The conceptualization and expression of motion events in different languages has sparked interest among researchers for decades (e.g., Strohmeyer 1924, Bergh 1948), but it was probably not until the seminal work by Talmy (1985, 1991, 2000) that the linguistic articulation of motion across languages developed into a fruitful field of typological research.

Over the years, Talmian typological thinking has inspired many researcher to analyze central aspects associated with motion events, such as the linguistic realization of the semantic components of Manner (Slobin 2006, Müller 2019) and Path (Ibarretxe‐Antuñano 2009), the ways co‐speech gestures align with such linguistic expressions depending on speakers' first language (Stam 2006), the interaction between lexicalization and construction patterns involving motion (Baron and Herslund 2005, Pedersen 2009, Korzen 2016), the acquisition of motion‐related constructions and patterns of a second language (Cadierno 2010, Stam 2010), and the role of typological contrasts in translation (Rojo & Cifuentes‐Férez 2017, Alonso 2018, Molés‐Cases and Cifuentes‐Férez 2021).

Basically, from these and related studies has emerged a new line of research which seeks to apply experimental research design involving non‐linguistic tasks in order to identify the possible influence that the speaker's first language might have on non‐linguistic cognition, such as in memory and categorization tasks (e.g., Gennari et al. 2002, Pourcel 2008, Kersten et al. 2010). This body of work in general aims at exploring Whorf's linguistic relativity hypothesis, namely, that patterns existing in language might influence patterns of thought.

Finally, a few researchers have stepped into post‐Talmian approaches to the cross‐linguistic analysis of motion events, significantly broadening the conceptual apparatus and leaving the question of the number of language types relatively open (Zlatev et al. 2010, 2021; Blomberg 2014).

Aims and content

Against this background, the present workshop is dedicated to studying (1) the conceptual tools for analyzing the expression of motion events cross‐linguistically, (2) the consequences of typological differences in second language learning, and (3) the impact of those contrasts in translation.

We welcome submissions focused on theoretical, methodological, and empirical approaches to this field. Some of the topics suggested include, but are not restricted to, the following:

• Cross‐linguistic analysis of motion events using various sources of data (e.g., corpus data, elicitation tasks);
• Typological research on the systematic morphological, syntactic and lexical differences between languages and their possible consequences for framing events and naming objects/phenomena;
• Motion events in language and cognition, neo‐Whorfian studies from both theoretical (or philosophical) and empirical perspectives;
• Methodological and conceptual challenges in motion events research: problematic areas and unresolved issues;
• Rethinking‐for‐Speaking in a second language;
• Thinking‐for‐Translating, impact of typological contrasts on the translation process, performance, and product.

The workshop seeks to cover the topics of interest by integrating research from different disciplines. We therefore welcome scholars from theoretical and applied linguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive sciences, etc.

Presenters are invited to contribute to the workshop by submitting abstracts that illustrate research outcomes, projects, theoretical explorations etc.

References:

Alonso Alonso, R. (2018). Translating motion events into typologically distinct languages. Perspectives 26(3): (pp. 357‐376)

Baron, I. & Herslund, M. (2005). Langues endocentriques et langues exocentriques. Approche typologique du danois, de français et de l’anglais. Langue Français 145, 35‐54.

Blomberg, J. (2014). Motion in Language and Experience: Actual and Non‐actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. (PhD Dissertation, Lund University)

Cadierno, T. (2010). Motion in Danish as a Second Language: Does the Learner's L1 Make a Difference? In Z. Han & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for Speaking (pp. 1‐33). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692788

Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83(1), 49‐79. doi:10.1016/S0010‐0277(01)00166‐4

Ibarretxe‐Antuñano, I. (2009). Path Salience in Motion Events. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin‐Tripp, K. Nakamura, & S. Özçalıskan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 403‐414). New York: Psychology Press.

Kersten, A. W., Meissner, C. A., Lechuga, J., Schwartz, B. L., Albrechtsen, J. S., and Iglesias, A. (2010). English speakers attend more strongly than Spanish speakers to manner of motion when classifying novel objects and events. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 139, 638–653. doi: 10.1037/a0020507

Korzen, I. (2016). Endocentric and exocentric verb typology: Talmy revisited – on good grounds. Language and Cognition, 8(2), 206‐236. doi:10.1017/langcog.2014.42

Molés‐Cases, T., Cifuentes‐Férez, P. (2021). Translating narrative style. How do translation students and professional translators deal with Manner and boundary‐crossing? Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19 (2) (pp. 517‐547)

Müller, H. H. (2019). The determining role of MANNER in linguistic event framing. In I. Baron, L. Begioni, M. Herslund, & A. Rocchetti (Eds.), Le lexique et ses implications : Entre typologie, cognition et culture, Langages 214, 45‐58. Paris: Armand Colin.

Pedersen, J. (2009). The Construction of Macro‐events. A typological perspective. In C. Butler & J. M. Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (Vol. 1, pp. 25‐62). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.

Pourcel, S. S. (2008). Relativistic Application of Thinking for Speaking. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin‐Tripp, K. Nakamura, & S. Özçalıskan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. New York: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203837887

Rojo, A., & Cifuentes‐Férez, P. (2017). On the reception of translations: Exploring the impact of typological differences on legal contexts. In I. Ibarretxe‐Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages. Theory and applications (pp. 367–398). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes Manner of Motion Salient? In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (pp. 59‐81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.66.05slo

Stam, G. (2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. IRAL ‐ International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44(2). doi:10.1515/iral.2006.006

Stam, G. (2010). Can an L2 Speaker's Patterns of Thinking for Speaking Change? In Z. Han & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Linguistic Relativity in SLA: Thinking for Speaking (pp. 59‐83). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 36‐149).

Talmy, L. (1991). Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17(1), 480. doi:10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J., & David, C. (2010). Translocation, language and the categorization of experience. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition, and space: the state of the art and new directions (pp. 389‐418). London: Equinox.

Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J., Devylder, S., Naidu, V., & van de Weijer, J. (2021). Motion event descriptions in Swedish, French, Thai and Telugu: a study in post‐Talmian motion event typology. Acta linguistica hafniensia, 53(1), 58‐90. doi:10.1080/03740463.2020.1865692