Читать книгу Multiple Preverbs in Ancient Indo-European Languages - Chiara Zanchi - Страница 19

So far, I have discussed static spatial events, in which a TR is located with respect to a LM. However, a spatial event can also imply motion: in such events, the TR moves with respect either to a stable or to another moving entity (LM). In each case, one recognizes an asymmetrical relation between a TR and a LM. Several parameters can contribute to such asymmetrical relation, including the number of the moving entities, the direction of movement, the path of movement, containment, contact, orientation, or a combination of these (Svorou 1994: 24).

Motion events can be conceptualized as having directionality, or a deictic orientation. TRs can be directed toward or away from LMs: for example, the English verb to go implies a motion away from the speaker, whereas to come implies a direction toward the speaker. Furthermore, the directionality of certain entities can be specified on a vertical axis, such as in the following Italian verbs: salire ‘to go up’ entails an upward motion, while scendere ‘to go down’ a downward motion.

In addition, the conceptualization of a motion event subsumes a trajectory, that is, the path covered by a TR with respect to a LM. However, the trajectory can either be profiled or remain in the base. For example, the Ancient Greek verbs pḗgnumi ‘fix’ and bállō ‘throw’ can take either the dative or the accusative, both expressing the direction of the motion. The dative and the accusative cases differ in their profile: the dative only profiles the endpoint of the trajectory, while the accusative profiles it as a whole.

Both location and motion events can involve the containment of the TR inside the LM, conceptualized as a container. As for location events, the TR can either be placed inside, near, or in contact with the LM (“inessive”, “adessive”, and “superessive” location, respectively). As regards motion events, the TR can move either toward the inside of a LM, toward its vicinity, or toward a contact position with the LM (“illative”, “allative”, and “superallative” motion). Conversely, the TR can move from the inside of the LM, from its vicinity, or from a contact position with the LM (“elative”, “ablative”, “superlative” motion, respectively). As discussed for examples (1) and (2), both spatial and metaphorical LMs can be conceived as containers: the Container metaphor is one of the most widespread means for shifting from the concrete to the abstract plane in conceptualizing events (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 32ff.). The Container metaphor is based on the fact that the human body itself has its dimensionality and can be conceptualized as a container.

In contexts in which containment is not involved, contact instead can be relevant to identify the position of a TR with respect to a LM. The opposition based on contact is not expressed through morphological cases in Indo-European languages. However, in English as well as in ancient Indo-European languages, a number of preverbs-adpositions (cf. Chapter 3 on this terminology) in fact express this contrast: in English both on and over indicate that the TR is vertically located with respect to the LM, and differ only in the presence/lack of contact (Brugmann 1988); in parallel, for example, the basic meanings of Ancient Greek epí ‘on’ and hupér ‘over’ express superiority, the former involving contact, the latter lacking this implication (Luraghi 2003: 24).

Another relevant parameter is the “plexity” (in Talmy’s 2000: 177–254 terms) of the TR, of the LM and of the trajectory. TR and LM can consist of separate items (multiplex), or of a non-analyzable single entity (uniplex); in parallel, trajectory can be unidirectional (uniplex) or multidirectional (multiplex). Remarkably, the plexity is not an inherent feature of the participants in a spatial relation, but rather depends on how these participants are conceptualized. A further distinction only concerns multiplex entities: they can be either continuous or discontinuous. Discontinuous entities are typically plural count nouns, which profile the existence of a number of individuated entities; conversely, continuous entities are usually mass nouns and collectives, which profile an undifferentiated mass. Thus, discontinuous and continuous entities, as well as plural and mass nous, are distinguished only by their degree of individuation (Langacker 1987: 294).