2.1.1 Satellite-framed vs.verb-framed languages
Languages differ in the degree to which one category is favored over the other, which frequently results in different sizes of the respective lexicons.Malblanc （1966, qtd.in Wälchli Unp.Ms.: 3） compares French and German from a stylistic perspective in the field of translation and finds that the Romance language typically uses verbs to express route （i.e.‘sense of movement’） with manner information usually unexpressed, whereas the Germanic language uses verbs to express manner （i.e.‘sense of action’） with the route of motion expressed by a particle, as illustrated below.
（5）a.Le navire entre dans le port .（French）
the vessel enters in the port
‘The vessel is entering the port.’
（Malblanc 1966: 66; qtd.in Wälchli Unp.Ms.: 3）
b.Der Vogel fliegt in das Gebüsch hinein.（German）
the bird flies in the bushinto
‘The bird is flying into the bushes.’
（Malblanc 1966: 66; qtd.in Wälchli Unp.Ms.: 3）
Though the focus of the early literature is not typology and the terminology used is obviously different from the modern notions of ‘manner’ and ‘path’, the basic idea remains unchanged: though all languages need to represent motion events, the way they choose to encode them varies dramatically.There is no doubt that the most comprehensive and influential work on this topic is produced by Leonard Talmy whose seminal bipartite motion event typology （1975, 1985, 2000） has inspired three decades of research into the lexicalization of motion events in a wide range of diverse languages.
Talmy's original typological classification （1975, 1983, 1985） is mainly applied to motion verbs.He analyzes a motion event into a universal set of six semantic components, the first four of which represent the central or ‘internal components’ of a motion event, as illustrated in Figure 2.1 below, and the latter two of which represent the external or associated ‘co-event’ components, as illustrated in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.1 The internal components of a motion event （Talmy 1975,1983, 1985）
By holding constant an open-class type of grammatical element in which the information components are conflated （i.e.the verb）, Talmy mainly distinguishes two types of languages in terms of the lexicalization pattern of their verbs, as illustrated in （6）, below.
Figure 2.2 The co-event components of a motion event （Talmy 1975, 1983, 1985）
Note that, for Talmy, lexicalization occurs when “a particular meaning component is found to be in regular association with a particular morpheme” （1985: 29）.
（6）a.Motion + Co-event （Manner, Cause）
The bottle floated into the cave.
b.Motion + Path
La botella entró a la cueva（flotando ）.
‘the bottle moved-in to the cave（floating）.’
‘The bottle entered the cave by floating.’
When identifying the dominant lexicalization pattern of a particular language, Talmy refers to the “characteristic” way of encoding a motion event, that is, a pattern which is: （a） colloquialin style, rather than literary, stilted and so on; （b） frequent in occurrence in speech, rather than only occasional; and （c） pervasive , rather than limited; that is, a wide range of semantic notions are expressed in this type （Talmy 1985: 62）.Taking English as an example, although there are a number of verbs conflating Motion per se and Path information （e.g.enter , ascend , descendand exit ）, these are mostly Latinate borrowings and are far from being colloquial in style, frequent in occurrence, or pervasive in scope; consequently verbs of this type are not taken as being properly characteristic of English and therefore do not present a challenge to the privileged lexicalization pattern of the language, which is Motion + Co-event （Manner/Cause）.
In more recent papers （Talmy 2000）, Talmy broadens his original classification to encompass not only motion events but also events with resulting states of all types.He takes Path as a ‘core schema’-namely, a framing or delimiting semantic element of a verbal event-and re-generalizes the world's languages.This time, he holds constant a more generalized concept of Path and identifies the grammatical means by which this component is expressed:
Languages that characteristically map the core schema into the verb will be said to have a framing verb and to be verb-framed.Included among such languages are Romance, Semitic, Japanese, Tamil, Polynesian, most Bantu, most Mayan, Nez Perce, and Caddo.On the other hand, languages that characteristically map the core schema onto a satellite will be said to have a framing satellite and to be satellite-framed languages, and included among these are most Indo-European minus Romance, Finno-Ugric, Chinese, Ojibwa and Warlpiri （Talmy 2000: 222）.
According to the above, in satellite-framed languages such as English and German, Path of motion is typically expressed outside the verb, namely, in ‘satellite’ elements such as English verb particles, German separable and inseparable verb prefixes, Latin or Russian prefixes.Since Path is expressed peripherally, the verb roots of these languages are readily available to encode ‘co-events’, that is, Manner and/or Cause of motion.By contrast, in verb-framed languages, Path is incorporated into the verb root per se; co-events to a basic motion schema are usually left unexpressed, but are instead determined according to the surrounding context.When they （Manner and/or Cause） must be indicated, they are standardly expressed independently through use of adverbials, prepositional phrases, or relative, infinitive, or gerundive clauses.Figure 2.3, below, illustrates the basic distinction between the two types of language （taken from Zlatev et al.2010: 390）:
Figure 2.3 Event structure in a satellite-framed versus verb-framed language
This verb-framed versus satellite-framed distinction proves to be very fruitful when applied to a variety of languages （Slobin 1997, Zlatev 1997）.However, as the number and the variety of languages explored increases, this binary typology is found to be less cross-linguistically valid.First of all, some novel languages do not neatly fit into the binary typology.For instance, Brown （2004） notices that the Mayan language Tzeltal seems to straddle the binary typology since it has both Path-expressing verbs and directionals of the ‘satellite’ status.Second, even some familiar Indo-European languages seem to possess properties of both typological groups.As case in point, Iacobini and Masini （2006） investigate verb-particle constructions and prefixed verbs in Italian and find that - parting from another clearly verb-framed language Spanish - Italian employs both the ‘Romance type’ and the ‘Germanic type’ of expression of motion events.More specifically, Path information is conflated with motion in verb roots, but it is not the only or the privileged way of realizing the Path feature in Italian.Rather, the primary function of Italian post-verbal particles is to add directional values to the verbal root and they function as true satellites, just as in Germanic languages （2006: 161）.
In fairness, evidence of the type reviewed above is not necessarily problematic for Talmy's account.This is because his bipartite classification is generally taken as a one in which, “these typological characterizations often reflect tendencies rather than absolute differences between languages” （Berman and Slobin 1994: 118）.
However, one genuine challenge that Talmy's bipartite typology faces is that of the accommodation of serial verb languages into the classification.It has been widely noticed by linguists that Talmy's typology has a ‘one-verb-per-clause’ restriction （Beavers et al.2010: 14）.As earlier noted, the verb-framing and the satellite-framing types are asymmetric in their encoding of semantic components of an event: one component is expressed by a verb or main predicate, whereas the other is expressed by an element that cannot function independently as a verb or main predicate （Croft et al.2002: 5）.That is, Talmy implicitly assumes that languages are normally “verb solitarizing”, with only one lexical main verb per clause （Wälchli Unp.Ms.: 4）.
This assumption becomes particularly problematic when serial verb languages are taken into account, in which “a single clause representing the same general event can contain two or more verbs with shared nominal arguments and further these verbs are usually of equal status; neither is a modifier of the other” （Zlatev and David 2004: 4）.The so-called serial verb languages belong to a variety of language families including Niger-Congo, Hmong-Mien, Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai, Monkhmer and Austronesian （Zlatev and Yangklang 2004: 2）, of which the Thai language seems to be the most frequently examined thus far.Observe the following example of Thai, provided by Zlatev and Yangklang （ibid.: 160）.
（7）Chan deen khaam thanon khaw paj naj suan
I walk cross road enter go in park
‘I walked across the road and into the park.’
In this instance, three different kinds of motion verbs, both with and without arguments, are used in a single clause: the Manner verb deen（‘walk’）, non-deictic Path verbs khaam（‘cross’） and khaw（‘enter’） and the Deictic verb paj （‘go’）.Crucially, there is no syntactic or semantic evidence to suggest that one of the above verbs is the main verb and all the others are satellites; therefore, all the verbs involved are of an equal status.Zlatev and David （2004: 13-14） primarily base this argument on the following observations:
Any one of the motion verbs in a clause like example （7）, above, can appear alone without making a sentence incomplete, which is not the case with verb particle in English （*‘I across’）.
There is no semantic difference between the ‘truly verbal’ use of Path expressions and the use of them with preceding Manner verbs.
Without Path verbs, the motion event expressed is essentially locative rather than translocative （e.g.‘I walked in the park.’）.This suggests that instead of having a modifying function, Path verbs in Thai truly ‘frame’ a motion event.
These characteristics of Path verbs are actually not restricted to the Thai language alone; rather, they can be applied to Path elements in serial verb languages in general.Zlatev and David （ibid.） compare Thai with another two languages, Swedish and French[1], which are clearly satellite-framed and verb-framed respectively.Their conclusion is that Thai resembles French in some aspects and Swedish in others, but also possesses structural characteristics which distinguish it from the two Talmian types.Accordingly, Thai and, by extension, other serial verb languages need to be considered separately in terms of motion event construction.
Zlatev and David's （ibid.） findings are strongly reminiscent of Ameka and Essegbey （2006） who analyze the expression of motion events in two Niger-Congo serial verb languages, Ewe and Akan.Using a wide set of criteria, they find that the two languages pattern neither with satellite-framed nor verb-framed languages but instead instantiate a third category:
When the properties are tallied, we find that serializing languages share more properties with S-languages than with...V-languages...while still possessing a unique property.What this shows is that they cannot be said to belong to either type.Instead, they appear to belong to a class of their own （qtd.in Slobin 2004: 228）.
Similarly,Slobin and Hoiting （1994） argue that Talmy's definition of ‘satellite’ cannot be readily applied to serial verb languages, which should be actually treated as ‘complex verb-framed languages’, similar to sign languages like ASL （1994: 502）.Such languages are verb-framed, they explain, because Path information can be expressed by an independent verb; meanwhile, they do not fully pattern with verb-framed languages in that there is no finite versus non-finite distinction between Manner verbs and Path verbs.
In his later work, Slobin （2004） develops the above line of thought by proposing a third typological category with regard to motion events, namely, ‘equipollently-framed’ languages.He also notices that there are languages in which path-expressing constituents are difficult to class as either verb roots or satellites.For instance, Hokan and Penutian languages have bipartite verbs, which are composed of two morphemes of equal status, one expressing Manner and the other Path （ibid.: 24）.Similarly the Australian language Jaminjung has only five available motion verbs, each expressing a single deictic or aspectual function such as ‘go’ or ‘come’.This language compensates for the lexical scarcity of motion verbs by combining the motion verb with two ‘preverbs’, encoding Manner and Path, respectively （ibid.）.Based on these observations, Slobin expands Talmy's bipartite classification by adding to it a third type of language:
Equipollently-framed language: Path and Manner are encoded in equipollent grammatical forms.The various forms that a verb can assume include:
Manner verb + Path verb :
serial-verb languages like Chinese, Thai, Sino-Tibetan, Niger-Congo, etc.
［Manner + Path］ verb:
bipartite verb languages such as Hokan, Algonquian, Athabaskan, etc.
Manner preverb + Path preverb + Verb : Jaminjungan languages.
The new category of equipollently-framed languages is defined by Slobin as comprising languages in which “both Manner and Path are expressed by equipollent elements，that is, elements that are equal in formal linguistic terms, and appear to be equal in force or significance” （ibid.: 9）[2].In this light, serial verb languages like Chinese represent a third type of lexicalization pattern, lying between S-languages and V-languages” （Slobin 2000: 134）.
As is evident from the above review, in Slobin's tripartite typology it is admitted that a clause can have more than one verb which simultaneously denotes different aspects of motion （e.g.manner, path, cause, deixis）; the new classification thus accommodates an important category of languages with serial verbs, compound verbs or multiple verbs in coordination.As Zlatev and David （2004: 26） point out, the proposal of this third category of equipollently-framed language raises new questions not only for motion event typology per se （i.e.“Which languages can be said to belong to such a class?”）, but also for research on discourse style （i.e.“What kind of rhetorical styledo these languages have?”）, the on-line cognitive representation of motion events （i.e.“Do these languages affect thinking for speakingdifferently?”） and the study of language-specific gestures （i.e.“Do they have type-specific gesture patterns?”）.