revealed in the very extent to which close of possibilities. It demonstrates a method of controlled comparison which comparison and contrast is possible. can reveal both recurrent regularities and contrastive differences across lan- The basis of comparison has emerged from a long-term project on spatial lan- guages. In the conclusions to this volume, both universal patterns and axes of guage and cognition at the MPI for Psycholinguistics. The reader will find that variation will be reviewed and illustrated from the material elsewhere in the the spatial domain has been partitioned into 'topological description', 'motion book. description' and 'frames of reference'. This partition does not exhaust the domain - spatial deixis, for example, is orthogonal and will be treated in a 1.2 Nature of this book sister publication -but we have selected these sub-domains because they cover the major themes in the literature. The partition itself reflects major conceptual This book collects together in one volume closely comparable descriptions cleavages in the domain: stasis vs. kinesis on the one hand, and angular vs. of spatial language in a dozen languages, nearly all from unrelated stocks. non-angular static descriptions on the other (see Figure 1. I). It allows one to see more or less at a glance how differently languages may Leibniz and Newton (through his protCgC Clark) had a heated exchange on treat a single important semantic domain. Curiously, information of this kind the essential nature of spatial concepts, Newton insisting that space was an has never before been made available - instead comparisons have focussed abstract envelope, while Leibniz insisted that it was relational. Most (but not on particular parts of speech (like spatial adpositions), or have focussed on the all) natural language descriptions of spatial scenes are Leibnizian -that is, they particular resources of an individual European language. Information on spatial describe the location or motion of one thing with respect to other things. Thus description can, of course, be found in grammars, but it is distributed and always in a spatial description, something - call it the 'figure' (theme or trajector) - incomplete, and one cannot reliably compare one such description with another. is generally located with respect to something else - call it the 'ground' (or In contrast in this book, in order to achieve close comparison, the papers each landmark). touch upon a series of key topics, and the researchers have all used a shared set of The conceptually simplest spatial description simply indicates a spatial coin- elicitation techniques. In each case, fieldwork has been undertaken specifically cidence of figure and ground. This is the core concept in the topological Backgro~~ndto the study of the language of spucc 5

sub-domain. but we can also si~bsi~~nerelations of propinquity, contact and the topological relationships encoded in specific languages overlap and cross- containment - thus English prepositions 'at'. 'on' and 'in' are i~suallyconsid- cut one another - there is no one-to-one mapping of spatial relators cross- ered to lie at the heart of the topological sub-domain (Herskovits 1986).' Once linguistically. In the frame-of-reference domain. not all languages iltilize all figure and ground are separated in space, such non-angular specifications are three frames of reference, and each frame of refel-ence may be instantiated in not of milch use - we want to know in which direction from a ground we need quite distinct concepts across languages. For example. where languages have to search to find the figure. Some kind of coordinate system now comes into a 'left'/'right'/'front'/'back' system used in si~cliexpressions as 'behind the play. One way to specify an angle is to name a facet of the ground and indicate tree', 'behind' and 'left' can mean exactly the converse of what they mean in that the figure lies on an axis extended from that facet, as in 'The statue is in English. And in the motion domain. languages differ in what is conceptually front of the cathedral'. We call this the 'intrinsic' frame of reference, since it grouped or packaged in motion verbs. relies on a prior assignment of 'intrinsic' or inherent parts and facets to objects. A second major axis of variation is how these concepts are coded linguisti- Another way to specify an angle is to use the viewer's own bodily coordinates. cally. Existing literature on spatial language gives the impression that the heart as in 'The squirrel is to the left of the tree'. This is, of course, useful where an of spatial description is generally encoded in a set of contrastive spatial adposi- ob-ject seems to lack intrinsic facets ~~sefulfor horizontal discriminations, like tions. Thus in English we use the same kind of prepositional phrases in topol- trees. A third way to specify angles is to use fixed bearings - independent of ogy ('in the bowl'), frames of reference ('in front of the building') and motion the scene - to specify a direction from a ground or landmark, as in 'The coast description ('into the building'). But many languages deploy distinct grammati- is ~~ortliof the mountain ridge'. We call this the 'absolute' frame of reference, cal and lexical systems in these different domains. Further, some languages have because the names and directions of the fixed bearings are fixed once and for all. no spatial adpositions. Others have only one general-purpose adposition. Such Although there are many intriguing variants of these three kinds of coordinate languages perforce code spatial relations elsewhere in the clause. frequently in systems or 'fi-ames of reference', these three types (intrinsic, relative, absolute) the verb, or in local cases, or in special spatial nominals. or in adverbials. In seem to exhaust the major types used in natural languages. general, most languages distribute spatial information throughout the clause. Nearly all descriptions of motion also involve Leibnizian reference to land- For example, a topological I-elation (as in 'The cup is on the table') may often marks or ground locations (exceptions are statements like 'In the summer the be expressed through the simultaneous deployment of a number of contrastive geese fly west'. where 'west' is not a place but a direction). Motion is typically choices in lexicon and morphology - one may say in effect something like 'The specified as motion to (or towards) a 'goal', or from a 'source'. Specification of cup table top-AT stands', where 'top' is drawn from a set of contrastive spatial both (as in 'He went from Antwerp to Amsterdam') determines a unique vector- nominals, AT is expressed by case or adposition, and 'stand' contrasts with so one can specify a direction without employing frames of reference. Deictic 'sit', 'hang' and other locative predicates. verbs of motion (as in 'He came late') may specify agoal (or source), namely the There are 110 simple, hard generalizations about exactly where in the clause place of speaking. Often, though, frames of reference will be employed either different kinds of spatial information are encoded. Nevertheless, as a general- exclusively (as in 'In the summer the geese fly west') or as part of, or in addition ization, one can say that the shape ofthe figure is normally encoded in locative to, goal or source specification (as in 'He ran off behind the building'). Apart predicates, and only occasionally in adpositions. while the shape and geometry hom deictic contrasts. verbs of motion may build in 'attainment of goal' as in of the ground is typically coded in adpositions and spatial nominals; the spatial 'reach. arrive', or departiu-e frorn source as in 'leave'. Verbs of motion may also relation between figure and ground may be encoded in locative verbs and case, package other semantic material. like manner of motion, and even langi~ages but is especially to be found in adpositions and spatial nominals. with very restricted verbal inventories seem to have a set of contrastive motion It is the combination of these two axes of substantial variation - semantic verbs (see the description of Jaminjung in Chapter 3). and grammatical -that is illustrated throughout this book. This variation raises There are many other kinds of variation in spatial coding across languages, the fundamental cognitive questions alluded to in the prior section - how are as the reader will find exemplified in this volunle. First, within each of these we to reconcile incommensurable semantic parameters with 'the psychic unity sub-domains. there are quite variable conceptual distinctions. For example, of mankind"? How do children then learn semantical concepts for which they cannot be prepared by independent cognition'.' The variation also raises a series of questions wi~hincomparative linguistics: ' 'Topology' is here ~~scdwith some tlcparturc from the wcll-clcfinctl mathcma~icalconccpt. Thc term came into linguistic description through Piugct's analysis ofthc spatial conccpts of children What constraints are there on the S~I~IN/Z~~CI>LIIYIIII~~~~.Y involved - in short. and inclutlcs >I numbcr of spatial rclations that arc not strictly speaking topological. what does the se17ia11tictvl>olo~y of space look like? 6 Stcyheri C. Levinso11atld David P Wi1kiti.r Background to the study of the language of space 7

As we shall see, despite a great deal of variation, the high-level typology Table 1.1 Grammars of' space - larzguage sample here seems quite constrained. But at a greater level of detail there is suffi- cient variation to ensure that comparable expressions in different languages Country where Number of native scarcely ever have the same meaning and extensional range. Language Language affiliation research was donc speakers What constraints are there on the formal expression of these semantic Arrernte (Eastern and Australian. Australia 2.000 types - what does the morphosyntactic typology of spatial expression look Central) Pama-Nyungan like? Jaminjung Australian, Australia 100 Contrary to the literature, we will find that spatial notions are not univer- non-Parna-Nyungan 2 sally encoded in specific parts of speech like adpositions or case inflections Warrwa Australian, Australia non-Pama-Ny ungan but are distributed throughout the clause. YCli Dnye Papuan, Isolate Papua New Guinea 4,000 Are the various kinds of conceptual domain in spatial description (as in Kilivila Austronesian Papua New Guinea 23,000 Figure I. I) formally distinguished in languages? Tzeltal Mayan Mexico 200.000 As already hinted, the answer is not always, but the distinctions exist often Yukatek Maya Mayan Mexico 800.000 2.000 enough to suggest that these domains do mark natural cleavages. Tiriy6 Cariban. Taranoan Brazil. Surinam Niger Congo. Kwa Ghana 2,000.000 How much spatial information is coded in language and how much inferred, Ewe Tamil Dravidian India 70,000.000 and are the patterns the same across languages? (world-wide) What we will find is that although the same kind of pragmatic principles are Japanese Isolate'.' / Altaic? Japan 1 18,000.000 arguably universally in play, languages do not universally code semantically Dutch Indo-European. Netherlands 15.000,OOO to the same level of specificity. For example, in many languages thedistinction Germanic (in the Netherlands) between 'on the table' vs. 'in the bowl' will not normally be coded, but rather left to pragmatic inference from expressions of the kind 'table-LOCATIVE' vs. 'bowl-LOCATIVE'. PHRASE ORDER IN TRANSITIVE CLAUSES (S=subject, O=Object, V=Transitive verb) 1.3 The language sample Ewe: SVO Ye'li Dnye: SOV tendency; Japanese: SOV [canonical]; Tamil: SOV It is not possible in a volume of this kind to have sketches from a representa- Tzeltal: VOS [both prefixes and suffixes]; Yukatek Maya: VOS; tive sample of the world's languages - such a book would have perhaps 400 Kilivila: VOS chapters! Instead. what we have collected here is something of an opportunistic JamirGung: Free Phrase Order; Arrernte: Free Phrase Order [V-final sample, which has arisen from the chance the authors have had to work closely tendency] together. and thus produce closely matched descriptions of the languages in Tiriyci: Free Phrase Order which they are expert. Nevertheless, it is a happy sample, in the sense that the languages are geographically distributed over five continents, representing There are languages of both 'head-marking' and 'dependent-marking' types cultures with ma.jor variations in environment and land use. Both small-scale (where S=subject and O=object): ARGUMENT MARKING ['cross-referencing') ON VERBlIN VERB and large-scale societies are represented. and there is a bias to relatively little- known languages. so that nearly all the material presented here is new, and not PHRASE: Ewe - No; Japanese - No; Arremte - No [optional number marking to be found properly laid out in existing grammars. Altogether, seven language for subject] families are represented. along with two isolates. Some regional and linguistic Kilivila - Yes, just S; Dutclz - Yes (reduced), just S; Tanzil- Yes, just clusters of languages (Australian and Mayan) allow readers to come to their S [suffix] own conclusions about the importance of areal and genetic factors in seman- Ja~ninjung:Yes, both S and 0;Tzeltal: Yes, both S and 0; YLli Dtzye - tic typology. Table I. I gives some basic details about the languages and their Yes, both S and 0, by free particles in VP; Tiriy6 - Ye$, S and 0. speakers. From a grammatical point of view, the languages offer a wide spec- trum of linguistic types. There are languages with most of the predominant From a morphological point of view, within the sample there are languages word orders: of isolating vs. agglutinating vs. (mildly) polysynthetic types. And there Backgroilnd to thc stildy of'thc Ia~ngungcof spacc 9

are various forms of morphological ergativity vs. morphological nominative- by these systematic stimuli and mutual discussions about results. But here we acci~sativepatterns. In short, most of the major formal types of language are have chosen to focus on three main stimuli. as an illustration of'the method and represented in the sample. the kinds of comparative results that can thus be obtained.

1.4 Controlled comparison: the stimuli 1.4.1 Tol7ology Scr-ies 'Pict~tr-e-Rook' Cross-linguistic (and more generally, cross-cultural) comparison is fraught with This stimulus is a book of seventy-one line drawings, 'The Topological Rela- difficulties. Altho~~ghisolated features or traits may be readily extracted and tions Picture Series', to be used in elicitation sessions with three or more native compared, their value or fi~nctiondepends on the system in which they play a speakers. Each picture shows principally two ob.jects, one of which is desig- part. But comparing whole systems is like comparing apples and oranges, and nated (by an arrow, or coloured yellow in the original) to be the figure object. anyway is rarely possible. Comparative linguistics and ling~~istictypology pro- the other the ground. The native speaker is asked how one might colloqui- ceed. nevertheless. most confidently across related languages, or in areas where ally answer the question 'Where is the X (the figure ob.ject)'?'. given the kind there are intrinsic limits to variation (like phonetics) or where there seem to be of association between figure and ground indicated in the picture. This is not strong universals or limited types (as in morphosyntax). Comparative semantics intended to be a mechanical elicitation procedure - the investigator may need as a systematic enterprise has hardly begun - there are only isolated domains to choose alternative local items to be found in similar configurations, and a like colour, ethnobotany or kinship where we have any overall idea about pat- range of answers should be collected. noting which occur in which order, and terns of variation across unrelated languages. In these domains, the structure which are said to be preferred or most normal. Three or more cons~~ltantsallow of the natural world (coloi~rand its perception, the differentiation of species, some qualitative and quantitative analysis of preferred solutions. biological reproduction) gives us some 'etic' metalanguage of comparison. An The edition used in the chapters below is the I993 version from the MPI 'etic' metalanguage (coined on the model of 'phonetic' by Pike) is some objec- for Psycholinguistics (the original design is by Melissa Bowerman, with sup- tive description of the domain which makes maximal discriminations, so that plementary additions by Penelope Brown and Eric Pederson). The book was we can specify precisely how a language groups these discriminations within its specifically designed to investigate the maximal range of scenes that may be own 'emic' (cf. 'phonemic') concepts. These groupings are most easily appre- assimilated to canonical IN- and ON-relations (and th~~sincludes a number of ciated extensionally, that is, by looking at the range of denotation for a native scenes unlikely to be so assimilated). English, for example, might be held to term; to understand the meaning or intension, we need to look at the kinds of have a prototype ON-relation at the heart of the preposition on (as exemplified contrasts the terms make with one another, in T11e cup is on the tcrl?le), but many other kinds of spatial relations - like The semantic domain of space is altogether more complex and abstract than a ring on a finger, a picture on a wall, a shoe on a foot - are assimilated to these more referential domains and, as we have seen, is internally differentiated the same preposition. Not surprisingly, perhaps, even closely related languages into sub-domains. A simple 'etic' metalanguage is not available. Nevertheless, like Dutch prefer other contrastive adpositions for many of these scenes. The there are obvious ways in which to proceed. A good sample of unrelated lan- full set of pictures include spatial relations that contrast on a range 01' partially guages will give us a sense of which kinds of discriminations are likely to overlapping dimensions: be made. We can then build these maximal contrasts into a series of spatial +I- horizontal support 'scenes', and see for any one language whether they are in fact discriminated, +I- vertical support (hanging) and if so how. We can then readily compare these extensional groupings, and +I- adhesion then (not q~~iteso readily) explore the intensional principles upon which the +I- liquid/mastic adhesion gro~~pingsare made. +/- marks on surface During the course of the space pro-ject at the MPI for Psycholinguistics, +I- living creature on non-horizontal surface many specialized stim~rlihave been developed for exploring spatial language. +I- attachment of prqjecting figure to ground These include specialized sti~n~~lifor eliciting deictic motion verbs, a specific +/- attachment by cord instrument for deciding on the precise semantics of enterlexit verbs, various +I- encirclement methods for eliciting demonstratives. stimuli geared to discriminations in con- +/- envelopment trastive locative verbs. and so forth. All the papers in this volume are informed +/-clothing/adornment 10 Steplien C. Levinson and David P Wilkins Background to the study of the language of space I I

that these represent maximally different scenes from the point of view of the differentiation of spatial adpositions.' They include both canonical IN- and ON-relations, and then some other relations allowing some maximal contrasts between, for example, contact and non-contact, or attached vs. non-attached, as well as what happens in figurelground alternations. For reasons that are discussed in Section 1.5.1 below, it is interesting to see how freely placed objects contrast with attached ones, and how such special spatial relations like figure piercing ground, or figure as personal adornment, are dealt with in spatial descriptions. Experience shows that languages differ greatly in the extent to which these more specialized situations are assimilated to central topological codings.

1.4.2 T11e Men and Tree Space Game Structured elicitation sessions using controlled stimuli as in the picture-book described above are not the only way in which controlled information can be obtained about spatial description. An often more revealing method is to - < 22.- structure an interaction between native speakers over a set task. In the Space ..,>:,?+', ..,>:,?+', ,/- Games series, a native speaker 'director' describes a stimulus to a native speaker \ , -.:

further, to isolate the propositional content used to makc the functional distinc- tion. For example, 'man to left of tree' may contrast with 'man to right of tree'; propositions in terms of 'man to south of tree' and 'man to north of tree' may make the same functional contrast, but involve different semantic parameters (or propositions) - in this case. different frames of reference. A number of other 'games' of this sort have been e~nployedby the authors of the chapters below to arrive at their general conclusions about how spatial description works in the languages in question. For example, another game (the Route Directions task) was specifically devised to elucidate frames of reference in motion description, and involved a director describing the motion of a toy man through a model landscape in such a way that the matcher could emulate it in an identical landscape.

1.4.3 The Frog Story As an example of the stimuli that may be used to obtain motion descriptions, we have chosen the 'Frog Story' to exemplify different patterns of motion description across languages. The story comes from the wordless picture-book Frog, where areyo~t?by M. Mayer (1 969), published as a first book for children. It has been successfully used as a stimulus in the study of the development of narrative skills in Western children by Berman and Slobin (1994; the full set of pictures is published there as an appendix). This study has revealed major differences across languages in the way in which complex motion scenes are coded linguistically. The Berman and Slobin procedure (1994: 20) is to present the picture-book to children, who leaf through the twenty-four pages, and then retell the story to an interlocutor as they leaf through the book again. The story is recorded and transcribed in the normal way. As a stimulus for cross-cultural research the Frog Story has certain limi- tations - as Wilkins has pointed out (see Berman and Slobin 1994: 21-2), it presupposes many details of Western semiotic conventions. In many of the cultures reported on in the chapters below, picture-books have no currency at all, and straightforward narratives are not always obtainable. Still, the very fact that it has been used in well over fifty different languages makes it an invaluable point of comparison. Except where noted below, the Frog Story retellings are by adults to other native speaker adults who have not seen the Figure 1.3 Men and Tree Game 2 book. For the purposes of this book, as an illustration of complex motion descrip- 2.3. 2.4 and 2.5 in the figure. The discourse that results from the game can be tion, we have chosen four pictures that detail a crucial event in the story (what transcribed and queried, and can also be systematically coded for comparative Slobin calls a jounzey - see 5 1.5.2 below), where a boy (the hero of the book) is purposes. A method of coding for this particular game is described in Pederson picked up on the antlers of a deer and, with his dog running beside, is taken to a et al. 1998. The coding method allows one to isolate expressions that can be cliff and dumped over the cliff into a pond. This allows us to compare how such said to be.fil/zction~~Ilecluivcrler~t, in that they make the same distinctions, and complex events are coded. how manner and path (or trajectory) are expressed. how sdurce and goal are specified. and how simultaneous vs. seqi~entialevents 14 Stoplien C. Levm.ron arzcl David I? Wilkrn r Background to the study of the language of space 15 -- - I discriminating, for example, motion to vs. towards vs. obliquely towards the deictic centre. The questionnaire and some results are described in Wilkins and Hill 1995. Another such tool is the ENTERIEXIT elicitation film designed by S. Kita, where motion vs. change of state are precisely distinguished. Some of the interesting contrasts here are exemplified in the Japanese chapter below (see also Kita 1999, Senft 1999b).

1.5 Patterns of variation In the conclusions to this book, the reader will find a systematic comparison of the patterns of variation exemplified in the languages described in this book. But here it will be useful to preview some of the themes and provide some comparative terminology to aid the reading of the individual chapters. Each chapter touches on the three sub-domains mentioned earlier - topology, motion verbs and frames of reference - and we will take these in turn.

1.5.1 Tc)~?olo,~y When comparing spatial language it is essential of course to compare like with like, and specifically to specify ,furzctioaul eq~~ivalerzr.s.Since all languages appear to have Where-questions, we can use this as a functional frame: we will call the predominant construction that occurs in response to a Where- question (of the kind 'Where is the X?') the basic locntive construction or BLC for short. (Note that this expression is a shorthand for 'the construction used in the basic locative function' - constructions can have different functions.) Locative descriptions, of course, occur outside the Where-question context. as in a guidebook description of the kind Tlie Crarlzedml .stands at the l~eartof the old city, overlookirzg the Rhirze. Notice that such a sentence would be odd indeed as an answer to a Where-question. which is more likely to be something of the kind It's in tlie central square, where the locative verb is he and the Figure 1.4 The cliff scene from the Frog Story location is given in terms of a concrete landmark. For English, then, the BLC is of the form NP BE PP, where the first NP (noun phrase) is the figure, and the are coded. More detailed analyses of these descriptions in Arrernte and Tzeltal PP (prepositional phrase) expresses the ground, as in Tlie a1717lc i.s in the howl. can be found in Wilkins (1997b), and Brown (2000). Different languages have quite different structures in their BLCs. Some, of course, have no prepositions, or adpositions, using case marking and/or spa- tial nominals instead (as in 'square-LOCATIVE' or 'square middle' or 'square 1.4.4 Other elicitation tools middle-LOCATIVE'). Some languages have no locative verb, assimilating the BLC to nominal predication, but more often there are a number of locative verbs A number of other, more carefully designed elicitation devices for motion to chose from. Many languages have a small set of locative verbs orpositionals, semantics are referred to in the chapters below. One of these is the 'COME' often related to posture verbs like 'stand', 'sit', 'lie', but also often including and 'GO' Questionnaire, a series of scenes devised to elucidate deictic distinc- predicates like 'hang'. These then contrast and their usage is usually determined tions in motion verbs. This questionnaire provides a series of twenty scenes, by the shape and function of the subject (the figure NP), under certain Background to the study of the language of space 17

Tllc BLC Hie,-rr~.cI~j, adpositions - which have a limited kind of semantic content (Talmy 1985. Landau and Jackendoff 1993. Svorou 1994). As we have just seen. spatial Li/ieli/~oo~/of' other con.c.trzrction,s information is in fact potentially distributed across the clause, some languages I. Figure is impaled by Ground putting all the burden in the locative verb, others in case (as in Finnish). 2. Figure is stuck to Ground The semantic content is also not nearly as predictable as these accounts suggest. Landau and Jackendoff suggest, for example, that such semantic 3. Fig~~rcis 'damage' or negative space (e.g. crack, hole) content is abstract and axial, while Talmy suggests it is abstract but topo- 4. Figurc is part of whole (pal? of Ground) logical rather than Euclidean. In fact, as we shall see, the information can 5. Figure is adorn~nentor clothing be very specific and language-particular, I-eflecting cultural preoccupations. Look out, then, in the chapters below, fol- such specificities as the 'aquatic' 6. Figure is inanimate, movable entity in contiguity with Ground ground, or distinctions between different kinds of container built into locative Grecrtel- lik-eliliood of' BLC verbs!

Figure 1.5 The hierarchy of scenes most likely to get BLC coding 1.5.2 Motion orientational constraints (see. e.g., Chapter 5 on YClF Dnye). Other languages As a first approximation, we can say that motion involves spatial change, have a much larger set of cli.rl>ositioncrlpredicates used in the BLC, where the although, as we will see, perhaps not all change of spatial relations involves precise orientation and disposition of the subject with respect to the ground is motion. Change involves time, and dynamic change over time is the typical the crucial determinant of choice (see, e.g., Chapter 7 on Tzeltal). province of verbs. There has been a great deal of linguistic theorizing about the The BLC is th~~sconstructed from distinct form classes -adpositions, nominal nature of the semantic content of verbs in general, and verbs of motion in par- predicates, case inflections, locative verbs - according to the language. These ticular (see Frawley 1992, Chapter 4, for a useful survey). Here we will review choices al-e themselves influenced not only by semantic factors but also by a number of recurring themes - the typology of lexical packaging in motion systematic pragmatic factors. In many cases the BLC may be abbreviated. This verbs, the underlying notions of path and manner, the tendency in languages is not merely ellipsis (as in Wlzerc's the cul? - On tlze tnhle), but a systematic for motion verbs to constitute minor form classes, the way in which source and way of indicating that figure and ground are in a canonical or stereotypical goal are encoded, and constraints on the complexity of motion co'mponents that relation, as in the use of the locative case without further specification (as in can be packaged within the single clause. 'The cup table-AT', where this will be understood as 'The CLIP is table-top- Talmy (1 985) influentially proposed a major typological dichotomy between AT'). Pragmatics provides some theory for understanding these alternations different kinds of motion coding in languages: verb-framed vs. satellite-framed. (Levinson 2000a), although as a practical matter it is not always easy to decide The typology rests on a dissection of the components in a motion event into whether the BLC has a reduced form, expanded in certain circumstances, or (a) the figure, i.e. the thing moving, (b) the ground, specifying source or goal of has an underlying expanded form, reduced in certain circumstances. motion, or both. (c) the path or trajectory of the motion, (d) manner of motion, Even in response to Where-questions, languages generally deploy a number (e) the predicated event itself (other elements are the site or medium in which of quite different constri~ctions.Identifying the BLC relies on the notion of the motion takes place, and the means 01-instrument of motion). Thus in Tlie a pi-ototypical kind of scene - e.g. a moveable object on a restricted surface. bird,flew up into a tree, the figure is the bird, the ground is the tree, the path Speakers of many languages will not use their BLCs to describe, for example, is expressed by L~I?into, and the predicated motion together with manner of a ring on a finger. or a crack in a vase, or a spike through an apple - they motion is expressed by ,flew. Talmy's typology rests on a simple observation: may use other specialized constructions or resultative constructions (as in 'The languages tend either to package the path with the predication, as in Spanish spike has been speared through the apple'). In fact, it turns out that spatial erztrar 'to go in', scrr'ir 'to go out', cruzcrr 'to go across', leaving manner to scenes can be ordered in what we shall call tlze BLC Hiercrl-clzy according to the an additional clause or gerund, or alternatively to package the predication with likelihood that they will be encoded using the BLC. A portion of the hierarchy manner, leaving the path to be expressed in 'satellites' as in the English particles is depicted in Figure 1.5. Linguistic theorizing about topological relations has in run in, crawl up, clinih down. Although the two types cleal-ly do capture suggested that spatial relations are concentrated in spatial relators - typically major differences in the way in which motion is packaged in languages, the Stc>p/ic>r~C. Levinson and David P. Wilkins Background to the study of the language of space 19

by suffixes attached to non-motion verbs, encoding motion components such as 'do upwards while VERB-ing' or 'VERB while going back'. Such rich verbal conflation, e.g. saliu 'associated motion' categories may be an isolated areal feature, but many of A the other languages exemplified in this book have more limited categories of Figure Predication Manner Path Ground this sort encoded elsewhere than in the verb root. So far, we have been concentrating primarily on the semantics of the verb, and different kinds of lexical packaging of the verb in cross-linguistic perspec- tive. But for comparative purposes we need to consider larger units of motion c.g. crawl e.g. out of description, what Slobin (1996) calls a jounzey: an extended, complex path Satellite-fuamd pattern that can include 'milestones' and subpaths each with sources and goals, possi- bly situated in different media. For example, the Frog Story scene pictured in Figure 1.6 Talrny's (1 985) typology of path encoding Figure 1.4 was described by an English-speaking five-year-old as He threw hiin over a clif into a pond, or by a nine-year old as He [tlze deer] starts running typology has been subject to critique and revision.' A simple difficulty is that and lze ti17.s hiin qfl over a cl~ffinto tlze water: And lze lands. (Slobin 1996: many languages allow both kind of packaging (as in English go in vs. enter), 202). Slobin points out that this kind of accumulation of prepositional phrases requiring Talmy to discern what he calls the 'characteristic mode of expression' is vanishingly rare in Spanish Frog-stories, where only one prepositional phrase (thus English is satellite-framed, with Romance loans displaying the contrary per clause tends to occur. Slobin analyses this as a stylistic feature induced by type in a minority, but many languages resist this kind of easy conclusion). structural facts. But in some of the languages described below there seem to be More problematic is what exactly is to count as a satellite, since many different hard grammatical constraints on the number of ground-specifying phrases: thus form classes may carry path or trajectory information - are deverbal directionals both YCli Dnye and Yukatek seem to allow at most one such phrase per clause - as in the Mayan languages satellites or verbs (see the chapters on Tzeltal and specification of both source and goal will require two clauses of the kind 'He left Yukatek below)'? Some languages have very restricted inventories of verbs, but the source, and arrived at the goal.14 Further, it will turn out that the actual cod- supplement them with pl-everbs or coverbs - see, for example, the chapters on ing of source and goal is cross-linguistically variable, being sometimes coded Warrwa and Jaminjung below - and it is then no longer clear how to apply the on these adjuncts, sometimes coded in the verb, and sometimes both. In the typology. final chapter we will propose a typology of this kind of variation. Another doubt is raised by the notion of path. The core of a motion event Finally, another interesting dimension of variation concerns the extent to might be thought to be displacement of the figure in space along a trajectory, which languages use the same resources in the description of motion vs. stasis. where this trajectory constitutes the path. But carefi11 analysis suggests that Again, Talmy has suggested that they universally tend to do so, since static loca- in some languages the displacement of the figure over time along a trajectory tives are derivative from or modelled on motion descriptions. Thus in English, is not actually what is coded by motion verbs. We tend to think that motion He went out oft11e ofice is very similar in structure to He is out of tlze office. But must be conceptualized as tmnslocation, that is as a durative event involving some languages make very fundamental distinctions between the two domains. passage through an indefinite series of points in space over time. But there Tzeltal, for example, uses quite different resources in the two domains - are other possibilities, with different Aktionsarten, and differential focus on even frame-of-reference information has different coding in stasis vs. motion. figure-ground relations. In fact, on the basis of the kind of work reviewed in the Further comparisons on this dimension will be found in the final chapter of the chapters below (and see especially the chapter on Japanese), we will propose book. in the final chapter a new semantic typology of motion conceptualization. Incidentally, although much of the dynamic component of motion events tends cross-linguistically to be encoded in verbs, this is not exclusively so. 1.5.3 Frames of reference Many languages have special constructions that indicate 'motion while doing' As already sketched above, once a figure object is removed in space from a or 'motion with purpose'. In the languages detailed below, Arrernte provides a relevant ground object or landmark, it becomes pertinent to specify a direction, case where there is an elaborate array of fifteen alternative categories, indicated

"his contradicts assumptions in the literat~~rethat all languages permit both source and goal to ' Sce Frawlcy 1992. Schulvc-Berndt 2000. Talmy 2000. Slobin n.d. be simultaneously encoded in the clause. See, e.g., Frawley 1992: 173. Backgro~lndto the study of the lang~lageof spacc 2 1 or angle. relative to the landmark in which the figure may be found. Such mixture of criteria- the 'front' of a truck is the direction in which it moves, the angi~laror directional specifications of location require some form of coordinate 'front' of a television the side one watches, the 'front' of a building the side one system. Natural languages seem to employ only polar coordinates, specifying normally enters, and so on. These criteria thus include canonical orientation of a direction by rotation around a ground object. As mentioned, there seem to object, functional orientation, normal direction of motion, characteristic orien- be only three major abstract types: intrinsic, relative and absolute. These have tation of the user, etc. (see Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976: 400-5). But some different logical and rotational properties, which make the distinctions quite languages partition objects by more consistent criteria - for example, Tzeltal clear. uses almost exclusively the internal geometry of the ground object (according Consider, for example, a spatial array of the following kind: a toy man is to its longest axes and the shapes of sides - see the chapter below and Levin- placed at the front of a toy truck on a rotatable board. In the case of the relative son 1994). Interestingly, Tzeltal largely ignores orientation with respect to the and absolute frames of reference, the angular distinctions are mapped onto vertical, while many languages make this fundamental, what is 'top' becoming the scene fi-om outside it. using the observer's own axes (as in 'The man is to 'bottom' upon I-otation. There are thus many fundamentally different ways in the left of the truck') in the relative frame. and fixed absolute bearings (as in which this assignment of parts or facets to an object can be achieved. Despite 'The man is to the north of the truck') in the absolute frame. Now if we rotate these arbitrary complexities, children seem to master these notions surprisingly the board. the description of the scene will change - the man is now to the right early. of the truck, or to the south of it. But in the intrinsic frame of reference the The relative frame of reference involves a mapping from the observer's own angles are found by naming a designated facet of a landmark or ground object axes (front, back, left, right) onto the ground ob.ject. so that. for example, one (like 'at the front of') within the scene to be described, and if the whole scene can say 'The cat is in font of the tree' by deriving a front for a tree from the is rotated the description may stay the same (as in 'The man is at the front of observer's front - in this case, clearly, by assigning a front to the tree as if the the truck'). The intrinsic frame is thus sometimes said to be 'orientation free', tree was a confronting interlocutor. These mappings are complex, involving a while the other two frames are 'orientation bound'. However, the latter also triangulation of figure, ground and viewer, and they can be made in different differ in their rotational properties - if the describer walks around the scene to ways - in some languages the 'front' of the tree is the far side of the tree (as in the other side, the relative description changes (now 'The man is to the right the well-known Hausa case, Hill 1982), and in others. what we would call the of the truck') but the absolute description remains the same (the man is still 'to left side of the tree is the right! There are at least three distinct types of such the north of the truck'). mappings attested, and languages may mix them (for the details see Levinson These fundamental semantic differences justify the typology into three 1996b, 2003). An additional source of complexity is that some languages, like main Lypes (see Levinson 1996b, 2003 for additional properties). Incidentally, English, use the same terms like 'front' and 'left' in both the intrinsic and relative althoi~ghthe three main types had been distinguished on the vertical dimension frames of reference. Thus 'The tree is to the left of the man' may be ambiguous: by psychologists interested in perception. it was not until the comparative work it may mean that the man is facing us, with the tree at his left hand. and thus to exemplified in this volume that it became clear that these types also structure our right (an intrinsic interpretation), or it may mean that the tree is in the left the linguistic distinctions on the horizontal plane - partly because languages visual field regardless of the man's orientation (a relative interpretation). Some systematically using the absolute frame of reference on the horizontal had not languages reduce the ambiguity, either structurally (requiring, e.g., a possessive before been properly described. like 'the man's left' for the intrinsic interpretation), or by procedural rule (as Despite the fact that there are from a logical and rotational point of view only in Kilivila where an intrinsic interpretation takes priority over a relative one three main types of frame of reference, there is nevertheless within each of the wherever the ground has inherent named sides). These systematic interactions three main types a great deal of variation in conceptualization and coding. This between the intrinsic and the relative frame of reference are thus further sources is beca~~sethese directional properties can be constructed in rather different of variation. ways. Let LIS take the three frames of reference one by one and examine the The absolute frame of reference in ordinary language use requires tixed kind of internal variation they exhibit. bearings that are instantly available to all members of the community. English The intrinsic frame of reference requires some kind of partitioning of the has a word for 'north', but few Englishmen can effortlessly and reliably point ground ob.ject or landmark into named facets, from which search domains can to north, and it does not figure in normal discourse about small-scale spatial be projected. All languages provide at least some such segmentations, and nearly relations. Nor do we have clear conventions about what range of horizontal all use them in spatial descriptions. English or Dutch does this by a complex arc will count as north. But there are many communities where conventional 22 Steph(.n C. Lcwin.~ot~cind David I? Wilkins Background to the study of the language of space

fixed arcs are established and instantly available to all competent speakers of the chapters. In that case, readers may like to go straight to the conclusions, get the local language. Such a system can then make the relative frame of reference an idea of the variations in the specific spatial sub-domains, and then go back irrelevant and unnecessary, and there are thus many languages which do not to the chapters, or, alternatively, they may prefer to read the chapters for their employ a relative 'front', 'back', 'left', 'right' system. Absolute coordinates own conclusions. Either way, we guarantee that no reader of this volume will can be based on many different sources - solar compass, sidereal motion, wind come away without a much deeper appreciation of the richness and surprising directions, river drainage, mountain slopes, and many of these show up in variation of this important semantic domain. language systems. For example, in this volume, the Tenejapan Tzeltal system is transparently based on mountain slope, and the Jaminjung system on river drainage. More abstract systems, as exemplified by Arrernte in this volume, are probably based on a fusion of different cues, e.g. solar compass and prevailing winds. What is essential about such systems, if they are to function in everyday communication on a range of scales, is that speakers have internalized the fixed directions so that, for example, in an unfamiliar building in the dark, they still know where the named directions lie. A major dimension of variation concerns the selection from this inventory of three main types of frames of reference. Although some languages use all three, most languages make do with two frames of reference in everyday communi- cation - in particular, many use either the relative or the absolute frame but not both. The intrinsic frame of reference is nearly always present, at least in some residual form. Where more than one frame of reference is available, each may have restrictions on its use - for example in Tenejapan Tzeltal, once objects are substantially separated in space, the intrinsic frame is dropped in favour of the absolute one. Scale may also be a relevant factor. so that objects on a table top may be described in a different frame from houses in a village. Where all three frames of reference are available. one can expect scale differences to play a role in which frame is normally used in which circumstances (although the restriction of the absolute frame to large-scale space is perhaps a European association). In summary, then. frame-of-reference coding in language can vary on many dimensions. Although there appear to be only three available frames. a language may draw on only one or two of them, each of them can be constructed in quite different ways, and usage of them may be combined and constrained in restricted ways.

1.6 Conclusion We hope in this introduction to have given the reader sufficient background to read the individual chapters within a comparative perspective. In the conclusions to this book, we provide a detailed summary of some of the major patterns of variation exemplified in the twelve languages for which detailed chapter-length sketches are given. Because contrastive cases are compared in the conclusions, readers may like to use the conclusions as a road-map to help them navigate References 577

1998. Les particules Cnonciatives en Ewe. In S. Platiel and R. Kabore (eds.). Les 1ar1gue.s rl'Afl.ique S~th,salzarierzrze(pp. 179-204). Faits de Langues 1 1-1 2. Paris: References Ophrys. 1999. Spatial information packaging in Ewe and Likpe: A comparative perspective. In S. Neumann (ed.), Comparirzg African spaces (pp. 7-34). Frankfurter Afrikanis- tische Blatter I I. Cologne: Riidiger Koppe. 2003a. 'Today is far': Situational anaphors in overlapping constructions in Ewe. In M. E. Kropp Dakubu and K. Osam (eds.). Studies iri the 1anguage.s of tlze Volta Basin 1 (pp. 9-22). Legon: Dept. of Linguistics, University of Ghana. 2003b. Prepositions and postpositions in Ewe (Gbe): Empirical and theoretical con- siderations. In P. Sauzet and A. Zibri-Hertz (eds.), T~y~oloxiedes 1arzgue.s qfriques Adelaar. K. A. 1997. An exploration of directional systems in West Indonesia and et urziver.saux de la grarnmaire, Vol. 11: Benue-Kwa, Wolof (pp. 41-67). Paris: Madagaskru-. In G. Senft (ed.), Rqfi.rriri,g to space: Studies in A~tstrorzesianand L'Harmattan. Ptrp~roriIrrngucrgc~.~ (pp. 53-8 1). Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 15. Ameka, F. K., de Witte. C. and Wilkins, D. P. 1999. A picture series for positional verbs: Oxford: Cli~rendonPress. Eliciting the verbal component in locative descriptions. In D. P. Wilkins (ed.), A Adzomada. J. K. 1979. L'Ect

Ayres, G. and Pfeiler. B. 1997. Lo.s verl>ostnnyas. La conjugucicjri en el maya yucateco Bohnemeyer, J. and Brown P. (in press). Standing divided: Dispositional verbs and riioderrzo [The Mayan verbs. Conjugation in modem Yukatek Maya]. MCrida, locative predications in two Mayan languages. To appear in F. Ameka and S. C. YucatBn: Ediciones de la Universidad Aut6noma de Yucatan (Tratados; 4). Levinson (eds.), Special issue of Linguistics. University of Buffalo - SUNY. Baldwin, B. 1945. Usituma! A song of heaven. Oceania 15: 201-38. Bolt, J. E., Hoddinott, W. G. and Kofod, F. M. 1971a. An elementary grammar of the 1950. Kadaguwai songs of the Trobriand Isles. Oceania 20: 263-85. Ngaliwuru language of the Northern Territory. Unpublished manuscript. Australian Barbiers. S. 1998. English and Dutch as SOV-languages and the distribution of CP- Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. complements. In R. van Bezooi.jen and R. Kager (eds.), Ling~listicsirz tlze Nether- 1971b. An elementary grammar of the Nungali language of the Northern Territory. 1ancf.v (pp. 13-26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Unp~~blishedmanuscript, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Barrera-VLisquez, A. 1946. La Lengua Maya de Yucatlin [The Mayan language of Boogaart, R. J. U. 1999. Aspect and temporal ordering. A contrastive analysis of Dutch Yucatan]. ErzcicIope~/i~~YL~caterzeri.se. Vol. VI (pp. 205-92). MCxico, DF: Gobiemo and English. PhD dissertation, Free University Amsterdam. de Yucatin. Bowden, J. 1992. Beliind the pre/?o,sitiori. Grainmaticalisatiori ~f'locativesiiz Oceanic Barrera-Vssquez. A. et al. 1980. Dicciotiario Melya Cordemex. MCrida, Yucatin: Edi- languages. Pacific Linguistics Series B-107. Canberra: Australian National Uni- ciones Cordemex. versity. Becquelin, A. 1997. Purlons Tzc~lral:UITO larigue Maya du Mexiyue. Paris: L'Harmattan. Bowerman, M. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic Belien, M. 2002. Force dynamics in static propositions: Dutch uarz, op and tegen. In perspective. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. Garrett (eds.), Larzg~luge 1-1. Cuyckens and G. Radden (eds.). perspective.^ on pre/?ositiorzs (pp. 195-209). and .space (pp. 385-436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. Breen, G. and Pensaltini. R. 1999. Arrernte: A language with no syllable onsets. Lin- Beltrlin de Santa Rosa, P. 1746. Arte clc~el idior7ia Maya reducirlo LI s~tccirztasreglas [Art guistic Inquiry 30: 1-25. of the Maya idiom, reduced to succinct rule]. Box 46, Folder 1, William E. Gates Bricker, V. R. 1981. Grammatical introduction. In E. Po'ot Yah (ed.), YucntecM~y~lverhs Collection, Harold B. Lee Library. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University. (Hocaba dialect) (pp. vi-xlvii). [With a grammatical introduction by Victoria R. Berlin, B. 1968. Tzeltal rzui?zeral cla.s,s(fier.s: A st~idvin etlzrzogr~rphicsemantics. The Bricker. Trans. James Ward.] Tulane: Center for Latin American Studies, Tulane Hague: Mouton. University (Latin American Studies Curriculum Aids). Berlin. B.. Kaufinan. T. and Maffi, L. 1990. Un diccionario h6sico clel Tzeltal de Terze- 1986. A granzrlzar c?fMavari hieroglypks. Middle American Research Institute Publi- ,jupa, Cliiapu.~,Mixico. Procomith Project, University of California, Berkeley. cation 56. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University. Berman. R. and Slobin. D. 1. 1994. Relatirig events in rzarmtive: A cro.s.slinguisticdevel- Bricker, V. R., Po'ot Yah, E. and Dzul de Po'ot, 0. 1998. A Dicfiorztrry of the Maya opr7ieiital stndy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. laizguuge as spoke11 irz Hocabt?, Yucardn. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Bickel, B. 1997. Spatial operations in deixis, cognition, and culture: Where to orient one- Britto, F. 1986. Diglossia: A .stucl~>of tlze ikeoi-.v with upplicatiorz to Tamil. Washington, self in Belllare. In J. Nuyts and E. Pederson (eds.), Larzg~la~c!andconceptualization DC: Georgetown University Press. (pp. 46-83). Cambridge: Cambridge Universily Press. Broekhuis, H. 2002. Adpositions and adposition phmses. MGD O~~cc~sioncrlPupers 3. Blair, R. W. 1964. Yucatec Maya noun and verb morphosyntax. PhD dissertation, Indiana University of Tilburg. University. Bloomington. Brown, P. 1991. Spatial conceptualization in Tzeltal. Working Paper No. 6. Cogni- Blair, R. W. and Vermont-Salas. R. 1965-7. Spoken (Yucatec) Maya. Chicago: University tive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck lnstitute for Psycholinguistics. of Chicago, Dept. of Anthropology. Ms. on Microfilm. Nijmegen. Blake, B. 1987. A~tstruli~rizAhorigirz~rl Grui71171~1r. London: Croom Helm. 1993. The role of shape in the acquisition of Tzeltal (Mayan) locatives. In E. V. Bohnemeyer, J. 1997. Yucatec Mayan lexicalization patterns in time and space. In M. Clark (ed.), Proceedings ofthe 25th Cliild krrzgua,ge Research For~trli(pp. 21 1- Biemans and J. v.d. Weijer (eds.). Proceedings ofthe CLS o/?enirzg acadenzic year 20). Stanford, CA: CSLI. 1997-1998 (pp. 73-106). Tilburg: Center for Language Studies. 1994. The INS and ONs ofTzeltal locativeexpressions: The semantics of static descrip- 2002. Tlie ~rtrr1ir7zcir(?f'tiriz~ r(

2003. Position and motion in Tzeltal frog stories: The acquisition of narrative style. 2003. The experiencer role in the expression of mental states and activities ill Trio. In S. Stromqvist and L. Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events irz rzarrative: Typological AmPrindia 28: I6 1-82. arid c.oritextutr1per.spective.s (pp. 37-57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2004. A grcrmmcrr of Trio: A Ctrribar~larz~uuge oj'S~lrinarne. Duisburger Arbeiten Brown, P. and Levinson. S. C. 1992. 'Left' and 'right' in Tenejapa: Investigating a zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, Vol. 55. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang linguistic and conceptual gap. In L. de Le6n and S. C. Levinson (eds.), Space (Europlischer Verlag der Wissenschaften). in Arizeririrlitrn larzguages. Special issue of Zeitschriji ,fur Plzonetik, Sprachwis- 2006. The verbalizers in Trio (Cariban): A semantic description. In J. Grazyna .sensckafi ~triclKomm~~riikatiorz.~f'or.sch~~ng 45(6): 590-6 1 1 . Rowicka and E. B. Carlin (eds.), WI~trt:s iri LI 1~er/7S1~rdie.s in the 1vrI~n1riior- 1993a. 'Uphill' and 'downhill' in Tzeltal. Jo~lrnalof Lirzguistic Anthropology 3(1): pho1og.v of the langucrge.~~ftli~ Ariic~rica.~. LOT Occasional Series. Utrecht. the 46-74. Netherlands: LOT. 1993b. Linguistic and nonlinguistic coding of spatial arrays: Explorations in Mayan Carroll, M. and von Stutterheim, C. 1993. The representation of spatial configurations cognition. Working Paper No. 24. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max in English and German and the grammatical structure of locative and anaphoric Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. expressions. Linguistics 3 1 : 10 1 141 . 1993c. Shaping the world: Semantic distinctions of shape and orientation in Tzeltal Chadwick, N. 1984. The relationship of Jingulu and Jamil~jungan. Unpublished roots. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association meetings, manuscript, School of Australian Linguistics, Batchelor. Washington. DC. 1997. The Barkly and Jaminjungan languages: A non-contiguous genetic 2000. Frames of spatial reference and their acquisition in Tenejapan Tzeltal. In L. grouping. In D. T. Tryon and M. Walsh (eds.), Boun~ltrry rider: St~ld- Nucci. G. Saxe and E. Turiel (eds.), Cult~~rc',tliought and development (pp. 167- ic2s iri the lexicology arirl corizparutive 1irig~1i.stic.sof Au,st,mlian lariguagr.~ 97). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp. 95-106). Pacific Linguistics Series C-136. Canberra: Australian National Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (in prep.). Tilted worlds: The language and cognition of University. space in a Mayan community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Choi, S. and Bowerman, M. 199 1. Learning to express motion events in English and Biihler. K. 1934. S/7rcrc/it/2eorie.Die Darstellung.~fLinktiorider Sprache. Jena: Gustav Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cogriitiori 41 : Fischer. 83-121. Burrow, T. and Emeneau, M. B. 1984. A Dravidinn etylnological dictiorzary (2nd edn). Clark, E. 1978. Locationals: Existential, locative. and possessive constructions. In J. H. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press. Greenberg (ed.), Univcr.scrl.s of huri~uliIu~igutrg~. Vol. IV: SYII~LIX(pp. 85-1 26). Campbell. L. and Kaufman, T. 1990. Lingiiistica Mayance: id6nde nos encontramos Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ahora? [Mayan linguistics: where are we now?] In N. C. England and S. R. Elliot Claudi, U. and Heine, B. 1986. On the metaphorical base of grammar. St~rc1ie.siri Ltrri- (eds.), Lectures sobre la lingiiistica Mava [Lectures on Mayan linguistics] guuge 10: 297-335. (pp. 51-8). La Antigua. Guatemala: Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Clements, G. N. 1972. The verbal syntax of Ewe. PhD dissertation. University of London. MesoamCrica. 1979. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journtrl of West Africcrri Capell. A. 1940. The classification of languages in north and north-west Australia. Larzg~rtrges1 0(2): 14 1-77. Occ~aiiia10: 24 1-72.404-33. Cleverly, J. R. 1968. A preliminary study of the phonology and grammar of D,jamindjung. 1969. A sut-vc,v of New Guinecl 1arzjiuage.s. Sydney University Press. Unpublished manuscript, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. 1976. General picture of Austronesian languages, New Guinea area. In S. A. Wurm Collins, C. 1993. Topics in Ewe syntax. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of (ed.). Ausrroric,sian 1arz~gua~ge.s- New Guinea area lang~~agesand larzguage study, Technology, Amherst. Vol. I1 (pp. 5-52). Pacitic Linguistics Series C-39. Canberra: Australian National 1997. Argument sharing in serial verbconstructions. Lirzg~listicI~icl~rir-y 28(3): 46 1-97. University. Coronel, J. 1620. Arte, en lerig~~uMtr.vcr [Art of the Mayan language]. Box 46, Folder 2. Capo. H. B. C. 1979. Notes on language differentiation: Lessons from a Gbe dialect William E. Gates Collection. Harold B. Lee Library. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young survey. Aritlirol~ologic~alLirigui.stic.s 2 1 : 4 1942. University. 199 1. A co~npcrrc-rtivc~phonology of Gbe. Berlin and Garome: de Gruyter (Foris) and Creissels, D. 2000. Typology. In B. Heine and D. Nurse (eds.). Afticcrri Itrn,g~mgc~.s:Ari LABOGBE. iritroductior~(pp. 23 1-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carlin. E. B. 1997. Nominal possession in Trio. In J. Coerts and H. de Hoop (eds.). Crowley, T. 1987. Serial verbs in Paamese. Studies in Lung~rngc.I 1: 35-84. Lirigui~ticsin the Netlzerlar?ds (pp. 25-36). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Ben- Cunningham, W. 1990. Buki Rlpwcrroro. Hong Kong: Caritas Printing Training Center. jamins. Cuyckens, H. 1991. The semantics of spatial prepositions in Dutch: A cognitive- 1998. Speech community formation: A sociolinguistic profile of the Trio of Suriname. linguistic exercise. PIID dissertation, University of Antwerp. New West Indian Guide/Nieuwe West-Indische Gids 72(1/2): 442. Danziger, E. 1998. Getting here from there: The acquisition of 'Point of View' in Mopan 1999. WYSIWYG in Amazonia: The grammatical expression of truth and knowledge. Maya. In E. Danziger (ed.). Lcrr7jiuu,ye, sptrco, trrid c~rlt~~r~.Special issue of Ethos .lournu1 of the Antkrol,olo,qical Society of Oxford 30: 23345. 26(1): 48-72. 582 References References 583

Dayley. J. P. 198 1. Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages. Jo~trnalofMayan Linguis- 2002. The syntax of inherent complement verbs in Ewe. In F. K. Ameka and E. K. tics 2(2): 3-82. Osam (eds.), New directions in Ghanaiarz 1irzg~iistic.s(pp. 55-84). Accra: Black 1990. Voz y ergadividad en idiomas Mayas [Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages]. Mask. In N. C. England and S. R. Elliott (eds.), Lecturas sohre la lingiiistica Maya (in press). The potential in Ewe: A reexamination of the so-called -a future marker. [Lectures on Mayan linguistics] (pp. 335-98). La Antigua, Guatemala: Centro In F. K. Ameka and M. K. Dakubu (eds.), Aspect and /nodality in Kwa lang~iages de lnvestigaciones Regionales de MesoamCrica. of Gharza. De Goeje, C. H. 1909. Grammaire et vocabulaire de la langue Trio. In C. H. De Evans, N. 1995.A Gramrnar~fKayardild.Mouton Grammar Library 15. Berlin: Mouton Goeje (ed.). &tudes 1irzgui.stiques caraihes (pp. 181-244). Amsterdam: Johannes de Gruyter. Miiller. Evans, N. and Wilkins, D. 2000. The knowing ear: An Australian test of universal claims Dench. A. C. 1995. Mart~itlz~~nira.A language oftlze Pilhara region qf Western Australia. about the semantic structure of sensory verbs and their extension into the domain Pacific Linguistics Series C-125. Canberra: Australian National University. of cognition. Language 76(3): 546-92. Derbyshire, D. C. 1979. Hixkar.yana. Lingua Descriptive Studies, Vol. I. Amsterdam: Fellows, S. B. 1901. Grammar of the Kiriwina dialect (together with a vocabulary). North-Holland Publishing Company. Annual report on Brtitish New Guinea 1900-1901. Brisbane: G. A. Vaughan, 1999. Carib. In R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), TheAmazonian languages Government Printer. Appendix N 2. 171-77. Appendix 0 2. 177-96. (pp. 23-64). Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Foley, W. 1986. Tlze Papuan larz~quuge,~of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. University Press. Dhamotharan, A. 1972. A Grammar of Tirukkural, Vol. V. Delhi: South Asia Institute, Frawley, W. 1992. Lirzg~listic.sernuntic,s. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. University of Heidelberg. Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Lun,quuge 68(3): 553-95. Dixon. R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language qfNorth Queerzsland. Cambridge Studies Frikel, P. 1961. Fases culturais e aculturaqBo intertribal no Tumucumaque. Boletiin do in Linguistics, 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Museu Paraense Enzilio Goeldi, nova sCrie, no. 16 (sCrie Antropologia). 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59-138. Gavua, K. 2000. A Izandl?ook of Eweland, Vol 11: Tlze rzorrkerrz Ewes irz Gkurza. Accra: 1980. The 1anguage.s of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woeli Publishers. 1994. Ergativi/y. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69. Cambridge: Cambridge Geerts, G., Haeseryn, W., de Rooij, J. and van den Toorn, M. C. 1984. AIgemer~~Ned- University Press. erlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Donaldson, B. C. 1997. Dufcli: A co~npreherz~ivegrammar. London: Routledge. Geerts, G. and Heestermans, H. 1995. Van Dale groot woordenboek der Nederlandse Downs, R. M. and Stea, D. 1977. Maps in mirzds. Reflections on cognitive mapping. New Taal. Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie. York: Harper and Row. Geoghegan, R. 1971. Manifolds of piecewise linear maps and a related normed linear Dryer, M. S. 1997. Postpositional clitics vs. case suflires. Paper presented to ALT I1 space. Bulletin of the Anzericnrz Matlzeillatical Society 77: 629-32. Conference. Eugene. OR: University of Oregon. Gildea, S. 1995. A comparative description of syllable reduction in the cariban language Durie, M. 1997. Grammatical structures in verb serialization. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan family. lnternatiorzal .lo~irnnlofAmerican Lirzguistics 61 : 62-1 02. and P. Sells (eds.), Complex predicates (pp. 289-354). Stanford, CA: Center for 1998. On reconstr~ictirtggrarnmar: Cornl?arutive Cariharz nior~~lzo.s.vrztax.New Yorkl the Study of Language and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Durr, M. 1991. Reference to space in colonial Quiche. In P. Gdmez Ldpez et al. Givdn, T. 1990. Verb serialization in Tok Pisin and Kalam: A comparative study of (eds.), Est~ldiossobre lenguas arnerindias (pp. 47-78). Universidad de Guadala- temporal packaging. Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin. In J. W. M. Verhaar (ed.), jara. Guadalajara: Centro de Investigacidn de Lenguas Indigenas, [Funcidn Num. Proceedings qf tke,first irzterrzational coqfererzce of Pid,qiris und Crc.ole.7 in Melorze- 8 (1988)l. sia (pp. 19-56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Duthie, A. S. 1996. Irztroducing Ewe linguistic patterns. Accra: Ghana Universities Goddard, C. 1985.A grar~irnar~fYank~inytjatjara. Alice Springs: Institute for Aboriginal Press. Development. Edmonson, M. S. 1986. Heaverz born Merida and its destiny. The book of Chilam Balam Goldap, C. 1991. Lokale Relatiorzer~irn Yukatekischea [Spatial Relations in Yukatek]. of Chumayel. The Texas Pan American Series. Austin: University of Texas Press. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. England, N. C. 1978. Space as a Mam grammatical theme. In N. C. England (ed.), Papers 1992. Morphology and semantics of Yucatec space relators. Zeitsckrifi,fur Phorwtik, irz Mayan 1ingui.stic.s (pp. 225-38). Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Spraclzwis,serz,schafi und Ko~nmurzikatio~z.~fc~r.sclzu~45(6): 6 12-25. Essegbey, J. 1994. Anaphoric phenomena in Ewe. MPhil thesis, University of Trond- Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Corz.str~ictiori.s:A constructiorz gramrnar npproaclz to a~-gui?zent heim. structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. 1999. Inherent complement verbs revisited: Towards an understanding of argument Gossen, G. 1974. Cl~anzula.~in the world of the sun: Tinie and space in 0 Maya om1 structure in Ewe. PhD dissertation, Leiden University. tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 584 References References

(ed.) 1986. S~inholernel niecrnin~hcyoncl the clo.sec1 con~niunity:E.ssnys i17 Mesoamer- Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hunnemeyer, F. 1991. Gruriimtrric~crli:c~tio~~:A C~IIL.~~/T~LL~I~ ice111icl(,cl.s. Albany. NY: Institute for Mesoamerican St~ldies. framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Green. I. 1995. The death of 'prefixing': Contact-induced typological change in northern Heine, B., Guldemann, T., Kilian-Hatz. Ch., Lessau, D. A., Roberg. H., Schladt. M. and Australia. P,nc~eecling.softhe Berkelev Ling~risticsSocietv 2 1 : 4 14-25. Stolz, Th. 1993. Concel7t~rulshift: A lexicon of grclmmcrriccrli:latio~~procc2ssc~s in Hale. K. 1982. Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses. In S. Swartz (ed.). African languages. Cologne: lnstitut fur Afrikanistik. Pcrl7m i17 Wcrrll7ir-i ,qmmnlar: In memory of' Lotllar Jcrgst (pp. 2 17-3 15). Work Henderson, J. (ed.) 1986. Arrernte Ave.ve: Arrerrzte Stories. Alice Springs: IAD and Papers of SIL-AAB. Series A. Volume 6. Yipirinya. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Nclt~rralLanguage Henderson, J. 1995. Phonology and grammar of Yele: Papua New Guinea. Pcrcific Li17- ernel Lin~~~isticTl7eo1:~ I : 547. jiui.stics Series B-112, pp. 1-1 10. Hamano. S. 1998. The so~117cl.s~~n7l?olic s.vstem c!f'Japnne.se. Stanford, CA: CSLI and 1998. Topics in Eastern and Central Arrernte grammar. PhD thesis, University of Tokyo: Kuroshio. Western Australia. Hanks, W. F. 1990. R~t?,rentie~lpi-crcticc.: Lon,qun,qe and liveel spaceJ anlong the Maya. 2002. The word in Easter~l/CentralArrernte. 111R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (eds.), Word: A cro.ss-lirzguistic typology (pp. 100-24). Cambridge: Cambridge Harkins, J. and Wilkins. D. P. 1994. Mparntwe Arrernte and the search for lexi- University Press. cal universals. In C. Goddard and A. Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical Henderson, J. and Dobson, V. 1994. Eastern and Cerltrcrl Arrerrlte to Eizglish Dictionclnl. ~oiive~:s~rl.s:Tlieo~:~ ernel ~rnl?iriccrl,findin,q.s (pp. 285-310). Amsterdam: John Alice Springs: IAD Press. Benjamins. Henderson, J. and Henderson. A. (compilers). 1999 1 19871. Nt:u k'opu ~IVLILIu ~LI~LIdnii Hasegawa. Y. 1996. A strrcly r?f'Jcrpane.seclausc~ linkage: The connective TE in Japanese. (Ros.se1-E~z~qli,shdictionary) (rev. edn 1999). Stanford. CA: CSLI and Tokyo: Kuroshio. Hengeveld, K. 1982. Non-verl~alpredication: Theory, typologv, cliclchronv. Functional Haviland. J. 1979. GULI~LIYimidhirr. In R. M. W. Dixon and B. Blake (eds.), Ha~idbook Grammar Series 15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. c~f'A~r.strrrlicrr7Lan,~~~n,~~.s. Vol. I (pp. 27-1 80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Herring, S. C. 1988. Aspect as a discourse category in Tamil. Proceedin~sr?f'tlie Anrz~rnl 198 1. Sk'op Sot:'/c,/~:El Tzotzil d~ SNI?Lot-enzo Zin~c~ntdn.Mexico, DF: UNAM. Meetirzg of the 14th Berkeley Lir7guistic.s Soci~t>1(280-94).Berkeley, CA: Berkeley 1988. It's my own invention: A comparative grammatical sketch of colonial Tzotzil. Linguistics Society. In R. L. Laughlin (ed.), The great T;otzil clictio~zciryof'Sc~nto Dorningo Zinacanta'n, Herskovits, A. 1986. Larzgctnge atzcl ,spatic11copitior7: An int~rdi.sc.i~~lineqst~~clv of' Vol. I (pp. 79-121). Washington. DC: Smithsonian Institute Press. the prepositions in English. Studies in natural language processing. Cambridge: 199 1. The grammaticalization of motion (and time) in Tzotzil. Working Paper No. 2, Cambridge University Press. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguis- Hill, C. 1982. Up/down, frontback. Iefttright: A contrastive study of Hausa and tics, Nijmegen. English. In J. Weissenborn and W. Klein (eds.), Here cine1 there: Cros.s- 1992. Seated and settled: Tzotzil verbs of the body. In L. de Leon and S. C. Levinson linguistic studies on deixis arid demoristrcrtioiz (pp. 1142). Amsterdam: John (eds.). S~LICCin An7erindieln ILIII~LI~~~BS.Special issue of Zeit.schrifi,fi~rPhonetik Benjamins. S/~,urcl7wi.s.sen.sc/i~!fi~111cl Ko1ii111~1/1ikntio17.~fi)r.~cI1~~1z~q 45(6): 543-6 1 . Hoddinott. W. G. and Kofod, F. M. 1976a. Ergative. locative and instrumental case 1993b. The syntax of Tzotzil auxiliaries and directionals: The grammaticalization inflections: Djamindjungan. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Graninzatical categories in of 'motion'. Proc,eedinx.s of the 19th ann~rul~neeting c?fthe Berkeley Linguistics Au,stralian languages (pp. 397401). Linguistic Series 22. Canberra: Australian Societv (pp. 3549). Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 1994. 'Te xa setel xulem' (The buzzards were circling): Categories of verbal roots 1976b. The bivalent suffix -ku: Djamindjungan. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.). Grammatical in (Zinacantec) Tzotzil. In J. Haviland and S. C. Levinson (eds.), Spatial con- categories in Australian languages (pp. 437-41). Linguistic Series 22. Canberra: cc~~l,tucrlizntionin MCIJJ~II~Ienig~rc~fi~.~. Special issue of Lin~ui.stic.s 32(4/5): 691- Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 742. 1976c. Simple and compound verbs: Conjugation by auxiliaries in Australian verbal Hayes. B. 1995. M~tricrrl.stw.ss theory: Principlc~.~and case .studies. ChicagoJLondon: systems: Djamindjungan. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grur~~niuticul~clte~qories in University of Chicago Press. Au,straliarz 1anguage.s (pp. 698-704). Linguistic Series 22. Canberra: Australian Heestermans. H. 1979. 'Ncrc~r'. 'nncrst '. 'lnngs ', en 'in ': Een o~zornasiologisch- Institute of Aboriginal Studies. .sc~171er.~iolo,qisc~liestuclie over eni,qe voorzet.se1.s nlet een locaal betekenisnzerk in Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Gramnztrticalizatio~~.Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- ele. Necl~~rlerncl.seclicrlecten en in het Fries. The Hague: Nijhoff. versity Press. Heine. B. 1997. Pos.se.ssion: Co,~yitivc>sources, ,forces ancl gramrnaticalisation. Hosokawa, K. 1991. The Yawuru language of West Kimberley: A meaning-based Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. description. PhD dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra. Heine. B. and Reh. M. 1984. Grn~i~rizciticnli.satio~iancl reanalysis in African languages. Humboldt, W. von 1963 118221. ~berdas Entstehen der grammatischen Formen und Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. ihren EinfluR auf die Ideenentwicklung. In A. Flitner and K. Giel (eds.). Will~~lm 586 References References

vori H~rrnholclt.Werke in ,fiinf Biinden, Vol. 111: Schrifren zur Spraclzphilo.sophie Kita, S. (in press). Linking under-specification and multi-tiered semantic representation. (pp. 3 1-63). Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta'sche Buchhandlung. In M. Bowerman and P. Brown (eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on argument Hutchins, E. 1980. Cult~lreand inference. A Trohriarzd case study. Cambridge, MA: structure. Harvard University Press. Kita, S. and Walsh Dickey, L. (eds.) 1998.A1zri~rnlreport. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute Ikegami, Y. 198 1. 'SLLTLI' to 'naru' no jierigogakic [Linguistics of 'do' and 'become']. for Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Taishuukan. Kita. S. and Essegbev,-. J. 2001. Pointing- left in Ghana: How a taboo on the use of the 1991. 'DO-language' and 'BECOME-language': Two contrasting types of linguis- left hand influences gestural practice. Gesture 1 : 73-94. tic representation. In Y. Ikegami (ed.), Tlie empire qfsings - semiotic essays on Klimov, G. A. 1974. On the character of languages of active typology. Lirzgilistics 13 I : Japanese culture (pp. 285-326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 11-25 (reprinted from Voprosy Jazykozrzarilja 4 (1972): 3-13). Jackendoff, R. 1983. Sernantic.~and cogrzition. Current Studies in Linguistics Series. Koch, H. 1984. The category of 'associated motion' in Kaytej. Lrrrig~tcrgein Centrcll Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Au,stralia 1 : 23-34. Jackson, W. S. 1972. A Wayana grammar. In J. E. Grimes (ed.), Languages of the Kofod. F. M. 1996. Kiia Learner's Grammar. Unpublished manuscript. Halls Creek: G~riarias(pp. 47-77). Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Kimberley Language Resource Centre. Oklahoma Press. Kooij, J. G. 1990 119871. Dutch. In B. Comrie (ed.), Tlze major 1arig~la~qe.sqf Western Johnston, J. R. and Slobin. D. I. 1979. The development of locative expressions Europe (pp. 12946). London: Routledge. in English, Italian. Serbo-Croatian and Turkish. Journal of Child Language 6: Kramer, M. and Wunderlich, D. 1999. Transitivity alternations in Yucatec, and the 529-45. correlation between aspect and argument roles. Ling~listics37(3): 43 1-80. Jones, C. 1994. Draft Sketch Grammar of Ngarinyman. Unpublished manuscript. Kummer, W. 1982. Spracheinstellung einer bilingualen indianischen Minoritat in einer Katherine: Diwurruwurru-Jaru Aboriginal Corporation. Diglossie-Situation: Spanisch-Yucatec Maya [Linguistic attitudes of a bilingual Kant, E. 1768. Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschiedes der Gegenden im Raume indigenous minority in a diglossic situation: Spanish-Yukatek Maya]. Osnahrucker [Trans. as: 'On the first ground of the distinction of regions in space']. In Beitriige zur Sprachtlzeorie 2 1 : 1-43. J. van Cleve and R. E. Frederick (eds.) 1991, The plzilosophy of right and Kunihiro, T., Shibata, T., Nagashima Y. and Asano, Y. 1982. Kotoha no irni 3 [Meaning left: Incon,qr~rentcourzterparts and tlze nature of space (pp. 27-34). Dordrecht: of words 31. Tokyo: Heibonsha. Kluwer. Kuryiowicz, J. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 5 1 : 55-71. Kasaipwalova, J. 1978. Yaulabuta, Kolupa deli Lekolekwa. Pilatol~tKilivila Wosimwaya. Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. 1996. Recording the phonetic structure of endangered Port Moresby: Institute of Papua New Guinea Studies. languages. Fieldwork studies of targeted languages IV. UCLA Working Papers in Kasaipwalova, J. and Beier, U. 1978a. Lehlekwn-An lzi.storicalsong,fron?the Trohriand Phonetics 93: 1-7. 1.slarzd.r. Port Moresby: Institute of Papua New Guinea Studies. Landau. B. and Jackendoff, R. 1993. 'What' and 'where' in spatial language and spatial 1978b. Ya~~lal~iltu- Tlze passion qf Chief Kailaga. Arz historicul poem ,from the cognition. Belzavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 2 17-38. Trohriund 1.slands. Port Moresby: Institute of Papua New Guinea Studies. Laughlin, R. M. 1975. Tlie great Tzotzil dictionary of'Sari Loreizzo Zinacantun. Wash- Kato, Y. 1991. Negative polarity in Japanese and the levels of representation. Tsuda ington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Rcview 36: 15 1-79. 1977. Cabbages and kings. Tales from Zinacant2in. Srnitlz.sonian Contril7~1tionsto Kaufman, T. 197 1. T:eltal phon01o~q.v arid rnorpkology. Berkeley, CA: University of Anthropology 23. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. California Press. 1980. 0f.slzoes and ships and sealirzg wax: Sundrie.s,from Zinacantdrz. Washington, 1990. Algunos rasgos estructurales de 10s idiomas Mayances [Some structural traits DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. of the Mayan languages]. In N. C. England and S. R. Elliot (eds.), Lecturas sohre 1988. Mayari rale,sfronz Zinacantun: Dreanzs and .storie.s,froriz tlic, people oftlze Bat. la liriguistica Muya [Lectures on Mayan linguistics] (pp. 59-1 14). La Antigua, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Guatemala: Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de MesoamCrica. Laughren, M. 1978. Directional terminology in Warlpiri. Working Papers in Larzgua~e 1994. The native languages of South America. In C. Moseley and R. E. and Lirzgui.stics 8: 1-16, Launceston: Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. Asher (eds.), Atlas of tlie world'.r lc~rzg~tages(pp. 46-76). Londonmew York: Lawton, R. 1979. Bulogala Bwairza. Port Moresby: Bible Society of Papua New Guinea. Routledge. 1984. Bulofiala Bwaina Kahutitvau. Port Moresby: Bible Society of Papua New Kita, S. 1997. Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics 35: Guinea. 379-415. 1993. Topics in the description of Kiriwina. In M. Ross and J. Ezard (eds.), Pac(fic 1999. Japanese enterlexit verbs without motion semantics. Studies irz Larzguage 23: Lirzguistics 0-84. Canberra: Australian National University. 3 17-40. 1995. Kilivila. In D. T. Tryon (ed.), Corilparative Au.c.tronesian clictiorzary. An intro- 2001. Semantic schism and interpretive integration in Japanese sentences with a duction to Au.strorzesiarz studies. Part 1 : Fascile 2 (pp. 747-56). Berlin: Mouton de mimetic: A reply to Tsujimura. Lirtgui.stic.s 39(2): 419-36. Gruyter. References 589

1997. BLI~~P i/cl/~~11i1~horii(1. KLI~LI~LI~~~SWLI deli KLI~~LI~LIVCIIL. The Shorter Old Testament 1995. Unaccu.scrrivity: At thc .sj~nttrx-l~~.uicnlsen~nnrics inteifkce. Cambridge. MA: and Thc New Test2unent in the Language of Kiriwina, Trobriand Islands. Port MIT Press. Morcsby: Bible Society of Papua New Guinea. Levinson. S. C. 1983. Prtr,gn~utic,s.Cambridgc: Cambridge University Press. Leach. J. W. I98 I. A Kula folktale from Kiriwina. Bikriin~ls2: 50-92. 1994. Vision, shape and linguistic description. Tzeltal body-part terminology Leach. J. W. and Leach. E. R. (eds.) 1983. Tlie K~ila:new pet-.spectives on Massim and object description. In J. B. Haviland and S. C. Levinson (eds.), S~JO- c.sc11~1nge.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. tial coricc~l,t~lc~li:atioriill Muj1~11iILIII~LILI,~~J.S. Special issue of Lir~,g~tistic,s.32(4). Lehmann. C. 1992. Yukntekische lokale Relatoren in lypologischer Perspektive [Yukatek 791-855. spatial relators in typological perspective]. Zeitsckrjft fiir Plzonetik, Sprachwis- 1996a. Relativity in spatial conception and description. In J. J. Gumperz and S. C. .serlschqfi ~rriclKoriir~i~~niktrtio~i~sf;~r~scIi~i~i~q 45: 626-4 1 . Levinson (eds.), Retlzirikir~,:1ing11i.stic ,rlntii~it>l (pp. 177-202). Cambridge: Cam- 1993. Predicate classes in Yucatec Maya. F~oicio'n13-14: 195-272. bridge University Press. 1995. TII~LI~IIIS011 gr~~~i~~~i~~ticc~li~atiori. Munich: Lincom Europa. 1996b. Language and space. Aririuc11 RCV~CM,(~fAr~throl~olo~q>i 25: 353-82. 1996. Ein Schriftsystem fiir das Yukatekische ]A writing system for Yukatek 1997a. Language and cognition: The cognitive consequences of spatial description in Maya]. Paper presented at the conference 'Konvergenz und Individualitat - die Guugu Yimitliirr. Jounlul (?f'Li~~g~~i.sticAritkrol~olo,y~~ 7( 1 ): 98-1 3 1. Mayasprachen zwischen Hispanisierung und Indigenismus'. Bremen, 5-7 July. 2000a. H. P. Grice on location on Rossel Island. Proceec1i11,g.sc?ftlze 25th Berkelc? 1996. Lirigui,stic,s Societ.v (210-24). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 1998. Pos.sc~s.sioniri YL~catc.c Mc/.va: Str~rct~lres-,flmction.s - typology. Lincom Studies 2000b. Pres~rri~ptiveriieariin,q.s. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. in Native American Linguistics; 4. Munich: Lincom Europa. (in press) Syntactic ergativity in YCli Dnye. the Papuan Language of Rossel Island Lehmann. Th. 1989. A Grcrrnmar c?fmodenz Emil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute and its implications for typology. Linguistic Tv/:vl,ologjl. of Linguistics and Culture. Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M. and Rasch. B. H. 2002. Re-turning the tables: Lemmens, M. 2002. The semantic network of Dutch posture verbs. In J. Newman Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition 84: 158-88. (ed.), Tlw lir~,g~~i.sticsof sittirzg, stcrnding urlcl lying (pp. 103-39). Amsterdam/ 2003. Sl~atiallanguage and cogriition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Levinson, S. C. and Brown, P. 1990. Re-centering in Mayan spatial cognition. with spe- de Le6n. L. 1992. Body parts and location in Tzotzil: Ongoing grammaticalization. In L. cial reference toTzeltal. Working Paper, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, de Le6n and S. C. Levinson (eds.), Spntiald~scriptionirz Mesoamerican languages. Nijmegen. Special issue of Zeitschr(fi,fiir Pliorzetik. Sprcrcliwi.ssen.sc/~aft~lrid Kornmunikations- 1994. Immanuel Kant among the Tenejapans: Anthropology as empirical philosophy. ,fi)rsck~rri,g45(h): 570-89. Etlios 22( I ): 341. 1993. Shape, geometry, and location: The case of Tzotzil body part terms. In K. Beals Levinson, S. C. and Meira, S. (2003). 'Natural concepts' in the spatial typological et al. (eds.). Procec,rlings oft11e 29th recgiorzalriieetin,g of tlze Chicago Linguistic domain - Adpositional meanings in cross-linguistic perspective: An exercise in Society: Pcrl?ers from the parasessiori on corzcept~lnlrel3resentations (pp. 77-90). semantic typology. Lcr/i,quajie 79(3): 485-5 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Li, P. and Gleitman, L. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cog- 1994. Exploration in the acquisition of geocentric location by Tzotzil children. In J. nition 83: 265-94. Haviland and S. C. Levinson (eds.), Spatial concept~~alizntiorzin Mayan languages. Lichtenberk, F. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Lang~iccgc, Special issue of Lirtguistics 32(4/5): 857-84. 67(3): 475-509. 1997. Vertical path in Tzotzil (Mayan) acquisition: Cognitive vs. linguistic detemi- Liep, J. 198 1. The workshop of the Kula. Folk 23: 297-309. nants. In E. V. Clark (ed.), Proceediizjis of tlze 28th Cliild Larzg~iageResearch Forum 1983. Ranked exchange in Yela (Rossel Island). In J. Leach and E. Leach (eds.), Tl~e (pp. 183-97). Stanford, CA: CSLI. Kula (pp. 503-35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 200 1. Finding the richest path: Language and cognition in the acquisition of verticality 1989a. The day of reckoning on Rossel island. In F. Damon and R. Wagner (eds.), in Tzotzil (Mayan). In M. Bowerman and S. C. Levinson (eds.), Language acquisi- Dentli rituals arid Ijfe in the societies of tlie K~llnRir2,q (pp. 230-53). DeKalb. IL: tiori arid cor~c~pt~~ulrlc~veloptnent (pp. 544-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Northern Illinois University Press. Press. 1989b. Performance in petticoats: Reversal and reciprocity in a Rossel Island dance Levelt. W. J. M.. Roelois, A. and Meyer, A. 1999. Multiple perspectives on word pro- feast. Folk 29: 21 9-37. duction. Belicrvioral em~/Brain Sciences 22: 6 1-75. Lithgow, D. 1976. Austronesian languages: Milne Bay Province and adjacent islands Levin. B. 1993. EIIRI~SIIverb C/~IS.SO.SNI~CI alterrintion.~: A preliminary investigation. (Milne Bay Province). In S. A. Wurm (ed.). Au.stronc.sian Inri,q~itr,ges- New G~rirzeu Chicago: University of Chicago Press. area larzgua~e.sandlarigua~q~studjt, Vol. I1 (pp. 44 1-523). Pacific Linguistics Series Levin. B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. 1992. The lexical semantics of verbs of motion. C-40. Canberra: Australian National University. In 1. Roca (ed.). Tliemcltic strLrctLrrc': Its role in ,qmrnmar (pp. 247-69). Berlin: Lord, C. 1993. Historical clznnge in sc>rial vc,rl? co~i.str~~ctior~~.Amsterdam: John Ben- Foris/Mouton de Gruyter. jamins. 590 References References 59 1

Lucy. J. 1994. The role of semantic value in lexical comparison: Motion and posi- 1998a. Applicative constructions in Warrwa. In A. Siewierska and J. J. Song tion in Yucatec Maya. In J. B. Haviland and S. C. Levinson (eds.), Spatial con- (eds.), Case, typology, and grammar: In honour of Barry J. Blake (pp. 17 1-99). c.c~pttializatiorzin Mayarz Lnn~unges.Special issue of Lirzguistics 32(4): 623- Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 56. 1998b. Semantic constraints on dependency. In B. Caron (ed.), Proceedirtgs of the Lyons, J. 1967. A note on possessive. existential and locative sentences. Foundations of sixteenth Irzternational Congress of Lirzguists. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Paper No. Lang~iage3: 390-6. 0500. 1995. Lirzg~ii.stic~eriiur7tic~: Ari introdtictiorz. London, New York: Cambridge Univer- 1999a. Kukatja ethno-physiology and medicine. Review of Anthony Rex Peile. 1997. sity Press. In P. Bindon (ed.), Body and soul: An Ahorigirzal view. Aboriginal Studies Series, Malinowski, B. 1920. Classificatory particles in the language of Kiriwina. Bul- No. 10. Perth: Hesperian Press and The Pallottines in Australia. Arzthropos 94: letin of the School of' Orientctl Studies. London Institution, Vol. l. Part IV, 224-8. pp. 33-78. 1999b. External possession constructions in Nyulnyulan languages. In D. L. Payne and 1922. Argoricrut.~of the Westerrz Poc(fic. London: Routledge. I. Barshi (eds.), Exterrzal po.sse.ssion (pp. 42948). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1935. Coml Gardens nricl their rizagic, Vol. 11: The larzguage of magic arzd gardening. 2000. Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages. In Z. Frajzyn- London: Allen and Unwin. gier andT. S. Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forrn aaclfiinctiorz (pp. 85-1 22). Amsterdam: 1936. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden and I. A. John Benjamins. Richards (eds.). The riieurzing of rneaning. Supplement I (pp. 296-336). London: (2002a). Ergative and accusative patterning in Warrwa. In K. Davidse and B. Lamiroy Kegan Paul. Trench, Trubner and Co. (eds.), Case and grammatical relations across Iunguuges, Vol. IV: The nomina- Martin, L. 1977. Positional roots in Kanjobal (Mayan). PhD dissertation, University of tive/accusative (pp. 285-317). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Florida. (2002b). Verb clas.s[ficatiorz in Australian 1arz~quage.s.Berlin, New York: Mouton de 1979. Direction/location and the semantics of Kanjobal positional roots. In L. Martin Gruyter. (ed.). Papers iri Mcr.vari Lingui.stic.r. Columbia, MO: Lucas Brothers Publishing (in preparation). A granznzar of Nyulnyul, Dampier Lurid. Westerrz Australia. Co. McKenzie, R. 1997. Downstream to here: Geographically determined spatial deictics 1975. A refer-erzce gramrnor ~f'Jcrpariese.New Haven/London: Yale University Press. in Aralle-Tabulahan (Sulawesi). In G. Senft (ed.), Referring to space: Studies in Martinez HernBndez, J. (ed.) 1929. Diccioriario de Motul [Motul dictionary]. Mtrida, Austrorze,sian and Papuan languages (pp. 22149). Oxford Studies in Anthropo- YucatBn: Tipografia Yucateca. logical Linguistics 15. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Matsumoto. Y. 1996a. Coniplex prc>rliccrtc~in .Iciparzese: A s.yntactic and semantic study McQuown, N. A. 1967. Classical Yucatec (Maya). In R. Wauchope (ed.), Haridhook q/' of the notiorz 'word'. Stanford, CA: CSLI and Tokyo: Kuroshio. Middle Arnericarz Indiarzs, Vol. V: Linguistics (pp. 201-47). Austin: University of Matsumoto, Y. 1996b. Sub,jective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Texas Press. Lbi~tli.stic.s7: 183-226. Meillet, A. 1948 [I9 121. L'tvolution des formes gramrnaticales. Linguisticjue Hixtoriq~w Matsumoto, Y. 1997. Kuukan idoo no gengohyoogen to sono kakuchoo [Linguistic et Linguistique GPnPrale (pp. 13048). Paris: Klincksieck. expressions of motion in space. and their extensions]. In S. Tanaka and Y. Mat- Meira, S. 1997. [fl, [i?] e [hl: fonogknese em Tiriyb (Karib). Boletim do Museu Paraense sumoto (eds.). Kt~~ikarzto icloo no lzyoo,qerz [Expressions of space and motion] Emilio Goeldi, strie Antropologia 13(3): 167-78. (pp. 125-230). Tokyo: Kenkyuusha. 1998. Rhythmic stress in Tiriy6 (Cariban). Irztenzntionul Jourrial of Americcirz Lirz- Matthews, P. 199 1. Morphology (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. guistics 64(4): 352-78. Mayer, M. 1969. Frog, where are V~LL?New York: Dial Books. 1999a. A grammar of Tiriy6. PhD dissertation, Rice University, Houston. McGhee. J. and Dwyer. J. 1949. Hi.stor:y ofthe Old Testcni7erit clone irz Boyowarz. Tro- 1999b. Syllable reduction and ghost syllables in Tiriy6. In S. J. J. Hwang and A. R. briand Islands: Catholic Mission. Lommel (eds.), XXV LACUS Forurn (pp. 125-3 1 ). Fullerton, CA: Linguistic Asso- McGregor. W. 1988. Hunclhook c!f'Kimherlcy larig~iage.~,Vol. I: General irzformation. ciation of Canada and the United States (LACUS). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 2000a. A reconstructiorz of Proto-Tcrrur~oarz:Pkorzologj~ ar~d rrzor/~lio1o,qy. Munich: 1990a. A ,furictiorzcrl grurnmor of Gooni~varicli.Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lincom Europa. 1990b. An impersonal construction in Gooniyandi, Western Australia. Word41: 161- 2000b. The accidental intransitive split in the Cariban family. In S. Gildea (ed.), Recon- 84. structing gramnzar: Comparative lirzguistics arid grarnriiaticalizntior7 (pp. 20 1-30). 1994. Warrwcr. Munich/Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1996. NVLIIIZVL~I.Munich/Newcastle: Lincom Europa. 2000c. Reduplication in Tiriy6 (Cariban). Larzguages of the World Series, no. 17. 1997a. Serniotic ,qmmrnar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Munich: LINCOM Europa. 1997b. Functions of noun phrase discontinuity in Gooniyandi. Functiorz.~qfLanguage 2001. Linguistic theory and linguistic description: The case of Tiriyo Ih]. Interrza- 4: 83-1 14. tiorzal Journal of Anzericari Lirzguistics 67: 1 19-35. References 593

2003a. 'Addressee effects' in demonstrative systems: The cases ofTiriy6 and Brazil- Ozyiirek, A. and Kita, S. (in prep.). Attention manipulation and situational use of ian Portuguese. In Friedrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic coricc~l~t~~crlizc~tio~iof .space, tirne, Japanese and Turkish demonstratives. rrricll,c,1-.sor7 (pp. 3-12). Pragmatics & Beytond new series, Vol. 1 12. Amsterdam, Pawley, A. 1987. Encoding events in Kalam and English: Different logics for reporting Philadelphia: John Ben.jamins. experience. In R. S. Tomlin (ed.), Tv~~ologica1.stuclie.sb7 larzgucrge. Vol. I: Coherence 2003b. Les dCmonstratifs proxiniai~xnon-animCs de la langue tiriyo (caribe): une and grounding in discourse (pp. 329-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cti~dede corpus. Arnc;rir~dicc(langues caribes) 28: 183-200. 1993. A language which defies description by ordinary means. In W. A. Foley (ed.), 2004a. Morfologia vs. semintica. ou intransitividade cindida em Tiriy6 (Karh). In The role of theory in laizguage description (pp. 87-129). Cambridge: Cambridge Atrr.s (10 I1 Ericoritro Ncrc.io17trl do Gr~rpoelr E.st~tdo.sclcr Lir7~~ltrgcvnc/o Centro-Oeste, University Press. Denize Elena Garcia da Silva (org.). Vol. 1 (pp. 261-70). Pederson. E. 1993. Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems. 2004b. Mental state postpositions in Tiriy6 and other Cariban languages. Linguistic In A. U. Frank and I. Campari (eds.), Spatin1 iizfi)rrncrtion theory (pp. 294-3 11). T\~l>olo,qy8: 2 I 3-4 1 . Berlin: Springer. 2006. A Grc1117117orof Tir-;yo. Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1998. Spatial language, reasoning, and variation across Tamil communities. In P. Zima MCndez Guzmin. Diego. 1998. Kqjkcrriuritik: Joh 'ultatiketik te /eke sok te ckopole. (El and V. Tax (eds.), Lar~guageartd loccrtion iri .sl>ncenr7d tirne, Vol. VII (pp. 1 1 1-1 9). kqjkorierr7rik: Los clio.sc,s clel l?ic.rl y mnl). Letras Mayas Contemporineas, Vol. V. Munich: Lincom Europa. lnstit~~toNacional Indigenista. Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D. P.. Levinson, S. C.. Kita, S. and Senft, G. 1998. Merlan. F. C. 1994. A Gnrrnrncrl- c!fWnrrlLuntrri: A lang~rageoffhe Nortlzerrz Territoy of Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Larrg~ruge74: 557-89. Austr-crlier. Mouton Grammar Library 1 1. Berlin: Mo~~tonde Gruyter. Peile, A. R. (n.d.). Body and soul: An Aboriginal view. Manuscript. Miller. G. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1976. Lnr7g~lagear~dperceptiorz. Cambridge, MA: Persson, J. 1999. Sagali and the K~lla.A r~giorzalsystem urzu1~v.si.sr!ftht Massirn. Lund Harvard University Press. Monographs in Social Anthropology 7. Lund: Dept. of Sociology, Lund University. Morita. Y. 1977. Kiso riihon,qo [Basic Japanese]. Tokyo: Kadokawa. Pfeiler, B. 1985. Yucatin: Das Volk und seine Sprache. Zwei Fallstudien zur 1988. Nihon~ono I-L~~~/IVOL(~CI~[Japanese expressions with similar meanings]. Tokyo: Bilingualismus-situation [Yucatin: the people and their language. Two studies of Sotakusha. the situation of bilingualism]. PhD dissertation, Vienna University. Mosel. U. and Hovdhaugen, E. 1992. Snrnoan reference grarnmnr. Oslo: Scandinavian 1988. Yucatin: El uso de dos lenguas en contacto [The use of two languages in contact]. University Press. Esrudio.~de Cultura Maya, Vol. XVIl (pp. 423-44). MCxico, DF: Universidad Muraki. M. 1978. The Shika Nai construction and predicate raising. In J. Hinds and I. Nacional Aut6noma de MCxico, Instituto de Investigaciones Filologicas. Howard (eds.). PI-ol?lem,sin Jcrpcrne.sc. syrztax ar7d semnntic.~(pp. 155-77). Tokyo: 1995. Variaci6n fonol6gica en el maya yucateco [Phonological variation in Yukatek Kaitakusha. Maya]. In R. Arzipalo and Y. Lastra (eds.), Viralidacl e ii?pueizcin de las lenguas Mushin. I. 1995. Epistememes in Australian languages.Australiar7 Jo~~rrialofLinguistics irzd+erza.s en Latirzoarne'rica (pp. 488-97). MCxico, DF: Universidad Aut6noma de 15: 1-31. MCxico, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropol6gicas. Myers. F. 1986. Pir~t~lpicorriitr.\:Pi17t~tpiself: Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. 1956 119481. The child's conception ofspace. London: Rout- Studies. ledge and Kegan Paul. Nash, D. 1986. Epics ir7 Wnrll?iri ,qrammnr. New YorkLondon: Garland Publishing Pinker, S. 1994. The laiiguage irzstinct. New York: William Morrow. Inc. Pio Perez, J. 1866-1877. Diccionurio de la ler7gua maya [Dictionary of the Mayan Nichols. J. 1982. Ingush transitivization and detransitivization. Proceedings of Ae 8th language]. MCrida, Yucatin: J. F. Molina Solis. crrtriunl mcvring oftlie Berkeley Lirzg~listicsSociety (445-462). Berkeley, CA: Berke- Polian, G. 2004. ElCments de grammaire du Tseltal. PhD dissertation, UniversitC Paris ley Linguistics Society. 111-Sorbonne Nouvelle. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Lang~lage62: 56-1 19. Powell, H. A. 1957. An analysis of present day social structure in the Trobriand Islands. Norman, W. 1973. Positional and transitive roots in Kanjobal. American Anthropological PhD dissertation, University of London. Association paper. Radetzky, P. 2001. Some diachronic aspects of topic marking. PhD dissertation, Niise. R. 1996. ~berdie Realitiitsadiiquatheit der phiinomenalen Welt oder Things look University of California at Berkeley. as they do because they are what they are. Ge.stalttlzeorie 18: 52-67 and 86 Rajam, V. S. 1992. A r

Ross. M. D. 1988. Proto Ocecrriic nncl tlie A~istroizesiarz1ung~lage.s of Westerrz Melanesia. 1994b. Spatial reference in Kilivila. The Tinkertoy matching games - A case study. Pacific Linguistic Series C-98. Canberra: Australian National University. Language and Lirzgui.stics in Malanesia 25: 55-93. Rumsey, A. 2000. Bunuba. In R. M. W. Dixon and B. Blake (eds.), Harzdbook of 1994c. Grammaticalisation of body parts in Kilivila. Larignc~gc,crrzd Linguistics irz A~~strrrlicrn1ong~cngo.s. Vol. V (pp. 35-152). Oxford: Oxford University Melanesia 25: 98-9. Press. 1994d. Ein Vorschlag, wie man standardisiert Daten zum Thema 'Sprache, Kognition Saah, K. K. 1992. Null object constructions in Akan. In C. Collins and V. Manfredi und Konzepte des Raumes' in verschiedenen Kulturen erheben kann. Lin,quisti.sche (eds.), Proccwiing.~ofthe Kcva cornparafive svntax workshop (pp. 21 9-44). MIT Bericlite 154: 41 3-29. Working Papers in Linguistics 17. Cambridge. MA: MIT Dept. of Linguistics and 1995. 'Crime and custom . . .' auf den Trobriand Inseln: Der Fall Tokurasi. Anthropos Philosophy. 90: 1 7-25. San Bonaventura, G. 1684. Arte cle lcc lerzg~~uMayo [Art of the Mayan language]. Sum- 1996a. Cla,ss(ficator~iparfic1e.s in Kilivila. New York: Oxford University Press. marized by William E. Gates. Box 46, Folder I I, William E. Gates Collection, 1996b. Review article of Darrell T. Tryon, ed. 1995. Comparative Austronesian dic- Harold B. Lee Library. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University. tionary. An introduction to Austronesian studies. 4 parts, 5 vols. Lirtg~iistic~34: Sapir, E. 1917. Review of C. C. Uhlenbeck: Het passieve karakter van het verbum 1255-70. transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen van Noord-Amerika. International 1996c. Review of Ralph Lawton, Topics in the description of Kiriwina. In M. Ross Jo~crnulofAmericari Lir7guistic.s 1 : 82-6. (Reprinted in W. Bright (ed.), The col- and J. Ezard (eds.), Larig~mgearid Liriguistics iri Melanesia 27: 189-96. lected works r?fEc/warrlSapir, Vol. V: Arnc~ricarilndirrn languages I (pp. 69-74). 1997. Introduction. In G. Senft (ed.), Rqferririg to sl7ace: St~idie.~in Au.rtrone.sian and Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.) Papuurt langua,qe,s(pp. 1-38). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Schaefer. R. P. 1986. Lexicalising directional and nondirectional motion in Emai. Studies 1998a. Body and mind in the Trobriand Islands. Et1io.r 26: 73-104. in African Ling~1istic.s17(2): 177-98. 1998b. Frarne.r of spatial refererice irz Kilivila - Stuciie.~irz larzgunge, cogrtition arid Schaefer, R. P. and Gaines. R. 1997. Toward a typology of directional motion for African rhe coriceptuali:7atiorz c?fspace. Essen: LAUD Working Paper Series A, No. 424. languages. Stuc1ie.s in Africrrri Lirig~iistics26(2): 193-220. 1999a. Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski. In J. Verschueren, J.-0. Ostman and J. Schiffman. H. 1979. A grrrriimcrr of'spokCn Elmil. Madras: Christian Literature Society. Blommaert (eds.), Hundbook c?fpra,qrnatics. Supplriiierzt 1998. Amsterdam: John Schultze-Berndt, E. 1998. Zur Interaktion von semasiologischer und onomasiolo- Benjamins. gischer Grammatik: Der Verbkomplex im Jaminjung. In D. Zaefferer (ed.), 1999b. ENTER and EXIT in Kilivila. St~~diesin Lariguage 23: 1-23. De.vkriptive Grarnrnatik und allgerneiner Sprackvergleich (pp. 149-76). Tiibingen: 2000a. What do we really know about nominal classification systems? In G. Senft (ed.), Niemeyer. Sy.vteni.s of nomirzal cla.s,sification (pp. 1 149). Cambridge: Cambridge University 2000. Sirnple aric/ cornplc~xverbs in Jcimir?j~~i7g:A srudv of event cafegorisation in Press. an A~~.straliarilan

Slobin. D. I. and Hoiting, N. 1994. Reference to movement in spoken and signed 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (ed.), languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting Luriguage t~lpologyarltl syntactic description. Vol. 111 (pp. 57-149). Cambridge: of the Berkeley Liri~~tistic.sSociety (487-505). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Cambridge University Press. Society. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Scie~ic~12: 49-100. Smailus, 0. 1975. Te-utos rnuyas de Belice y Qclintarza Roo [Mayan texts from Belize 1991. Path to realization - via aspect and result: A typology of event conflation. and Quintana Roo]. Berlin: Gebr. Mann (Indiana Beiheft; 3). Proceedings ofthe 17th anri~1~11171eetii7~q ofthe Berkel~ylLin,q~ristics Soci(>tv (480- 1989. Grtrrndtica del Maya Yucnteco Colonial [Grammar of Colonial Yukatek Maya]. 5 19). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Hamburg: Wayasbah. 1996. Fictive motion in language and 'ception'. In P. Bloom. M. Peterson, L. Nadel and Stewart, J. M. 1989. Kwa. In J. B. Samuel (ed.). The Niger-Congo languages (pp. 217- M. Garrett (eds.). Lnrlg~lugeand .s/>trce(pp. 21 1-76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 46). Lanham: University Press of America. 2000. Toward a cogliitive se/nantic.r. 2 vols. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. Stokes. B. 1982. A description of Nyigina: A language of the West Kim- Tanaka, S. 1997. Kuk~inhyoo~enno i117i fo kinoo [Meaning and function of spatial berley, Western Australia. PhD dissertation, Australian National University, expressions]. In S. Tanaka and Y. Matsumoto (eds.), K~ruknrito idoo no kyoojieri Canberra. [Expressions for space and motion] (pp. 4-123). Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Stokes, B., Johnson. G. and Marshall. L. 1980. Nyigina to English: A first lexicon. Tanz, C. 1982. An experimental investigation of children's comprehension of the IOCLI- Unpublished manuscript. tionary verb &. In C. E. Johnson and C. L. Thew (eds.), Proceedings ~f'tlieS~C~IICI Straight, S. H. 1976. Decompositional structure in Yucatec verbs. In M. McClaran (ed.), iilternational conjirc..rs,fi)rthe stuCI\' of child Iurzguage. Vol. I (pp. 357-7 1). Wash- Mavan lir7guistic.r. Vol. I (pp. 189-98). Los Angeles: UCLA American Indian ington, DC: University Press of America. Studies Center. Tedlock, B. 1982. Time and the liighland Maya. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Stross. B. 1976. Tzeltal anatomical terms: Semantic processes. In M. McClaren (ed.), Press. Mavan lin,quistic.s. Vol. I (pp. 243-67). Los Angeles: UCLA American Indian Teramura, H. 1982. Ni17ongo no ~lzi17taku~uto inii clai-I-kknri [Syntax and semantics of Studies Center. Japanese], Vol. I. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Stross, B. 1977. Love in the armpit: Tzeltal tales of love, murder, and cannibalism. Tindale, N. 1974. Aborigirzal tribes c?fAustrzllia, their termbi, ei7vironmer7tal coritrol.~, M~ts~urnBrief, no. 23. University of Missouri. distribution, li~nits,and proper riames. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of Cali- 1978. Demons and monsters: Tzeltal tales. Museunl Brief, no. 24 University of Mis- fornia Press and Canberra: Australian National University Press. souri. Tozzer, A. 1921. A Maya grarnrilar with bibliography and ap1,raisement qf the works 1979. Tzeltal texts. In L. Furbee (ed.). Mayan Texts II (pp. 106-21). IJAL-NATS noted. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology, Monograph No. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harward University, 9. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sulirez. J. A. 1983. The Mesoamerican Indian lang~iuges.Cambridge Language Surveys. Traugott, E. C. and Heine. B. (eds.) 1991. Approaches 10 ,qm17?iizaticalizatio11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Subrahmanyasastri, P. S. 1979. Tolkn:ppi.vam col1atika:ram. Anamalainagar, South Tsujimura, N. 1996. An iritroductiorz to Japanese lin,quistic.s. Oxford: Blackwell. India: Annamalai University. Tsunoda, T. 1981. The Djaru lnnguajie of Ki~nbet-ley,WA. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Svorou. S. 1994. The grarizrnar ~fspace.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Series B-78. Tagashira. Y. and Hoff, J. 1986. Handbook qf Japanese compo~lndverbs. Tokyo: Hoku- Tunbridge, D. 1988. Affixes of motion and direction in Adnyamathanha. In P. Austin seido Press. (ed.), Complex ,sentence constructior7s in Acr.straliarz larzguages (pp. 267-83). Takahashi, T. 1976 [ 19691. Sugata to mokuromi [Situation and intention]. In H. Kindaichi Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (ed.). Nihongo dooshi no a.rupekuto [Aspect of Japanese verbs] (pp. 117-54). Turner-Neale, M. M. 1996. B~rsh,fooclr:Nhenhe-arqe anwerne-urle Arlkwerne. Alice Tokyo: Mugi Shoboo. Springs: IAD Press. Talmy, L. 1972. Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. PhD dissertation, Uni- Van Oosten, J. 1984. Sitting, standing and lying in Dutch: A cognitive approach to the versity of California at Berkeley. distribution of the verbs Zitteri, Stuarz, and Liggerz. In J. van Oosten and J. Snapper 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. In J. Kimball (ed.), Syntaxandsemantics, Vol. (eds.), Dutch Linguistics at Berkeley (pp. 137-60). Berkeley. CA: Dutch Studies IV (pp. 18 1-238). New York: Academic Press. Program, University of California at Berkeley. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Villa Rojas, A. 1973. The concepts of space and time among the contemporary Maya. In hcrriiarl language, Vol. IV: S.vntax (pp. 62549). Stanford, CA: Stanford University M. Ledn-Portilla (ed.), Time and reality in tlie thought of the Maya (pp. 121-67). Press. Boston: Beacon Press. 1983. How language structures space. In H. Pick and L. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial 1987. Los elegidos de dios: Etnogrqfin de 10s ma.vas de Quintcn~trRoo. Seria de orientutior7: Theory research and application (pp. 225-320). New York: Plenum antropologia social. Colleccidn Sepini; 56. MCxico, DF: Institute Nacional Indi- Press. genista. 598 References References

Vogt. E. 1976. Tortilln.s,for the gods: A .svmbolic analysis of Zinacantdn ritual. Cam- Williamson, K. and Blench, R. 2000. Niger-Congo. In B. Heine and D. Nurse (eds.), bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. African languages: An irztmduction (pp. 1 1-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Weijnen, A. 1964. Structuren van Nederlandse voorzetsels. Tijdschr{ji voor Nederlandse Press. Taal - en Letterkunde 80: 1 16-32. Wilson, S. 1999. Coverbs and complex predicates in Waginzan. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Weiner, A. B. 1976. Wotner~of' value, rnen of renown. New perspectives in Trobriand Woodworth, N. L. 1991. Sound symbolism in proximal and distal forms. Linguistics: excharzge. Austin: University of Texas Press. An Interdisciplirzary Journal of the Language Sciences 29(2): 273-99. 1988. The Trobriander.~(?fPap~lu New Guinea. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Wurrn, S. 1982. Papuan languages r?fOceania. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Westermann. D. H. 1928. Ew

Edmonson, M. S. 274 Hoiting. N. 222, 360, 39 1. 395, 396 Emeneau, M. B. 409 Hopper, P. 210 England, N. C. 230,273 Hosokawa, K. 117, 122. 149 Author index Essegbey, J. 107,359,361,362,364,365, Hovdhaugen, E. 208 373,378,387,388,395,399,450 von Humboldt, W. 209,210 Evans, N. 103,523,535 Hutchins. E. 207

Fellows, S. B. 207 Ikegami. Y. 446,473,474 Fodor, J. 5 14 Inhelder. B. 542 Foley, W. 158, 159 Frawley, W. 17, 18, 19,530 Jackendoff, R. 17.271,274.283,298 Freeze, R. 78 Jackson. W. S. 321 Frikel, P. 3 12 Johnson, G. 1 17 Johnson-Laird. P. N. 21,217,485 Adclaar, K. A. 103 Brown. P. 9. 14. 79. 164. 230, 23 1. 239. 241. Gaines, R. 390,396 Johnston, J. R. 520.542 Adzomnda. J. K. 359 246. 247. 262.264. 268.27 I, 272, 273, 28 1. Gavua, K. 359 Jones, C. 103 Agbodeka. F. K. 350 282.286,292.295,443,526.55 I Agcsthialingorn. S. 409 Geerts, G. 476,477,482,484,485,493,494. Biililcr. K. 223 50Z Kant. E. 1 Aisscn. J. 236. 300 Burrow. T. 409 Aklii'. G. 149 Geoghegan, R. 18 1 Gildea, S. 31 1,317, 343 Kato, Y. 463 Alphcr, B. 103 Campbell. L. 274 Givbn, T. 22 1.41 6 Kaufman, T. 236,245,274,277,278,280. Amcka. F. K. 61. 107. 238. 282. 359. 361. Capcll. A. 64. 1 17, 1 58. 207 Gleitman, L. R. 5 54,552 286.295.3 1 1 362. 364, 365. 367. 368, .370, 372. 395, 397. Capo. H. B. C. 359 Goddard, C. 103 Kita, S. 15.41, 301, 362, 413,437,443,450, 399.405. 450,405, 523 Cvrlin. E. B. 3 1 1 Goldap, C. 287,289,298.306 454,455,467,469,472.5 14,532 Andratlc, M. J. 275 Carroll. M. 508 Goldberg, A. E. 123 Klimov, G. A. 278 Annnmalai. E. 400 Chadwick, N. 64 Gossen, G. 230 Koch, H. 28,51,86 Ansrc. G. 359. 367. 368. 397 Clioi. S. 468 Green, 1. 25,64 Kofod, F. M. 64, 69. 103 Arden. A. H. 40 1. 403 Clark. E. 78, 175. 373 Grice. H. P. 167, 170, 172, 180 K0oi.i. J. G. 477 Armstrong, W. E. 157. 176 Claudi. U. 364 Krlmer, M. 279 Asun Sclvon. .I. 400 Clcmcnts. G. N. 36 1, 365. 388. 397 Hale,K. 29.31. 117 Krishnaswami, V. 400 Askc. J. 2 19,299 Clcvcsly. J. R. 64 Hamano, S. 450 Kummer. W. 274 Austin. P. 5 1 Collins. C. 397 Hanks, W. 230,287,288 Kunihiro, T. 448 Ayres. G. 275 Coroncl. J. 275 Harkins, S. 25. 36, 127 Kurylowicz, J. 210 Crowlcy. T. 222 Harvey, M. 64 Baldwin. B. 207 Cunninglia~ii.L. 207 Hasegnwa. Y. 462,463.465 Ladefoged, P. 158 B..'II~ILI~. '... S. 477 Cuyckcns. H. 488.489.490.491, - Haun. D. 472 Landau. B. 17, 27 1 B.,u~cra-Vdhclucr. .. A. 275. 276 492 van Langendonck, W. 488 Beicr. U. 207 Haviland, J. 35,55, 103, 149,235,236, 246. 248.25 1.253.256.28 1 Laughren. M. 53, 103 BcliEn, M. 488. 49 1,492 Dnnziger. E. 254 Hayes, B. 313 Laughlin. R. M. 236.25 I Bclrrin dc Sanln Rosa, P. 275 Daylcy. J. P. 278. 279 Heestermans, H. 477,488 Lawton, R. 207 Bcrliian. R. 13. 422, 537. 55 1 Dc Gocjc. C. 14. 3 1 I Heine, B. 61, 210, 364, 367, 369,372.391, Leach. E. R. 157.207 Berlin. B. 230,236. 245 Dcnch. A. C. 103, 149 543 Leach, J. W. 157.207 Bickel. B. 425 Dcrbyshirc. D. C. 3 11. 317. 321 Henderson, A. 158 Leavitt, C. 3 1 1 Blair, R. W. 275 Dliarnotharan, A. 409 Henderson, J. 25, 38.48, 5 1, 52. 54, 157, 158. Lehmann, C. 78,210.275.279,285.287,298 Blake. B. 33 Dickey. L. 413. 514 159, 160, 161, 164, 173, 174. 192, 193, 194, Lehmann. Th. 40 1,406,408,409.42 1 Blcncli. R. 359 Dixon. R. M. W. 67. 103. 278. 3 14. 195, 196, 197 Lemmens, M. 494 Bolincrneycr. J. 70, 89. 231, 241. 246. 273. 365 Hengeveld. K. 175 de Lebn. L. 242,245,246,272 277. 279. 295. 296. 297. 300. 301. 302. 53 1 Dobaon. V. 25.38.48.5 1.54 Herring, S. C. 422 Levelt, W. J. M. 55 1 Boll. J. E. 64 Donaldson. B. C. 476.503 Herskovits, A. 4, 164,487 Levin, B. 96,276.280,289,365 Boognast, R. J. U. 493 Downs. R. M. 226 Hill, C. 21, 189.428 Levinson, S. C. 1. 16,20.21, 35,55,61, 103, Bowdcn. .I. 209. 2 10 Dryer. M. S. 118 Hill, D. 15,42,47,84, 196, 197,217,220, 107, 116, 149, 157, 159. 167, 169. 170, 172, Bowcrman. M. 9. 1 1. 239.405.468.475.488, Duric. M. 22 1. 222, 396 254,299,345,417,465,533 178, 180, 19 1,205.206,222,231,238.239, 491.492.514.522 Diirr. M. 256 Hlomatsi, Y. 368 241, 242, 264, 268, 27 1. 272. 335,400,425, Bsicker. V. R. 275.281 Dutliic. A. S. 359. 364. 366. 369 Hoddinott, W. G. 64.69 448,472, 5 12, 5 14. 520, 523.526,541,542, Britto. F. 401 Dwycr. J. 207 Hoff, J. 467 543,544,549,550,551,552 Broekliuis. 14. 476 Dzul de P'ot. 0. 28 1 602 Author index Author index

Lewis. M. 397 Pfeiler. B. 274, 275 Tagashira, Y. 467 Villa Rojas, A. 230. 309 Li. P. 5 14 Piaset. J. 542 Takahashi. T. 465 Vogt. E. 230 Liclitenberk. F, 368 Pike. K. 8 Talmy. L. 17, 18, 19,44, 51, 52, 82. 83, lOl. Liep. J. 157 Pinker, S. 5 13, 5 I4 102, 146, 147. 199, 202, 205. 2 19. 222.223. Walsh. M. 64 Lithgow, D. 207 Pio Pircz. J. 276 23 1,251,260,274,276.282.283.294.297. Weijnen, A. 488 Lord. C. 367.368.39 I Polian. G. 236 299, 300, 343, 360, 392, 394, 399,414,422, Weincr, A. B. 208 Lucy, J. 207. 217. 277, 279. 533 Po'ot Yah. E. 28 1 435,450,462,469,485, 49 1. 500, 5 1 1, 527. Westermann, D. H. 360, 367. 369, 388, Lyons. J. 78.55 1 Powell, H. A. 208 530,531.536 397 Tanaka. S. 458,459,461 Whitehead. 0. 103 Maddieson. 1. 158. 159 C. 542 Wilkins, D. 14, 15. 25, 26, 33. 36. 38. 39.42. Mafti. L. 236, 245 Tedlock, B. 230 44.45, 47. 48. 5 1, 61, 62, 75,77. 84. 86, Malinowski. B. 207. 208. 226 Radctzky, P. 420 Teramura. H. 452,453,460 103, 106. 108. Ill, 115, 116. 125. 127. 128, Martin, L. 230 Rajam. V. S. 409.435 Tindale, N. 1 15 130, 133, 149, 151. 153, 196, 197,217,220. Martin. S. E. 438.439 Rappaport Hovav. M. 96.280.365 Took, H. 210 223. 254. 282. 290. 299, 345,400,417,433. Martinez Hcrnlindez, J. 275 Rasch. B. H. 472 Tozzer, A. 275 465,495,512.523,533 Matthews, P. 535 Ray. S. H. 210 Traugott, E. C. 2 10 Williamson, K. 359 Matsumoto. Y. 445.446.450.46 1.462.463. Reh, M. 367 Tsujimura, N. 438 Wilson, S. 69 464.467 Richter, J. V. 380 Tsunoda. T. 69, 103 de Wittc, C. 282,495 Mayer. M. 13.30. 125. 142. 143.218 Rivibre. P. 3 12 Tunbridge. D. 5 1 Woodworth, N. L. 426 McGhee. J. 207 Roelolk. A. 55 1 Turner-Neale, M. 25 Wunderlich, D. 279 McGregor. W. 66. 68.69.75. 77.9 1, 101. 102, Romero Castillo. M. 283 Wurm. S. 158 103, 115. 117. 118, 120. 121. 122, 123. 125, Ross. M. 207 Van Oosten. J. 494 128, 129, 133. 135. 137, 138. 140, 146. 147. Rumsey, A. 103, 149 Verhelst. M. 475 Zavala, R. 295,300 149. 152 McKenzie. R. 103 Saah, K. K. 365 McQuown, N. A. 275 Son Bonuventu~x.G. 275 Meillel. A. 210 Sapir, E. 278 Meiru, S. 3 1 1. 3 13, 3 17. 343, 526 Schaefcr, R. P. 390. 394, 396, 398 MendCz Guzmin. D. 236 Schiffman. H. 401.409 Merlan. F. C. 68. 69. 103 Schultzc-Bcrndt, E. 18, 63, 64, 65. 70. 73, 82, Meyer. A. 55 1 83. 84.89.90.91.93.95. l l I, 115, 125, Miller, G. 2 1. 2 17.485 128. 135. 137, 146. 147, 148. 149, 301,397, Monod-Becquelin. A. 236 534 Morita. Y. 460.463 Scoditti. G. M. G. 207. 208 Mosel, U. 208 Muraki. M. 463 Mushin. L. 121 227 Myers, F. 62, 1 16 Shibatani. M. 437,438 Silverstein, M. 26 Nash, D. 55.69 Slobin. D. 13, 18, 19,39.44. 101,222,360, Nichols. J. 277,402 391. 395. 396, 397.398,422,450,452,520, Norman, W. 230 537.542.55 1 Nuse. R. 223 Sniailus, 0. 274, 275 Nyaku. F. K. 390 Smith, J. 238 van Stadcn. M. 475 Oaam, E. K. 365 Sten. D. 226 Owen. M. G. 275.279 Stewart, J. M. 359 Ozyurek. A. 437 Stokes. B. 115. 117, 120. 149 Stolz. C. 79. 89. 273.53 I Paramasivam, K. 400.420.42 1 Straight. S. H. 278. 279 Pawley. A. 222 Stross. B. 236. 242 Pederson. E. 9, 11. 12.62.222.223.272. 303. von Stutterheim. C. 508 3 10.400.405.425.428. 432. 542 Sulirez. J. A. 274 Peile. A. R. 152 Subrahmanyasastri. P. S. 403 Persson. J. 207. 208 Svorou, S. 17, 369

606 Languagebanguaye family index

Gorokan 158 Oceanic 207,209,2 10.2 1 1 Guang 379 Pama-Nyungan 24,25.64. 117, Indo-European 23 1,274,297,302,309,358. 152 Subject index 475486 Papuan 158, 159,205

Kwa 359 Romance 101, 146,295,299, Mayan 6.79. 146.230-256.273,443,533, 3 13 535 Mesoamerican 274, 280 Semitic 146

Nyulnyulan 115 Worrorran 1 15

ablative case 40,45,52, 67,73, 348-350,421, deictic directional in YCli Dnye 194, 196 535 deictic in Tzeltal 238, 239 absolute frame of reference 4, 20, 232, 54 1 locational and temporal in Jaminjung Arrernte 53,57,58,60,62 63-68 in Australian languages 148 mimetic in Japanese 450 and coding of path 535 place in Tzeltal 233 distribution across languages 541-542 spatial 5, 3 1. 34, 38, 126-1 33, 154,285, Ewe 382-386,387 291,297 fixed bearings in 21,53,54 41 static topological in Warrwa 129-130, 153, generalizations about 547 155 Jaminjung 103, 104-107, 1 14 adverbs Japanese 447,473 Dutch translocational 502-503 Kilivila 223,225,228 ideophonic in Ewe 392,398 male use in Yukatek Maya 308 of manner in Tamil 434 as orientation bound 20 of orientation in Arrernte 39,44, 54 Tamil 425,428,429,43 1,433-434 of place in Kilivila 212 Tiriy6 351 Tiriy6 3 14, 341 Tzeltal 232, 237, 263-270, 27 1, 272 age factors 5 1, 52, 348-350 Warrwa 148, 150, 151, 156 agent. suppression in Japancse 444,445, YCli Dnye 183, 186, 187, 190,205 473 Yukatek Maya 273,303-306,308 agglutinating languages 7, 25, 207, 360, action path 29,48-5 1 40 1402 adhesion 489,520,522,526 Akan, BLC in 379,382,399 adjacency 124,240 Aktionsarten (temporal contours) 18,449. adjectives 465.467.53 1 cardinal in Arrernte 54 'alignment' reading, Hausa 189,428 demonstrative in Tamil 426 allative case 40, 43.45, 52, 59, 67, 73, I1 I, dispositional in Tzeltal 237, 258 535 adjuncts, ground-denoting in Yukatek Maya allative constructions 344. 346, 347, 380,456 273,283,296,297-299 anaphoricity 19 1 adpositions 16, 17 angle and the BLC 5 19-520,526 deictic 4, 2 1, 269 conflations in the similarity space 520-523 directional specification 20. 541 extensional range 52 1 fixed bearings 4.2 1.22 general purpose 5 namcd faccts 4, 20 languages without 520 angular vs. non-angular 3 spatial 2,5, 9, 170, 5 12, 520 animacy 282.29 1. 377.406,460,494, 5 18, see LI/.FOpostpositions; prepositions 519 adverbials anthropology 229 cardinal direction in Warrwa 149 'aquatic' ground 17, 113. 337 deictic directional in Warrwa 123, 135, 138, Ari~ndaset, Arrernte 156 areal factors 6. 5 1, 523 608 Subject index Subject index

arg~11nc11t~65.163, 208. 365. 437 dill'crcnccs bctwcen languages 15 IN and ON concepts 520 constituency 147 intransitive vcrb 28. 44. 278 Ibrm classes in I 6 and intrinsic frame of reference 2 1.542 constraints marking ON vcrb/lN vcrb phrac 7 lexical choices within thc 520 late mastery of spatial langaugc 55 1 on diversity of spatial distinctions 2. 55 1 Arrcrnte 24-55 rcduccd form 16 narrative skills in West 13 on fonnal expression of semantic types 6 BLC in 516.5 19.550 scmantic and pragmatic factors in 16 semantic concepts 5 implicational 55 1 cotliparcd with English ant1 Ewc 01. 62 similarity space and contrasts within spatial ideas 2 on motion components 17 comparcd with W'~rlpiri 29. 53 5 19-520, 526 and the topological sub-domain 526 in selection of frames of reference 550 distribution of topological rn;~tcrialin clausc subtypes ol'Jamin,jung 72-78. 1 13 circumpositions, Dutch 482 on semantic parameters 5 526 and a topological similarity space 5 14-519 classifier languages 208 on spatial conceptualization 5 14 frnmcs of refcrcncc 52-60. 62 undcrly ing expanded for111 16 clause structural 55 1 granitiiar 25-20 basic locativc fhnction 5 14 chaining in Tamil 435 constructivism. in child language acquisition motion tlcscriplion 39-52. 60 'be' cquivnlcnts 73. 74. 77. 113.417 differential loci of motion encoding 540 55 1 spcakcrs 24-25 locativc vcrb 15. 534 of motion in Warrwa 118, 135, 136 contact 4.522. 526 syntax 76 'become'-language. Japanese as a 446.473 overlapping in Ewe 366 between languages 399 topological rclntions 29-.39. 60 BLC .src basic locativc construction spatial information throughout the 5,6, 17. casual 490 as a vcrb-framcd language 44. 62 body-part system 56, 57. 82. 107, 1 14, 13 1. 526 force dynamics 492 Arunta .sc,c, Arrcrntc 187, 209. 2 14.228. 364.369. 374. 380. verbless Arrernte 32 lack in Japanese 446 ascribcd intrinsic kemc of rcfcrcncc 425 498,543 clothing adornment 375, 379,444,499 relations 76. 79, 13 1. 170, 282, 374. 388, aspect prominent Iwnguagcs 364. 372.388 and rcgion term5 432 cognition 408.409.4 1 1.4 12,487493 ';~ssocialcdmotion' Tzcltal 232, 237. 241-246. 261,263. 272 human spatial 1,229,. I3 role in dialect differentiation 382 Arrcrntc al'lixcs 44.47-5 1, 60, 61. 534 uscd metaphorically 2 13 and language 2 'surface-to-surface' 522,526 catcgorics 19. 28. 39, 534 boundary-crossing vcrbs 38. 101. 366. 391. and spatial language 1-2,550 vs. non-contact 11. 33. 34. 170.409. 5 15, tlistinct kom aspect 5 I 533 and universal semantic oarameters 5 12 519 Jami~?i~~ng86 Cognitive Anthropology Research Group 206, containment 4. 75.76, 81. 82, 124, 164, 167, Japancsc 463 canonical relations scv, stcrcotypicul/cunonical 476 240,328, 350. 370,41 1.446, 499, 520. Warrwa 146 rclolions cognitive science 1, 3 522,526 Ydli Dnyc 197-109. 203 cardinal systcm 53, 54, 55, 58, 60. 148. 149. cognitive style, and frame of reference 542, context nttaclimcnt 124. 167. 169. 17 1, 328. 334, 347. I 50. 15 1, 152. 153,237. 284. 303,308. 550 and frame of reference 545.550 376, 380.447. 489,498 428. 447, 507 coincidence of location 164.489 locatives and 3 1, 6 1 Jaminjung covcrbs 76. 79. 8 I case marking 5, 15. 16. 535 'come' equivalents 344, 346, 4 17.4 18,419, contiguity relations 53. 124. 164,240,336. vs. non-attnchmc~it 1 1. 5 15. 522 Arrcrntc 25-27 425,434.462465 489,543 Auslrnli;~Aboriginal CLI~~LI~CS.sig~lilici~ticc of Finnish 17 'COME' and 'GO' questionnaire 14 conventional collocation place in 1 16 Jatni~?jung65, 66 communication systems 2 del'ault in YCli Dnye 175-179 Australinn Innguagcs Japanese 437 see also language and novel objects in Ydli Dnye 179 centlxl areal fcaturcs 534 T~~rnil402403 comparative linguistics 2, 5. 8 converbs, Tamil 4 15.424 common scmantic patterning 523 Ydli Dnyc 160 comparative semantics 8. 5 14. 55 1 coordinate systems innlicnablc possession of a port by a wholc Ccntrnl Australian Aboriginal Media componential analysis 522, 55 1 absolute 264 in 33 Association (CAAMA) 25 compound verb constructions 121. 135. 138, in intrinsic frame of reference 302 LISC of absolutc Sratncs of rd'crcncc 148 clinngc of location 502 155 major classes 550 wntcr-flow systcm 103 covcrbs in Ja~nin.j~lng94. 95. 99 compounding polar 20, 550 ~~~~xilii~rics Ewc structures 389 in deictic verbs of motion 41 secondary speaker's 544 ;und dircctionills 237. 25 1-263. 41 6422 Japwicsc 453. 456,464 Dutch 479,482 see also frames of reference Dutch 503-504 punctual in Y~~katckMaya 274. 295. 300. Ewe 360 copular sentence5 3 15.3 16. 37 1 auxiliary sign language 61 30 I Japanese 467 coverbs 18.527 axial information .sc,e coordinate systcms change of locntivc rclation verbs 88-91. 98. concepts Jaminjung 63-68.69-70,7275.79-82. 135 innate structuring 552 91-97,98,99, 101, 113, 114 ballislic motion. vcrbs and covcrbs in changc of statc structure of 1 posture 530 Jamiti,jung 88-01. 95-97, 90, 1 13 analogue 468 universal 522, 55 1 use of term 69 basic locativc construction (BLC) 15, 5 14 discrctc in Japoese 467469,470.473 see also spatial concepts cross-cultural comparison 8 abbreviation of 16. 520 punctual 469 conceptualization, spatial 206 cross-linguistic studies 8 altcrnntivc constructions within tlic 5 IS. spontLuncous or agcntive 446 across dialects within a language 360 differential spatial coding 3, 5, 6 5 19-520. 526 vs. ~iiotion 15 constraints on 5 14 of motion description 527-541 altcrnativcs to 16. 526 child languagc ;requisition diversity in 272, 5 12, 550 patterns of spatial conceptualization 512 application mngc in Japanese 440 and absol~lteframe of reference 272 connectives 466 spatial inferences 6 BLCHic~xrchy16.514.515.556.5l9 constructivism of 55 1 connectivity see attachment; contact of topology 5 14-526 610 Subject index Subject index

crossways di~ncnsion232 directionals 535 equational svatements, nominal predicates 439 complcx in Jaminjung 8 1. 106, 1 10. cultural factors I. 13. 17. 61, 155, 176. 210, bound particles 273 ergative-absolutive pattern 26, 160, 233 Ill-112 230.309.3 12,434 deverbal 18 ergativity cultural artefacts as 5 1 6 cup-on-table sccne 9. 16. 32. 126, 165, 214. Jaminjung 67.73, 104, 105 'mixed' in Yukatck Maya 278 direction of I9 370.379,520&524.526 Tzeltal 232, 237.25 1-263 ~norphological 8, 26, 65, 1 18 displacement in space along a trajectory 18 verbal 530 ethnographic issues 61. 230. 233, 272 encoding of shape 5 dativc case 43,409,535 discourse strategies 62 etl~ol&~229 inherently tixed 440 dcictic auxiliary verb constructions 417,418, dispositional predicates 16, 538, 539 'etic' metalanguage of comparison 8. 135 point figure in motion as parallel to a static 4 19.425.434,462465.468,474 Tzeltal 23 1, 24 1, 263, 27 1 European languages 378 linear tigure 260 dcictic centre 345.4 12. 417,419 dispositionals, Tzeltal 23 I. 237, 246-248, child language acquisition 526 semantic information about the 526 deictic verbs of motion 4. 8, 14. 533 249.258.261 Japanese compared to 473 figure-ground configurations 5, 1 1. 18, 19, Arrer~ite4 1112, 44. 58, 60 distance. degrees of relative 122 x~lniy typology of motion description 527, 223.282.291,S 14.5 18,524,526 derivation in 4 1 'do'-language, English as a 446, 473 528-529.530 BLC 515 Dutch 502 dreamings. relationship of language to 25, 52, Event Complexity videoclips (ECOM) 340 frames of rcfcrence 54 1-550 Jaminjung 84 6 1 events ncgative space 443,497,498.499 YCli Dnyc 193-197 Dutcli 475-504 Giv6n's event integration 41 6 reversal 77. 154 deixis 42. 101 BLCin 486,493,5l0,5l1.519,559 non-durative structures 300 simple binary 542 Japanese 448,47 1 compared with English 475,492,505,508 predicated 17 focal scenc 524 Kilivila 223. 225 frames of referencc 507-5 10 relations of order 273. 302 Ibnn classes locative in Ewc 363 grammar 477485 simultaneous vs. sequential 13 in BLC 16 spatial in Yukatek Maya 287. 306 morphology 479 see ulso motion events in motion description 17. 527, 533 Tamil 425-427.434 motion description 500-506, 5 I0 Ewe 359-396 frames of refercncc 3,4, 15. 19-22, 5 14, Tzeltal 232. 237. 238-240. 27 1 as satellite-framed language 485, 500, 51 1 Arrernte compared with 6 1 541-550 YCli Dnye 191-192, 205 speakers 475477 BLC in 37 1-372.373-375,380,399,519. ambiguity in 21. 352. 508, 544 dcrnonst~.atives8. 61 topological relations 485-500. 5 I0 56 1 clioicc in photo-matching game I I adnominal in Jnmin.jung 68 word order 477.482 compared with English 371 cognitive consequences of preferred 272 adnominal in Yukatek Maya 287. 288 dialect variation 359, 382, 399 and cognitive style 542, 550 adverbial in Ja~ninjung68. 69 egocentric frame ol'refercnce .sea relative difticult to classify 395-398, 399 constraints in selection 550. 55 1 adverbs in Dutcli 506 frame of reference frames of reference 382-387, 399 and context 545, 550 Jaminjung 67. 68-69 clicitation techniques 2, 9-1 1, 14, 552 grammar 360-369 deixis as altcrnativc to 19 1, 223 pronouns in Kilivilu 209 stimuli 8 morphology 360 dislribution across sample languages 541, in Tamil 426 cllipsis 16. 216 motion description 387-398 542 two-tcrm in Ewe 362, 363 cmerging, coverbs of in Jamin,jung 94-95.98, speakcrs 359-360 distribution over individuals and groups in Tzeltal 238 99. 113 tone language 360 307-309 Warrwa 122, 156 'emic' concepts 8 topological relations 370-382 in the languagc sample (App.3) 567-569 in YCli Dnyc 19 1. 192. 205 cmphasis 424, 436, 503 verb serializing language 360, 366. 394 in motion description 13 denotation 8 endangercd languages 154 word order 36 l prepositional phrases 5 dcpcndency 147 English existence see location and existence 'pseudo-absolute' 308, 3 10 dcpendcnt-marking languages 7 Arrernte compared with 61. 62 existential predicates 236, 237, 290, 291. and scale of spacc 470 dcvelopmentnl psychology 542 BLC in 5 19,562 292 switching 309 diagranis I as a 'do'-language 446.473 existential/locative statements 163, 175, 237, topological relations preferred over 154 dialect variation, in Ewe 359. 382. 399 Dutch compared with 475,492,505,508 372.439,444 variation in selection 22, 550 diglossia 400 Ewc compared with 37 1 existentials. negative 175 various uses in different languages 544-550 direction Japanese compared with 446,450,452, 'exit' verbs .scv 'enterlexit' verbs .see crl.so absolutc frame of reference: or anglc 20. 2 1. 54 1 462.468 expression, 'characteristic mode of' 18, 397, intrinsic l'ramc of reference; relative away from 121. 151 prepositions in 446 527 framc of referencc changes in 59 satellite-stacking 422,450 extensional analysis 8, 521 free phrase ordcr languages 25 scnse of 542 Tamil compared with 4 17,419,427, extent, of ground in Japanese 457,46 1,470 Frog Story 13-14. 19. 39,83, 85, 88, 92. sources 22.54 1 433434,435 97-99. 142. 192,2 18,261,293.339,361. towards 121. 151. 152,396 Y6li Dnye compared with 174 ficing relations 1 1.55.56. 183, 185. 282. 347. 388.392.422.450. 537-541.552 direction ofgazc 82. 106. 1 I 1. 1 14. 15 1, 152. ENTERIEXIT elicitation film 15, 532 355, 357. 366, 386, 387,47 1,473, 509, 'cliffscenc' 14, 88, 95, 97-99, 142, 293, 153.244.246. 304. 347 'cnterlexit' verbs 8, 199, 301, 391,53 I, 533 5 10,545,547 339,422, 500, 506. 538 direction of motion 4. 15 1, 269. 390.4 15,449. Japanese 30 I, 467469,470,473 fictive motion 5 1, 15 1 front/back/left/right system soe 465.470 cpiste~niccertainty 19 1 figure 3.9, 17 left/right/front/back system coverbs in Jaminjung 70,')l-97, 106 epistemic modality 437 coincidence with the ground 29 functional equivalence 12. 15 6 12 Subject index Subject index gender differences, in Mayan use of frames of Institute for Aboriginal Development 25 scrambling 437. 463 encoding ol'gcnc~.alin Arrcr~itc29. 34. reference 308. 309 instrument of motion 17,530,531 spcakers 437 .>LF? gender reference 401.478 Intelyape-Iynpe Akaltye Project 25 topological relations 446447 end existence in Tzcltal 237-23s generalizations. implicational 5 13. 5 14. 55 1 intension 8. 522, 526 verb morphology 437 intrinsic i'mmc ofrci'crcncc Ibr in Kilivila generic verbs. Ewe 360,389 'internal motion' 83.99 21s verb-i'ra~mcd 146. 450. 460, 469 223,228 genetic f:~ctors. in semantic typology 6 intransitive verbs, arguments 28,44,278 word ordcr 437 in Japanese 438-449 geocentric frame of reference see absolute intrinsic frame of reference 4, 20, 21, 541 'journey' motif 13. 19. 39. 52. 301. 527, 537 relative to tlic dcictic ccntrc in Jaminjung frame of reference distribution across languages 542-543 105 geographical factors 6 1. 2 10 Dutch 508 Kilivila 206-227 rcsulling in Ydli Dnyc 164 geometric primitives 543, 550 Ewe 382.386 BLC in 5 18.555 spccial cxprcssions in Ydli Dnyc 164 gestalt 272 ground-internal 447,448 frames of reference 222-228 vcrbally described in Tamil 4 13415 gestures 59. 6 1. 149.229.239.425 in Jaminjung 70, 79. 81, 107-1 12, 114 motion description 2 17-22?, 228 vs. motion 449. 530 'go' equivalents 417.425.428.434.46246.5 Japanese 447.47 1,473 ncither verb-framcd nor satellite-framcd so(, trlso cliangc of location goal 4. 17. 83 Kilivila 223. 224, 226, 228 222 locat ivc case 404407.4 10. 4 1 3,434 coding of 461.527.535.539 named facets in 20. 54 1, 543 serial verb constr~~ction205 zero in YCli Dnyc 160, 17 1. 204. 535 specification along with source 19.535.538 as orientation free 20. 543 spcakcrs 207-209 lociltivc co~istr~~ction grammars. spatial description in 2. 230 Tamil 425,427,432433 topological relations 209-2 17. 228 across dialects in Ewe 38 I grammaticalization 209.2 10.367 Tiriy6 352. 353 word ordcr 207 b.'ISIL '. .ACC bii~ic loci~tivc construction defined 2 10 and topology 543 kinesis vs. stasis 3 (BLC) grammaticization theory 432 Tzeltal 242, 245, 263, 264, 271 k'~nsli~p, . ' and place 61 non-basic in Ewc 375-380 ground 3, 9. 17 ~~nderlyinguniversals 542. 550 Kriol 64. 115 locative tlcscriptions 15 animate 5 58. 5 I9 use of term 107 Kula exchange system 157. 207 caused 366 'aquatic' 17. 1 13 Warrwa 154 locativc nouns. Tarnil 404,407413. 434 distinguished from path 535. 536 YCli Dnye 183, 186, 187. 190,205 land. relationship of language to 25. 157.229 loc~ltivepredicates 5. 372-373. 382 functional 459.460 Yukatek Maya 273,302-303,307,308,3 10 landmark seo gro~~nd conflations ant1 distinctions within the Preferred Ground Structure 539 see also ascribed intrinsic frame of landmarks siniil;~rilyhpacc 523-524 semantic information about 526 reference ad lioc 225. 226. 305.308. 3 10.429 contrastive 8. 524. 526 see crlso figure-ground configurations isolating languages 7, 158,360 as bo~~ndary~iiarkers in Ewe 384 st:~tivc 292 ground-marking system environ~ncntalin Oceanic Innguagcs 209 locative verbs 15. 16. 17 direction and goal 5. 535 Jaminjung 11 1 language in combination with spatial nominuls and and predicate-marking system 524 BLC in 72-78, 113,519,560 and cognition 2. 5 I3 advcrbs in Arrcrntc 3 1 compared with Ngaliwurru 65,68,70 and hnily membership 25 kinds of container 17 'hanging' 134, 145. 173. 176, 182.2 17,282. compared with Warlpiri 102 relationship to land and dreamings 25 s~~pplctivcset in Ewe 37 1. 372--373 328,332,496,498 compared with Warrwa 146 language I~~iiilics6 Tiriyci 512 head-marking languages 7 compared with Yukatek Maya 89 language sample 6-8 (Table I. I ) 6-8 W~trlpiricompared with Arrernlc 29 'holding' coverbs 82 frames of reference 103-1 12 Ich/riglit/front/l,ack system 5. 549 Ydli Dnye I66 honorification, Japanese 437,439 grammatical and lexical resources 64-72 absence in Tzcltill 232. 246, 270-27 1 locatives horizontal dimension 4. 20, 54. 220.245. 257. lexicalization of spatial expressions Arrernte 53. 62 body part in Tzcltal 243 264.472.49 1,522.526 112-1 14 Dutch 508 defined 210 'Horn scales' 169. 335 motion description 83-102 Ewe 360 dcscriptivc 486 'hypertransitive' languages 365 as neither verb-framed nor satellite-framed Japanese 448 grammaticalization inlo closctl-cla\s 101-102. 113 Kilivila 212, 223. 226. 229 cntcgorics 2 10 I-principle .sre Quantity. Grice's first speakers 63-64 Ta~iiil429. 433 relation with existcntials 175 maxim of topological relations 72-82, 1 13 Tiriyci 352 static as derivative on motion descriptions ideophones 339.341. 344,360.392. 397,398 word order 65 Warrwa 148 19.38.377.536 imperative 59, 346 Japanese 437472 YCli Dnyc 183. 189 locomotion. oricntcd impersonal construction for location 135. 364. BLC in 438446,447,473,518,554 Yukatck Maya 306 locomolion verbs 378 compared with English 446,450,452,462, Icxicalization 112-1 14. 159. 204, 222. 282. combincd with covcrbs in Jatnin.jung 86 implicational scale 180.5 14. 534.549, 55 1 468 360 deictic 84 IN- and ON- relations 9. 11. 167. 168, 170. frames of reference 447,470-473 linguistic typology 8. 5 I3 Jaminjung 84-88. 99 172.405.520.526 grammar 437 linguistics 3 logical opcriuors 437 inalienable nouns see relational nouns location in 438449 location inference. pragmatic 6. 169, 204,405.435, mimetics 398 coincident 29 M-implicature 172. 18 1 443 motion description 449-470 contlated with motion description 500. 5 10 M-principle sot, Manncr, Grice's maxim of innateness theory of representation 5 13,552 multiverb constructions 462467,470 dynamic 29 Manncr. Gricc's niaxi~nof 180 614 Subject index Subject index

manner monolingualism 233, 274, 3 12 Jaminjung 83-102, 1 13 nominative-accusative patterns 8, 26, 1 18, mimetic 398.450. 470 morphology. causative 45 Japanese 449470 401,437 and motion 146. 527 morphosyntax 6,8 Kilivila 217-222, 228 non-concurrent event and motion 48, 50 two-tier lexicon (Slobin) 397 motion prepositional phrases 5 noun phrase manner of motion across the languages (App.2) Talmy's typology of European languages animate in Tamil 406 coverbs in Jamin.jung 70, 91-92. 97, 99, aspectual in Tzeltal 257 527,528-529,530 Arrernte 26, 33 102, 113 caused 297,388,452,455456,465 Tamil 4 15425,436 Dutch 479 ideophones in Ewe 360,397 deictically anchored in Tzeltal 253 Tiriyd 339-350 order in Warrwa 1 17 without change of locative state 53 1, 534 enclosure oriented in Tzeltal 256 Tzeltal 25 1-263 place in Japanese 439,458 manner-of-motion verbs 4, 17,530,531 inherently directed 289, 297. 309 Warrwa 135-148, 155 rational in Tamil 406 Arrernte 41.43-44 'internal' 53 1 YCli Dnye 192-204,205 syntax in Ewe 362-364 Dutch 500 interpretation from non-motion expressions Yukatek Maya 293-302 typical form in Warrwa 119 Ewe 366,390.396,397 in Ewe 388-389 see also 'journey' motif Tzeltal 233, 235 Japanese 449,455.456.464 link with stasis 388 motion events 48, 50, 392-398,485 YCli Dnye 160, 163 Kilivila 220, 221 location vs. 449, 536 core schema and co-event 392 nouns, Dutch 478 Tamil 415416 manner and 527 setting for 470 novel ob.jects, and positional verbs in YCli Tiriy6 343 ordering of types in Arrernte 44 Tamil complex motion/decomposition Dnye 179, 180 Tzeltal 253 and path 274,295 422-425 Warrwa 137. 138. 140. 141, 142. 156 point-oriented in Tzeltal 255 whose trajectory is anchored in a mid-poi!lt object, internal axial structure of 543 YCli Dnye 199 relationship with action 48-5 1 462,465 object incorporation, intransitivization by in Klkatek Maya 280,294, 295 semantic distinctions in choice of motion in a location 164 YCli Dnye 163 markers. spatial discourse 420.422 expression in Jaminjung 99-101 motion path 29, 48-5 1, 6 1,417 ON-scene, canonical see cup-on-table scene matrilineal culture 157, 207 and spatial change 17 motion preceding the verbal action 534 Optimality Theory 5 15 Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics, spontaneous in Japanese 452,453455,456 'motion with purpose' 18,534 orientation Space Project 2.3. 8, 117, 230 in static descriptions 262 'motion while doing' 18 absolute 223, 232, 309 Mayan languages summary of coding properties 528-529 motion-by-instrument verbs 530 Ewe 366.382.386-387.399 directionals in 18,534 summary of expressions in Jaminjung 97 'motion-cum-inhabit' verbs 530 Kilivila 223, 226, 229 positional classes 79 Talmy's 'motion situation' 219 multiverb constructions, Japanese 462467, Pintupi 62 space in 230-232.273 uncaused 297 470 in Warrwa 129, 137, 138, 142, 155 as verb-framed 146 verbless sentences 535 multilingualism 25, 64, 476 see c~lsofacing relations medium of motion 17,458,530,531 vertical axis, in Tzeltal 257 origin. Japanese ablative postpositions for 7 memory, role of place and direction I, 308, vs. change of state 15 narrative 458,460,470 54 1 vs. stasis 19, 205, 258-263, 536 Dreamtime stories 52 'origin' case, Jaminjung 66 Men and Tree Space Garnc 1 1-1 3,545 see also 'associated motion'; fictive motion; shifted deixis in 197 absolute frames of reference 548 'internal motion'; verbs of motion skills in Western children 13 Pannini, Sanskrit Grammar 400,403 Arrernte 54 motion conceptualization 527,530, 531-537 special grammatical resources in specific paralinguistic means 54 Dutch 493. 508. 545. 546 change of locative relation 531, 532,533, languages 538 part-whole relations 33, 34,54,61,292.497, Ewe 362 534 style 537, 552 498,519 intrinsic frame of reference 57, 548 change-of-location 53 1.533 subevents in 5 14,539 'partial enclosure from above' 77 Jamin.jung 103, 106. 107, 1 11 durative 53 1 'travelling' 52 particles Japanese 47 1.545.546 new semantic typology of 18 nominal clauses, expressing location in adverb-like in Dutch 482, 504 Kilivila 223 non-durative 53 1, 532, 539 Warrwa 133 Classificatory Particles (CP) in Kilivila 208 Tamil 430 as translocation 53 1, 539 nominal predicates 15, I6 clause-final clitic in Yukatek Maya 289 Tiriy6 354 types of 53 1,532 nominals illocutionary force in Ewe 361 Tzeltal 266 [notion description 3,4, 15, 17-1 9,s 14, classification in Kilivila 208 postverbal in YCli Dnye 16 1. 162 Warrwa 15 1. 152 527-54 1 functional in Japanese 439 preverbal in YCli Dnye 162, 193, 195, 196, YCli Dnyc 176. 182. 184. 186. 187 Arrernte 39-52, 60 Jaminjung 65-69 205 Yukatck Maya 302,308 cross-linguistic 527-541 locational in Jaminjung 66 question in Ewe 370 mentalese 5 13 different patterns 13, 17, 55 1 split case-marking pattern in Arrernte status of information units in Ewe 361 metalnnguagc. 'ctic' of comparison 8 differential loci of encoding in clause 540 26 passive construction lnctaphorical motion src, fictive motion Dutch 500-506 .see also directionals absence in Arrernte 38 'middle' (quasi-passive) construction 5 18 Ewe 387-398 nominals, spatial 5, 15, 524 absence in Ewe 364, 378 milpa agriculturc 275 form classes in 17, 527, 533,534 in Arrernte 3 1, 130 path 18,274, 527, 530 mimetics 398,450,470 frames of reference in 13 Japanese 438,439,446449,470 anchoring or properties in Jaminjung verbs mirror-image problem 186. 272 goal and source specification 4, 17 'superadjacent' 523 102, 113