Voluntary motion events in Uyghur: A typological perspective

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

Voluntary motion events in Uyghur: A typological perspective Alimujiang Tusun a,*, Henriëtte Hendriks b a

Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, University of Cambridge, 17 Mill Lane Cambridgeshire CB2 1RX, UK b Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, English Faculty Building, University of Cambridge, 9 West Road, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DP, UK Received 31 December 2018; received in revised form 8 April 2019; accepted 12 May 2019 Available online 20 June 2019

Abstract Previous decades have seen many studies on the expression of motion in language. Most are based on Talmy's (1985) motion event typology. While providing robust support for the typology, variations within and across typological groups have also been reported, leading to proposals to either expand the typology (Slobin, 2004; Ameka and Essegbey, 2013) or to understand it as a set of strategies that languages avail themselves of (Beavers et al., 2010; Croft et al., 2010). To further contribute to this line of research, this article examines the expression of voluntary motion by adult speakers of a Turkic language, modern Uyghur. Our analyses reveal that Uyghur is a prototypically verb-framed language. It is different from English (considered satellite-framed) at all levels of analysis and is systematic in adopting verb-framed lexicalisation patterns alike Turkish and to a lesser extent French. Our data lend support for Talmy's (2000) typology as conceived in a strategy-based typological framework (Croft et al., 2010; Hendriks & Hickmann, 2015). © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Motion event typology; Modern Uyghur

1. Introduction The domain of space constitutes the earliest, most essential and pervasive of human experiences (Johnson, 1987; Mandler, 1992; Tyler and Evans, 2003). As human beings share a common set of biological endowments, it is reasonable to expect that their conceptualization of space would be similar, and therefore the ways in which spatial relations are represented in languages would be relatively homogeneous. Contrary to this assumption, it has been found that there is considerable variation in the way space is structured across languages (Bowerman and Choi, 2001; Levinson, 2003; Levinson and Wilkins, 2006; Slobin, 2004; Slobin et al., 2011; Pederson, 2017). An extensively researched area in this regard concerns the lexicalisation of motion events. We shall detail the motion event typology presently, but it should be noted at this point that, while much attention in existing studies has been devoted to a relatively restricted set of European languages (e.g. English, German, Spanish, French), and some specific Asian languages (e.g. Chinese, Thai, Japanese),

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Tusun), [email protected] (H. Hendriks). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.05.003 0024-3841/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

70

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

many other languages or language families remain untouched. Meanwhile, broad typological generalisations have been made about entire geographical areas and language families (cf. Slobin, 2000). Similarly, more recent discussions about inter- and intra-typological variations in encoding motion events have been mostly conducted in relation to European languages (see Goschler and Stefanowitsch, 2014). Admittedly, studying these languages has enriched our understanding of the motion event typology immensely and yet, for the spatial language enterprise that prizes the importance of language-specific properties, the need for recruiting languages from underrepresented language families seems obvious. As an attempt in this regard, the present paper introduces a Turkic language, i.e. the modern Uyghur language (Uyghur hereafter) into the discussion. Note that motion event expressions have been examined in Turkish (cf. Slobin, 2004; Özçaliskan, 2013; Özçaliskan et al., 2016), and thus we have a general idea of what to expect for Turkic languages more generally. However, a study on motion expressions in Uyghur and a comparison to other verb-framed languages, Turkic and non-Turkic alike, will contribute to the ongoing inquiry into the intra-typological variations that have mostly been concerned with European languages so far and will ultimately improve our understanding of the typology. It is to the motion event typology that we shall now turn. Each motion event type is comprised of a distinct and universal set of semantic components. Voluntary motion, the focus of our present paper, involves a protagonist's spontaneous movement from one location to another in a particular Manner and along a certain Path trajectory. In Talmy's (2000) terminology it involves a moving entity (i.e. Figure), a reference object within the reference frame (i.e. Ground), the core scheme i.e., the Path of motion (i.e. up, across) and (optionally) a co-event, i.e., the Manner (e.g. running, crawling) in which motion is carried out. By holding constant the concept of Path, Talmy (2000) identifies the grammatical means by which this component is expressed and categorises the world's languages into (1) verb-framing if the core schema is encoded in the main verb and (2) satellite-framing if the core schema is encoded in a satellite.1 By implication, the status of a given language in the typology depends on (1) whether Path information is located in the main verb or elsewhere; (2) where and in what linguistic means the co-event (Manner) appears. By way of illustration, (1) below is from English, a satellite-framed language (S-language) while Example (2) is from French, a verb-framed language (V-language). (1) Mary ran into the room. (2) Marie est entrée dans le salon en courant. (‘Mary entered the living room running’) The expression of Path is realised in the main clause via the preposition into in (1) whereas in (2), Path is expressed in the main clause by the verb entrer ‘enter’. Such a distribution of the Path component in turn has consequences for the location of other relevant semantic components, i.e., Manner. In an S-language like English, Manner is typically conflated with motion per se in the main verb (1) while in a V-language like French, Manner, if at all expressed, tends to be pushed to the periphery and expressed via an adverbial, gerundive or some sort of subordination. Subsequent research has shown that such a pattern of lexicalisation is subject to what is known as the ‘boundary crossing constraint’ (Aske, 1989; Slobin and Hoiting 1994; Özçaliskan and Slobin, 2003; Özçaliskan, 2015). Specifically, V-languages, like S-languages, can potentially conflate Manner of motion with motion per se in the main verb provided that the event does not involve the crossing of a boundary in space. In (3) and (4) below, Mary's motion takes place within a confined space, which does not involve crossing a physical boundary (contrary to (1) and (2)) and as such the lexicalisation pattern characteristic of S-languages can also apply for V-languages. (3) Mary is running around the room (4) Marie court dans le salon Talmy's typological observations were examined in numerous cross-linguistic studies in actual language use (Allen et al., 2007; Chen and Guo, 2009; Hickmann et al., 2009a; Hendriks & Hickmann, 2011; Slobin, 1997, Slobin, 2000, 2004; Shi and Wu, 2014; Strömqvist and Verhoeven, 2004). These studies have shown that languages differ not only in terms of the typical linguistic devices in which the semantic components appear, but also in the frequency with which they are encoded. We mentioned earlier that in S-languages, the core schema Path is encoded in the satellite, and as a result the

1 According to Talmy (2000), the satellite is the grammatical category of any constituent other than a nominal or prepositional phrase complement that is in a sister relation to the verb root (Talmy, 2000, p. 222). It can be either a bound morpheme or a free word (e.g., English verb particles, German separable and inseparable verb prefixes, Chinese verb complements. As we will see below, the notion of satellite was enlarged to include all devices other than the main verb root that contribute to motion expression (e.g., case markers, particles, adpositions, adverbials, gerunds, converbs).

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

71

main verb is ‘freed up’ for encoding Manner. In contrast, in V-languages Path needs to be encoded in the main verb and therefore the Manner component, if expressed at all, is likely to appear in optional adverbial or subordinate constructions (Slobin and Özçaliskan, 2003; Slobin, 2006; Özçaliskan, 2015). In other words, a complete verbal representation of a voluntary motion event, i.e. Manner + Path is possible within one compact clause in S-languages but is likely to require more complex and therefore ‘heavier’ syntactic structures in V-languages. Given its cognitive primacy, Path is a high codability domain for both S- and V-languages (Talmy, 2000; Slobin, 2004; Emerson et al., 2016). The codability of Manner, on the other hand, varies as a function of language type. S-language speakers have readily accessible and compact means of simultaneously encoding Manner and Path. Doing so in V-languages is less straightforward. As a result of the typological and processing constraints on habitual and sustained language use, Manner becomes a low codability domain in V-languages. Codability in a language manifests itself in terms of how frequently the information is encoded as well as the diversity and specificity of its lexicon. For example, S-language speakers not only make more frequent mention of Manner in their motion descriptions, but they also have a richer Manner lexicon at their disposal than V-language speakers (Slobin, 2004, 2006; Slobin et al., 2014). As the codability of Manner in V-languages is affected by the syntactic structures available in a language, more recently, scholars have moved beyond lexicalisation at the clause level to also include how different languages systematically map semantic components onto syntactic structures as an important dimension in the typological characterisation of a language (see for instance Brown and Gullberg, 2012, 2013; Engemann, 2012, 2016; Hickmann et al., 2018; Ji and Hohenstein, 2014). Thus, Allen et al. (2007) first noted that in cases where both Manner and Path are simultaneously encoded, speakers of V-languages such as Turkish and Japanese are more likely to distribute the two elements across two separate clauses whereas S-language speakers tend to package them in a single compact construction (see also Özçaliskan et al., 2016). To summarise, the typological status of a language seems to depend on at least the following three aspects: (1) the linguistic devices used for expressing semantic components and their relative frequency, (2) the level of codability of (the combination of) the two semantic components of voluntary motion in a given language and (3) the packaging of the semantic components at the syntactic level. The present study will examine Uyghur along these three general parameters.

2. Debates around the Talmyan typology As mentioned above, Talmy's (1985, 1991, 2000) typology has inspired extensive research into the expression of motion events in a diverse range of languages and language families. While its basic premises have been confirmed, many studies have revealed considerable inter- and intra-typological variation in the encoding of motion events, which has led some scholars to suggest that Talmy's typological framework may need to be revisited and revised (cf. Beavers et al., 2010; Cardini, 2008; Croft et al., 2010; Feiz, 2011; Filipovic´ and Jaszczolt, 2012; Goschler and Stefanowitsch, 2014; Ji et al., 2011; Strömqvist and Verhoeven, 2004). As an example, Ibarretxe-Antun~ano (2009) notes that although Path is an obligatory component of motion and has therefore to be always expressed, languages differ in terms of the canonical segmentation of Paths as well as the relative ease of building complex Path constructions and this is only partially determined by Talmy's typology. IbarretxeAntun~ano explains such differences by how accessible, frequent and easy-to-process Path devices are, which can be explained by linguistic, discursive and cultural factors. She argues that languages should be organised along a Path cline. Relatedly, Slobin (2003, 2006) observes that languages differ in Manner salience, i.e., the frequency and semantic specificity of manner expression in describing motion events. His findings, again, do not necessarily coincide with Talmy's typological groupings. Slobin explains such differences in terms of semantic and psycholinguistic processing constraints, and different levels of lexical and morpheme availability across the languages and proposes that languages can be classified on a Manner cline. Other arguments for a possible revision of the typology come from studies on the expression of motion in serial verb languages. Zlatev and Yangklang (2004), for example, found that, although Thai can be regarded a V-language as it encodes Path information in the main verb, its use of Path verbs at similar frequency as verbs that conflate both Manner and Path makes its typological status blurred. Moreover, it differs from other typical V-languages on certain discourse parameters (e.g. event granularity, level of ground specification) and according to those criteria behaves more like S-languages. Similar observations have been made for African verb-serialising languages like Akan and Ewe (2013) and for Mandarin Chinese (Chen and Guo, 2009; Ji, 2009). All these studies suggest, following Slobin (2004), that the original typology may need to be expanded such that serial verb languages are accommodated in an additional equipollentlyframed category. All the above studies have extended our understanding of the typology itself, especially in terms of how it operates in language use. Yet, a common issue brought forth by these studies is that almost no language is completely V- or

72

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

S-framing and indeed, this is also one of the main reasons why it has been argued that Talmy's original typology be expanded to accommodate other language types (cf. Guo and Chen, 2009). However, as Croft et al. (2010) note, the basic unit of cross-linguistic comparison and contrast should never be the language as a whole, but the constructions that are employed by different languages to describe an equivalent state of affairs. The typology then represents encoding strategies (e.g. lexicalisation patterns, and syntactic packaging) in individual languages, which are the result of a complex but constrained interplay between the conceptual content of the motion situation depicted and the language-specific structures (cf. Nikitina, 2008; Hendriks & Hickmann, 2015). Croft and colleagues argue that to make meaningful typological generalisations, a good starting point would be to hold constant the specific event types (e.g. various Path and Manner configurations; voluntary vs. caused motion) and examine their expressions cross-linguistically. Adopting such a conception, this study conducts a multi-layered analysis of motion event expressions in Uyghur and compares it with available findings on two V-languages (French and Turkish) and an S-language (English). By examining an under-represented Turkic language, it aims to add nuance to the hitherto rather Eurocentric literature and to shed further light on motion event typology. In the following, we will provide some information on the Turkic language family, and indicate how findings from the largest language in the family, Turkish, have informed our understanding of the expression of motion in this family of V-languages. We will then discuss the language-specific details of Uyghur (including potential differences with Turkish) and formulate our research questions and hypotheses. 3. The Turkic language family Turkic languages are spoken by an estimated 170 million speakers across at least 20 different countries spread over the Eurasian continent (Pereltsvaig, 2017). Some of their common features include vowel harmony, agglutinative morphology, verb-final word order and nominalised subordinate clauses. Turkic languages are characterised by a highly synthetic structure with numerous bound morphemes and as a result, nominal and verbal morphology is rich and complex. They have both finite and non-finite predicative forms. Finite items constitute independent sentences. Non-finite predicates are based on action nouns, participles and converbs. Converbs are adverbial forms of the verb signalling various semantic relations to the content of the super-ordinate clause. They can modify the head clause, but they may also, though syntactically dependent clauses, represent events of equal narrative value with the event of the head clause, and can therefore in translation be rendered with English coordinate constructions. The non-modifying converbs are ideal for narrative linking and serve as central text-constructing units in traditional narrative styles. The modifying converbs may express the manner of motion expressed in the main verb (also see Kornfilt, 2009). 3.1. Motion expression in Turkish The largest of the Turkic languages, Turkish, has been studied extensively for the expression of motion (Furman, 2012; Furman et al., 2014; Slobin and Özçaliskan, 1999, 2003; Özçaliskan, 2015). It presents many ways of expressing motion events, and makes extensive use of converbs. Two converbs were shown to be of special importance in the Frog story data (Mayer, 1969): converbs followed by -(y)Ip functioned to link clauses together in narrative units, packaging constituents of an event into a larger event. Converbs followed by -(y)ArAk assumed meanings such as simultaneity, succession, instrumentality, reason or manner (Aksu-Koç, 1994; Lewis, 2000; Göksel and Kerslake, 2005). The Turkish language was identified as a typical V-language, in which Path is expressed in the main verb, and Manner, if expressed, is frequently found in converbs marked with -(y)ArAk, as in (5) and (6) below: (5) Kos-arak gel-di Run-CONV come-PST ‘She came running’. (6) Yuvarlan-arak cadde-den in-iyor. Roll-CONV street-ABL descend-NPST ‘(He/she/it) descends on the street while rolling’. (7) It rolled down the street. When comparing the expression of motion events in English, Spanish, and Turkish, Slobin and Özçaliskan found that Turkish speakers encoded Manner at a lower rate, used less elaborate alternative means for expressing Manner, and provided fewer fine-grained distinctions of Manner than English. At the same time, Turkish, like Spanish (another

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

73

V-language) used a higher frequency of Path verbs than English (Özçaliskan and Slobin, 1999). When Turkish expressed Manner and Path in one utterance, it often displayed the above-mentioned pattern in which Path was in the main verb, and Manner in a subordinate construction (6) (cf. also Allen et al., 2007 for Turkish and Japanese) whereas in English typically both Path and Manner were expressed in one main clause by means of a verb and satellite (7). In terms of intra-typological variation, Turkish also displayed a higher frequency and more diverse lexicon of Path verbs than Spanish. Thus, the Vlanguage Turkish shows clearly different patterns from the S-language English, but also differs from other V-languages such as Spanish. In our study, we will examine the expression of motion in yet another V-language, this time one related in terms of language family to Turkish, i.e., Uyghur.

3.2. Encoding of motion in Uyghur Uyghur is a Turkic language of the Eastern or Chaghatay branch. It is closely related to those language varieties collectively known as Uzbek (Hahn, 1998) and is primarily spoken in northwestern China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region with at least 10 million native speakers and another half a million Uyghur diaspora in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Mongolia (Johanson, 2009). Uyghur, alongside Chinese, is one of the two official languages of the region and is used in media, education and publication. It also serves as a lingua franca among the other ethnic minority groups such as Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tajik, and Tatar in the area. Uyghur, as the other Turkic languages, is an agglutinative language with a rich suffix morphology, sound harmony and verb-final word-order (Hahn, 1991; Johanson, 2009). Here we shall briefly introduce the case marking system, verbs (Path, deictic) and converbs as they are the most relevant features for the expression of motion. Similar to Turkish, Uyghur has a rich case marking paradigm. Opinions differ as to the exact number of case categories in the language, with some suggesting six (Hahn, 1998) while others ten (De Jong, 2007; Tuohuti, 2012). However, the dative and ablative cases, which are directly relevant to the encoding of spatial information, are recognised by all scholars. The two hypothetical examples below illustrate the two cases: (8) Mesud öy-ge qarap jüger-di.2 Mesud house-DAT towards run-PST-3SG ‘Mesud ran towards the house’. (9) Mesud tam-din sekir-di. Mesud wall-ABL jump-PST-3SG ‘Mesud jumped from the wall’. We can see that in (8), Path is encoded via a combination of a dative case marker and a postpostion while in (9), it is an ablative case marker that expresses Path. De Jong (2007) and Tuohuti (2012) suggest that the dative case additionally denotes movement into or onto something while the ablative case indicates movement through something. In (8) and (9), Path is indicated via linguistic devices other than a Path verb and Manner (i.e.co-event) in the main verb and both examples illustrate that satellite-framing constructions are possible in expressing voluntary motion.3 However, if we consider another motion situation, the result becomes different, as (10) and (11) below show: (10) Ular öŋkür-ge kir-di. They cave-DAT enter-PST-3PL ‘They entered the cave’. (11) Ular öŋkür-din ciq-ti. They cave-ABL exit-PST-3PL ‘They exited (from) the cave’. 2 The symbols for transliteration are based on The Turkic Languages (Johanson and Csato´, 1998). Hyphens indicate morpheme boundaries and the capitalised abbreviations used in the paper are as follows: GEN-genitive case, DAT-dative case, ACC-accusative case, ABL-ablative case, LOC-locative case, PL-plural, PST-past tense, NPST-non-past, CONT-continuative aspect marker, ASPV-aspectual verb, CONV-converb. 3 Many previous studies have showed that speakers of different languages encode motion information beyond the strict categories of verb versus satellite. Therefore, we follow Hickmann et al., 2018 in adopting a looser interpretation of ‘satellites’ that subsumes any linguistic means other than the main verb (e.g., ablative/dative case markers, converbs, adverbials).

74

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

Examples (10) and (11) are different to the previous two examples in that they convey Path in the main verb as well as in the case markers. This difference in linguistic means used for encoding the framing event is triggered by the semantics of the motion situation. Specifically, while the former set of motion situations does not entail a boundary crossing, the latter set does. In the latter type of situations, Path cannot be said to be wholly or even primarily represented by a case marker. A main verb expressing Path is also needed in these situations, and indeed such semantic constraints have been attested in other (Turkic) languages as well (Aske, 1989; Slobin, 1996; Özçaliskan, 2015). (12) Ular kir-di. They enter-PST-3PL ‘They entered’. As the expression of Path requires location in the verb for boundary-crossing situations, Uyghur is argued to be a V-language. The Uyghur equivalent of (1) thus takes the following form: (13) Meryem öy-ge jügür-ep kir-di. Mary room-DAT run-CONV enter-PST-3SG ‘Mary entered the room running’. In (13), Path is expressed by a verb and the Goal of motion (further specification of the Path) is marked by the dative case marker. The co-event component Manner is conveyed by means of what are variously termed adverbials or converbs. Converbs in Uyghur are of multiple types, each of which performing a range of functions. For our present purposes, we shall focus on the -(I)p converb only, as it is most relevant for the expression of motion. The -(I)p converb typically consists of a verb stem plus the -(I)p suffix wherein the vowel element undergoes change in order to be in harmony with vowel segments in the verb root. (I)p converbs can be used in verb-modifying and non-verbmodifying ways and are usually used to express (a) simultaneous action of equal importance, (b) one or more actions preceding the final verb of the sequence, (c) a reason for the carrying out of the main verb or (d) the notion that a certain action continued over a longer period of time (Zhao and Zhu, 1985; Xu, 1997; De Jong, 2007). We shall illustrate the first two uses below. (14) U öy-din jügür-ep ciq-ti. She house-ABL run-CONV exit/leave-PST-3SG ‘She exited the house running’. bèr-ip köktat èl-ip qayt-ti. (15) Ayše bazar-ɣa Aisha market-DAT go-CONV vegetable buy-CONV return-PST-3SG ‘Aisha went to the market, bought some vegetables and came back’. Example (14) shows a converb functioning as an adverbial that specifies an accompanying action to the protagonist's leaving the house. Example (15) stacks three verbs in one utterance where the first two are marked with the -(I)p suffix and denote a series of events. In both examples, as in all -(I)p constructions, the last verb is marked with person marking and finiteness. Both types of -(I)p converb give additional motion information. In contrast to Turkish, therefore, Uyghur only uses one type of converb for both motion-related functions (simultaneity and succession). It is the use of the -(I)p converb illustrated in (14) that is pertinent to the expression of Manner in voluntary motion situations. This example shows clearly that the co-event (Manner) is encoded in the converb and the framing event (Path) in the main verb. The use of the -(I)p converb in (15) is an example of a non-modifying use, where the clause ‘Aisha went to the market’ is read as a separate information unit, syntactically dependent on the main clause (come back) but informationally understood as coordinated to the information in the main clause. One final related aspect of Uyghur grammar in expressing motion is the encoding of a deictic dimension of motion events. For our current illustrative purposes, Examples (16) and (17) differ only in terms of a deictic component of motion: (16) Meryem öy-ge kir-di. house-DAT enter-PST-3SG Mary ‘Mary entered the house’.

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

75

(17) Meryem öy-ge kir-ip ket-ti. Mary house-DAT enter-CONV ASPV/go-PST-3SG ‘Mary went into the house’. Example (16) is open to at least two readings. It might be used to describe a situation where the speaker is in the house and Mary entered. Alternatively, the speaker can be outside of the house when Mary enters it. Such interpretations do not hold for (17). The speaker of (17) is unmistakably outside the house, and hence Mary's entering is perceived as movement away from the deictic centre, i.e. the speaker. The deictic dimension is encoded by means of a combination of the Path verb kir ‘enter’ and an aspectual/auxiliary verb ket ‘go’. Ket, originally meaning ‘go (away)’, is one of a set of aspectual verbs in Uyghur. Tuohuti (2012) observes that when ket appears with a directional verb like kir ‘enter’, it retains its original directional meaning. It seems plausible to argue that ket captures the deictic Path dimension, not essentially dissimilar to the use of deictic means in some verb serialising languages (Slobin, 2004; Croft et al., 2010). One such example comes from Mandarin Chinese: (18) Zhang1san1 pao3jin4qu4 le. Zhangsan run-enter-go (away from deictic centre) LE Zhangsan ran in. We have now examined the main linguistic devices necessary for expressing motion in Uyghur. The above examples lead us to the preliminary conclusion that Uyghur uses the main verb to express Path and other devices for Manner. It therefore fits into the verb-framing category of the typology. However, one of the major characteristics of motion event research has been its emphasis on how language is actually used. Therefore, this study takes the observation that Uyghur is a V-language as an initial assumption and analyses not only the question of the locus of Manner (M) and Path (P) but also how they affect different ways in which semantic components are syntactically packaged. It is believed that such an approach will yield an informed typological profile of Uyghur motion expression and its relation to other languages that exhibit similar or indeed different framing properties. 4. The present study The study is motivated by the following research question: what is the status of Uyghur in motion event typology? To this end, voluntary motion situations are analysed along dimensions that have been noted to characterise languages of differing framing properties. The data are compared to other languages, allowing for both inter- and intra-typological assessments. We first introduce the data elicitation method. We then move on to the procedures of data analysis. Following these sections, some general hypotheses will be formulated related to the overall research question.

4.1. Stimuli The stimuli4 consisted of a set of 12 coloured cartoons (video clips) each lasting around 10 s and presenting naturally occurring situations with an equally salient focus on Manner and Path. One subset of clips depicted protagonists moving along the vertical axis (UP/DOWN) in a specific Manner as in (19). A second subset depicted protagonists crossing a boundary (ACROSS) in a specific Manner as in ‘a girl cycles across the railway track’. This combination of video clips allowed for a controlled variation in Path configuration that has been found to influence aspects of motion event verbalisations (cf. Harr, 2012; Hickmann et al., 2018. Specifically, vertical motion (UP/DOWN) implies a gradual change of location that does not involve the traversing of a spatial boundary whereas crossing events (ACROSS) intrinsically imply a clear boundary and therefore a categorical change from one location to another (e.g. from one side of the river to the other side) (19) BEG: TAR: TAR: END:

a squirrel running in a field towards a tree it climbs up the tree [. . .] climbs down the tree and runs away

4 The experimental stimuli were developed by Hickmann and colleagues and are first reported in Hickmann et al. (2009). See Appendix for a description of the stimuli.

76

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

All materials had three parts, a beginning (BEG) in which the protagonist ‘‘enters the scene’’, a target (TAR) that shows the event likely to elicit simultaneous expression of Manner and Path, i.e., crossing, going up and down, and an end, in which the protagonist leaves the scene again. In this paper, only responses related to the target will be analysed. 4.2. Participants and procedure Participants are 20 adult native speakers of Uyghur (9 female and 11 male; mean age 33) who were either pursuing undergraduate and postgraduate studies or working in Cambridge, London, Sheffield and Manchester at the time of the data collection.5 To provide a maximally monolingual context (cf. Grosjean, 2000; Berthele and Stocker, 2017), they were seen individually by the first author, a native speaker of Uyghur. They were invited to narrate what was depicted in the cartoons to someone who did not have visual access but would nevertheless be interested to know what is going on. When the participant's response was considered insufficient, general questions such as ‘‘what happened then?’’, or ‘‘and then?’’ were asked, without making explicit reference to the Manner and Path components in the stimuli. Each session started with a training item (a frog jumping into a pond) followed by the test items. 4.3. Data coding and analysis We adopted the coding system developed by Hickmann et al., 2015 and applied it to the Uyghur data. All speech samples were transcribed into CHAT format (MacWhinney, 2000). Each response was segmented into clauses and then coded along several dimensions. This required several decisions: The first decision concerned clause boundaries. This was clear-cut in cases where matrix sentences were coordinated with conjunctives such as andin ‘then’, šunuŋ-bilen ‘and then’. However, when converbs were used, decisions were more complicated. As described above, although all converbs in Uyghur are syntactically dependent on the main verb, some of them can have equal narrative value to the main clause. For example, a typical response for a voluntary motion event, especially in the case of UP and DOWN items, would be the following: (20) Qurut dereh-ke yarmiš-ip [c1] yupurmaq-ni ye-p [c2] Caterpillar tree-DAT climb-CONV leaves-ACC eat-CONV yana dereh-din yarmiš-ip cüš-üp ket-ti [c3]. again tree-ABL climb-CONV descend-CONV ASPV/go-PST-3SG6 ‘A caterpillar climbed the tree, ate the leaves and then climbed down the tree’. This response contains four converbs (cf. the glossing). It was decided, however, to segment this sequence into three clauses as indicated with the symbol [c] marking the clause boundaries. A main criterion used to decide on the status of the converb and hence clausal boundaries was phonological. In a multi-clause response like (20), the consecutive -(I)p converbs in c1 and c2 were followed by a perceptibly long pause, which was taken as indicating a clause boundary (cf. Engesœth et al., 2009; Ibrahim, 1995; Johanson and Csato´, 1998). However, this was not the case for c3, i.e., there is no pause between yarmiš-ip ‘climb’ and the following main verb. Otherwise said, the converb and the main verb in c3 belonged to the same intonation group and as such, yarmiš-ip was taken as a gerundive specifying the action denoted in the finite verb within the same utterance. The identification of the main verb was relatively straightforward and was always the verb inflected for temporality.7 Another decision concerned selection of the target utterance. In (20), c1 and c3 were selected as target responses for the UP and DOWN events respectively, as they corresponded to what the stimuli were designed to elicit. When very occasionally more than one clause was given in response to an elicited event, two criteria were applied in hierarchical order to choose the target clause: first richness and then relevance. The richness criterion required that the response that

5 The data were collected as part of an MPhil study, and financial and temporal restrictions made it impossible to collect the data in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China where the majority of native speakers reside. 6 A verb followed by an aspectual verb is variously termed as auxiliary verb construction (Hahn, 1998) or aspectual verb phrase (Tuohuti, 2012), According to these scholars and others (cf. Cheng, 1997), the main verb, in this case the Path verb cüš, assumes a converbial form while the aspectual verb ket carries temporality. The converbial form it takes is merely formal and thus does not have the same status as the modifying Manner converb yarmiš-ip in this example. Specifically, in Uyghur, whenever more than one verb come together, only the last verb is inflected for finiteness. Similarly, when a lexical verb comes together with an aspectual verb to form a verbal compound, Uyghur requires the first verb (the main verb) to take the -(I)p form, i.e. a converbial form (see Hahn, 1998). 7 An alternative method of delineating the clause boundary is to test how syntactically free the converbial clause is. For example, one can move around the converbial clause or insert other constituents (e.g., adverbials) between it and the superordinate verb to see if the sentence remains grammatical.

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

77

contained the largest number of semantic components be chosen and indicated as ‘Target Response’ while the response that contained fewer semantic components were marked as ‘Potential Target Response’. For instance: (21) Adem yol-din öt-ti. Yüger-ep öt-ti. Man road-ABL cross-PST-3SG Run-CONV cross-PST-3SG ‘The man crossed the road’. ‘(The man) crossed (road), running’. Example (21) illustrates two utterances in response to an ACROSS item. The second utterance was identified as the target based on the richness principle as it contained more information (Manner and Path) than the first utterance (Path only). In the remaining cases in which the possible targets were equally rich in informational content, the criterion of relevance was applied and the clause/utterance that contained path information was chosen as target. This decision is in line with Talmy's (1991, 2000) notion of a Basic Motion Scheme which posits Path as the most basic aspect of all motion events while Manner is optional. Thus, both utterances in (22) included one semantic component, viz., Manner and Path respectively. According to the relevance criterion, the second utterance was selected for coding and analysis: (22) Qizcaq vilispit min-iwat-i-du. bike ride-CONT-NPST-3SG Girl ‘The girl is riding a bike’. Rilis-niŋ ayan- ɣa öt-ti. railway-GEN that side-DAT cross-PST-3SG ‘She crossed to the other side of the railway’. The coding of target clauses was conducted in terms of information focus (what information is expressed), information locus (in what linguistic means is the information encoded) and the syntactic relationships obtaining between the clauses comprising the response. Three information loci were distinguished: VERB-information in the main verb, CONVERBinformation in the converb and the OTHER locus where spatial information was expressed via postpositional phrases and/ or dative and ablative case markers. To give a full account of the possible ways of syntactically packaging semantic information in Uyghur, unlike Allen et al. (2007) who only focused on responses containing both Manner and Path, we included all utterances (i.e. both the Target and Potential Target responses) irrespective of the semantic information encoded (zero information, P, M, M + P). This resulted in four possible categories of syntactic packaging, i.e., Tight Simple, Tight Complex, Loose Simple and Loose Complex: 1) Tight simple (TS) if the response contained only one clause: (23) Adem yol-din öt-ti. Man road-ABL cross-PST-3SG ‘The man crossed the road’.

2) Tight complex (TC) if the response contained a main clause with any type of subordination: (24) Adem yol-din yügür-ep öt-ti. Man road-ABL run-CONV cross-PST-3SG ‘The man crossed the road by running’.

3) Loose simple (LS) where two simple clauses were juxtaposed without any conjunctive or subordination markers. (25) Bala derya-da suüz-di. Andin a yan-ɣa öt-ti. Child/Boy river-LOC swim-PST-3SG then that side-DAT cross-PST-3SG ‘The boy swam in the river’. ‘Then crossed to the other side’.

4) Loose complex (LC) where several clauses were juxtaposed or coordinated at least one of which included subordination. Example (21) above is a case in point but since such occurrences were extremely rare in the data, we did not include them in the quantitative analysis.

78

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

A word of rationale for examining the analysed aspects is in order. The relevance of looking at information locus is selfevident as it is at the very core of Talmy's motion event typology. Empirical research investigating information focus has shown that (possibly as a result of entrenchment during first language acquisition) typologically different languages differ in terms of what information components are typically selected for expression and at what frequency (Slobin, 2004; Hickmann, 2006; Ji, 2009, Ji et al., 2011; Hickmann et al., 2018; Allen et al., 2007; Özçaliskan and Slobin, 2003; Slobin et al., 2011; Harr, 2012; Engemann, 2012). This has further implications for information density, i.e., the maximum number of components a language tends to package in an utterance: S-languages are observed to be informationally denser than V-languages due to language-specific constraints and related psycholinguistic levels of processing load (Slobin, 1996, 2000; Slobin et al., 2014; Hendriks et al., 2009; Hickmann et al., 2009; Ji et al., 2011; Ochsenbauer and Hickmann, 2010; Harr, 2012; Özçaliskan, 2015; Özçaliskan and Slobin, 2003). It is by considering these three measures that English and German are found to be prototypically satellite-framing (Hickmann et al., 2018; Ochsenbauer and Hickmann, 2010), French and Turkish primarily verb-framing (Allen et al., 2007; Furman, 2012; Hickmann et al., 2009b; Özçaliskan and Slobin, 2003) and Chinese as operating on a parallel system (Hendriks et al., 2009; Ji, 2009; Ji et al., 2011c). The fourth measure looks beyond the clause, and measures how likely it is that languages express information in more complex structures (including coordination or subordination). Distribution across clauses shows that speakers are aware of all motion information, but do not manage or choose not to package that information compactly in one clause. Given the findings of the already existing body of research, the following general hypotheses are formulated about our Uyghur data. Hypothesis 1. If Uyghur is a typical V-language, Path information should predominantly occur in the main verb (VERB locus) and Manner in the periphery (CONVERB and OTHER) as also found for Turkish and French. As a result, Manner might be less frequently expressed in Uyghur than in S-language English. Hypothesis 2. Given the pervasive use of converbs in Uyghur, we hypothesise that Manner will be more frequently expressed overall in this language and Turkish, compared to French. Hypothesis 3. Previous studies showed that V-language speakers tend to produce lower density utterances significantly more frequently than higher density utterances. However, since Uyghur allows the frequent use of converbs in an utterance, we hypothesise that Uyghur speakers may produce more high density than low density utterances in comparison to V-languages without converbs. Hypothesis 4. Previous studies on V-languages showed that the main syntactic packaging strategy in those languages is either TS or TC (depending on the number of semantic components included) followed by LS. Accordingly, we hypothesise that Uyghur speakers’ responses will similarly mainly fall into the TS and TC categories.

5. Results 5.1. Information locus As mentioned above, for Uyghur we identified three possible loci of information, i.e., VERB, CONVERB and OTHER, contrary to the traditional two (verb and satellite).8 We will present results for the three loci in the following.9

5.1.1. Information expressed in the VERB locus When examining the semantic information expressed in the verb, some responses (8% overall) offered zero semantic information (e.g. general verbs like bar ‘go’). In the majority of responses (83%), participants encoded Path information in the main verb, a strong indication of the verb-framedness of Uyghur. As can be seen from Fig. 1, this picture is true for all items: Path information is by far the most frequently expressed component in main verbs across the items. With ACROSS items 96% of the main verbs expressed Path, while with UP and DOWN items, 80% and 73% respectively expressed Path in the main verb.

8 As mentioned in Footnote 4, case markers, converbs and adverbials were all considered as satellite in the present paper. However, since the use of converbs was highly frequent, we felt it necessary to keep track of the relative contributions of various satellital devices such as converbs versus case markers. 9 A very low proportion of participants’ productions (3% overall) belonged to the ‘no response’ (NR) category where participants did not talk about the target event at all. Such NRs will be excluded from further analyses.

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

79

Fig. 1. Information components in verb as a function of Item.

To see whether the use of Path verbs differed across items, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was carried out. The test revealed a statistically significant effect of item type (F(2,38) = 5.67253, p < 0.01). A Mauchly's test of sphericity indicated that the assumption was violated ( p < 0.01); a Greenhouse--Geisser correction was therefore applied, returning nevertheless a significant difference ( p = 0.016). On applying pairwise contrasts between all three path types, it was found that ACROSS items elicited Path verbs significantly more frequently than DOWN items ( p < 0.001), but no such difference was observed between ACROSS and UP or UP and DOWN items. The significantly higher frequency of encoding Path for ACROSS items supports previous findings that categorical boundary-crossing situations are more likely to attract Path verbs compared to other path configurations in verb-framed languages (Aske, 1989; Hickmann et al., 2018; Özçaliskan, 2013). The following are some representative examples: (26) Bowaq coŋ yol-din ömile-p öt-ti. Baby big road-ABL crawl-CONV cross-PST-3SG ‘The baby crossed the big street, crawling’. (27) Maymun dereh-ge yarmiš-ip ciq-ti. Monkey tree-DAT climb-CONV ascend-PST-3SG ‘The monkey ascended the tree, climbing’. The high percentage of Path expressions in the verb for ACROSS items is therefore not unexpected, but a high proportion of Path in the main verb for the UP and DOWN items is more surprising as these indicate gradual changes of location. The finding underlines the clear verb-framed character of the Uyghur language. 5.1.2. Information expressed in the CONVERB locus We now look at what semantic information is encoded in the CONVERB locus. Of all the target responses, 57% contained converbs, which unanimously expressed Manner information. Typical examples of responses with converbs are presented in (28) and (29) below (Fig. 2): (28) Bir ayal vilispit min-ip rilis-tin öt-ti. One women bike ride-CONV railway track-ABL cross-PST-3SG ‘A woman crossed the railway track, riding a bicycle’. ciq-ti. (29) Müšük dereh-ge yarmiš-ip Cat tree-DAT climb-CONV ascend-PST-3SG ‘A cat ascended the tree, climbing’. In relation to the three item types, ACROSS events elicited Manner converbs most frequently (92%), which was followed by UP (57%) and DOWN events (22%). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant effect of item type (F(2,38) = 55.927, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons showed that ACROSS items attracted significantly more converbs than both UP (F(1,19) = 31.149, p = 0.001) and DOWN items (F(1,19) = 156.886, p = 0.001). The difference between the latter two item types was also significant (F(1,19) = 20.295, p = 0.001). Given that all converbs expressed Manner, it is the ACROSS items that occasioned Manner information more frequently than other item types. Taken together, our results in this section throw up a neat pattern for Uyghur in terms of its information locus: the verb locus typically expresses Path and the converb locus Manner, thereby reflecting one of the hallmarks of a V-language. This pattern is most striking in ACROSS items.

80

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

Fig. 2. Information components in converb as a function of item type.

Fig. 3. Information components in other devices.

5.1.3. Information expressed in the OTHER locus The OTHER category in the Uyghur language was found to subsume information about either the Manner of the agent or dative and/or ablative noun phrases enriching the Path element with the Source and Goal of the motion trajectory. Fig. 3 represents an overall pattern of the sorts of information components expressed in other devices. As can be seen, 84% of the utterances contained Path elaborations in other devices and 7% of the utterances contained Manner information while 9% did not use such devices at all. A more qualitative look at the data revealed that encoding of Manner at this locus appeared uniquely in the ACROSS items and especially with one specific item wherein a girl cycles across a railway track. One such response is shown in (30) below. (30) Bir qizcaq vilispit bilen tümüryol-din öt-ti. One girl bike with railway-ABL cross-PST-3SG ‘A girl crossed the railway track by a bike’.

5.2. Information selection and frequency of expression (focus) According to Talmy's (2000) Basic Motion Schema, Path is the most essential information of a motion event. Hence, although all our test items are intended to elicit both Path and Manner, it is likely that speakers will at least express Path in the context of voluntary motion events. Furthermore, as Özçaliskan and Slobin (2003) and Slobin (2004) argue, the domain of Manner is a ‘high codability area’ for S-languages as in these languages (contrary to many V-languages) it is encoded in high frequency, simple structures and in finite forms. V-language speakers discussed in previous studies were shown to normally have to opt for more complex structures to be as informationally rich as their S-language counterparts. If this is the case, and assuming Uyghur is a V-language, we expect that notwithstanding three types of loci available for multiple encodings of information in Uyghur, the frequency with which Manner is encoded will be significantly lower than that of Path. Fig. 4 presents the mean proportion of Manner and Path expressions produced by our participants for all three item types combined (ACROSS, UP, DOWN). We can see that there is a considerable discrepancy in the frequency with which Path and Manner information are encoded. Of all the target responses, 83% encoded Path information while only 56% contained Manner information. A

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

81

Fig. 4. Expression of information in voluntary motion events (Focus).

non-parametric Wilcoxon signed ranks test showed that there is a statistically significant difference between the overall expression of Path (Mdn = 0.8333) and Manner (Mdn = 0.5277) in Uyghur (Z = 3.913, p > 0.0001). Overall, our prediction concerning the selection of information has been fulfilled, i.e., confirming the cognitive prominence of Path in general and in line with other V-languages, Path is more frequently encoded than Manner in Uyghur voluntary motion expressions.

5.3. Information density Given the typical events as used in our elicitation method, a maximum density of 2 was expected (Path + Manner). For our analyses we therefore differentiated 2 levels of density: utterance density 1 (UD1) and utterance density 2 (UD2).10 The former included responses wherein only one type of information (either Manner or Path) was supplied while the latter subsumed cases wherein both types of information were present. Target responses containing two semantic information components (UD2) accounted for 69% of the overall responses whereas UD1 responses took up 31%. Although Path and Manner were not always encoded simultaneously, they were for the majority of cases. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the two types of density (F(1,23) = 29.727, p < 0.001). Post hoc comparisons showed that UD2 is significantly more frequent than UD1 ( p < 0.001). This finding seems to suggest two possibly contrasting mechanisms at work in the speakers’ online production. (1) Due to the typological constraints that the language imposes on the speakers, they failed to supply informationally rich utterances in all cases. (2) Due to our experimental set-up which was such that participants were fully aware of the necessity to supply as much information as possible they tried to overcome the typological constraints and provided responses as rich as possible. As we will see below this was at the cost of increased syntactic complexity (also see Özcaliskan, 2015). Examples (31) and (32) provide illustrations of UD1 and UD2 responses. (31) Bir müšük türük-niŋ üsti-ge ciq-ti. One cat pole-GEN top-DAT ascend-PST-3SG ‘One cat ascended to the top of the pole’. ayan-ɣa öt-ti. (32) Bir bala östeŋ-din su’üz-üp One boy river-ABL swim-CONV that side-DAT cross-PST-3SG ‘A boy crossed the river to that side, swimming’. We shall now turn to the frequency of UD1 and UD2 across the three item types. Fig. 5 exhibits our main results. Across the three item types, the ACROSS items contained the highest percentage of UD2 utterances (94%) while the UP and DOWN items contained 75% and 23% respectively. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was performed on all the UD1 responses, which revealed a significant effect of item types (F(2,38) = 50.607, p < 0.001). A Mauchly's test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < 0.001) indicating that the assumptions were violated ( p < 0.001); a Greenhouse--Geisser correction was therefore applied, returning nevertheless a significant difference ( p < 0.001). Upon post hoc comparisons, we found that DOWN items produced more UD1 utterances than UP ( p < 0.001) and ACROSS ( p < 0.001) items while UP items elicited more UD1 utterances than ACROSS items. Post hoc pair-wise comparisons on the UD2 responses showed that DOWN items produced less UD2

10

Technically, zero density is also possible, but this did not occur in our data at all.

82

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

Fig. 5. Utterance density as a function of item type.

Fig. 6. (a) Overall syntactic packaging strategies. (b) Syntactic packaging as a function of item type.

responses than both UP ( p < 0.001) and ACROSS items; moreover, ACROSS items elicited more UD2 utterances than UP events. The obvious variation across different item types may be partially attributed to differences in Path type and partially to the presentation of the experimental stimuli. Regarding the difference between UP and DOWN items, these were presented as a pair in one video clip, representing a protagonist's moving up along a vertical axis in a given Manner and then coming back down usually in the same Manner. It seems that, as a result, participants did not see the need to express Manner information for the DOWN items equally frequently, as such information had often been established previously in the discourse (cf. Harr, 2012; Hickmann et al., 2006; Hickmann & Hendriks, 2010 for French, English and German). Such a pattern becomes even more comprehensible in the light of previous findings that encoding both types of information in verb-framed languages is assumed to require extra processing load during online production (Slobin, 1999, 2004). The findings regarding ACROSS items were not expected, when compared to other languages. For example, Hickmann et al., 2009; Hendriks & Hickmann, 2015; Hickmann et al., 2018) have found that items such as ACROSS that involve a categorical boundary are typically less dense in semantic content than UP and DOWN items for all languages studied (English, French and German). They explain this as a result of higher cognitive complexity of ACROSS items. It is possible, however, that the existence of frequent converbs in Uyghur makes combining Path and Manner easier in this particular V-language than, for example, in French.

5.4. Syntactic packaging of semantic components As mentioned in Section 4.3, three categories of syntactic packaging were established for our data: TS, TC and LS. As is shown in Fig. 6a, the predominant pattern of syntactic packaging adopted by Uyghur speakers is TC (58%), which is followed by TS (41%) while the least common pattern is LS (1%). To establish whether the differences between the three strategies reached statistical significance, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was carried out. The test revealed a significant effect (F(2,38) = 67.66, p < 0.001). A Mauchly's test of sphericity was statistically significant ( p < 0.001) indicating that the assumptions were violated ( p < 0.001); a Greenhouse--Geisser correction was therefore applied, returning nevertheless a significant difference ( p < 0.001). On applying pairwise contrasts between the three types of syntactic packaging strategies, it was found that Uyghur native speakers used TC significantly more that either TS

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

83

Table 1 Summary of analyses. Information locus Information focus Information density Syntactic packaging

Path in VERB, Manner in CONVERB Path > Manner Overall density 2 TC > TS > LS

( p = 0.002) or LS ( p < 0.001) patterns. Further, the TS pattern is significantly more frequent than the LS pattern ( p < 0.001). Fig. 6b represents syntactic packaging strategies adopted as a function of item type. As can be seen, all the three strategies have been used for the ACROSS item: TS (10%), TC (89%) and LS (1%). For the UP items, no LS patterns were attested and the TS and TC strategies seemed to have been used equally frequently: 47% and 53% respectively. The predominant pattern for the DOWN item is TS (72%) which is followed by TC (28%). To see whether the differences obtaining between the different packaging strategies in relation to item type were statistically significant, one-way repeated ANOVAs were conducted. In terms of TS, a one-way repeated ANOVA showed a significant effect (F(2,38) = 35.286, p < 0.001). A pairwise t-test specified the differences as follows: the DOWN items elicited more TS than either UP items ( p = 0.007) or ACROSS items ( p < 0.001) while UP items elicited more TS than ACROSS items ( p < 0.001). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on the TC strategy as a function of item type revealed statistical significance (F (2,38) = 43.458, p < 0.001). Follow-up pairwise t-tests narrowed down the differences as follows: ACROSS items elicited significantly more TC responses than both UP items ( p < 0.001) and DOWN items ( p < 0.001) while the differences between the latter two items was also statistically significant ( p < 0.001). The LS responses were too few to make statistical tests possible. In line with our prediction, Uyghur speakers followed the dominant pattern of complex syntactic packaging of semantic information also observed for other V-languages such as Turkish. When both Manner and Path are simultaneously represented, Uyghur speakers almost exclusively opted for the TC strategy while the use of LS was extremely rare. TS was the dominant strategy when only one semantic component was encoded. Overall, consistent with our prediction, Uyghur exhibits packaging strategies characteristic of some of the verb-framed languages studied in previous papers (i.e., Turkish).

6. General discussion Our analyses in the previous sections showed that the predominant pattern of information distribution in voluntary motion events in Uyghur is path in VERB and manner in CONVERB. In terms of information focus, Path is encoded with a higher frequency than Manner. In terms of its overall information density, utterances containing two information components (Manner and Path) are more frequent than utterances with only one component (but cf. some item related differences). When it comes to the syntactic packaging of semantic components, Uyghur speakers opt for TC, followed by TS while LS is extremely rare. Table 1 above? summarises our findings. In what follows, we shall discuss our results with reference to previous studies on S- and V-languages. For the comparison of Uyghur with English and French, we rely on Hickmann et al. (2009) as these studies share the experimental design and analytical framework with the present study. For the comparison with Turkish, we draw on findings from Allen et al. (2007), Özçaliskan and Slobin (2003) and Özçaliskan (2009). Although the studies on Turkish differ from our study in terms of design and analysis, certain aspects of their findings still inform our understanding of the typological status of Uyghur. In the corresponding study by Hickmann et al. (2009), English (a recognised S-language) was found to typically express Manner in the verb and Path in the satellite, whereas French (V-language) more typically expresses Path in the verb and Manner, if expressed at all, in subordinate constructions (e.g. gerundive). In terms of locus of information, therefore, Uyghur patterns largely with French rather than with English, thereby confirming its assumed V-framing status. However, in a similar study, Hendriks & Hickmann (2011) found that French native speakers express Path exclusively in other linguistic devices than the main verb up to 40% of the time. This is rather different from Uyghur where the main verb expresses Path (83%). Recall that Uyghur speakers also frequently used other devices to encode Path (84%), but the difference between Uyghur and French in this case is that, while Uyghur speakers use them to offer additional Path information (e.g. Source and/or Goal of motion), French speakers rely on them instead of an overt Path verb to encode Path. In other words, other linguistic devices in Uyghur serve a Path-augmenting function. Relatedly, Özçaliskan (2009) reported Turkish speakers’ strong tendency to offer additional information about Path by means of case markers and

84

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

these trends are presumably due to language-specific properties such as word order and the case system that Turkish and Uyghur share. Recall that Uyghur and Turkish are both verb-final languages and in motion event expressions, the main verb conflating Path and motion per se comes at the very end of the utterance. Therefore, speakers can make full use of the rich case marking systems available to elaborate on the various parts of the Path trajectory before encoding Path in the main verb (see also Ibarretxe-Antun~ano, 2009 for a more detailed discussion of this phenomenon). In sum, although Uyghur, French and Turkish are all V-languages, they exhibit intra-typological variation in terms of information locus. Uyghur and Turkish speakers show comparable patterns that presumably stem from common language-specific properties. Their difference to French speakers could be partly attributed to the absence of such properties in French. As regards the density of VM descriptions, English overwhelmingly shows an utterance density of 2 (90%) whereas French shows an utterance density of 2 less frequently (UD2 = 63%) with either Path or Manner expressed in the verb and little information expressed elsewhere in the clause (Hickmann et al., 2009; Hendriks & Hickmann 2011). Interestingly, in a study including Turkish, Allen et al. (2007) report that Turkish speakers mainly produced high density utterances (UD2 = 90%) while low density utterances (UD1) accounted for 10% only. Note, however, that in a study from 2003, Slobin and Özçaliskan indicate that their Turkish participants hardly ever expressed Manner and Path simultaneously. For this measure, Uyghur seems to behave like French and unlike both Turkish (Allen's study) and English, with a predominance of UD2 utterances (75%) over UD1 utterances (25%), and sitting in the middle on the cline of utterance density between Turkish and French. We expected Uyghur to show a lower level of density compared to English, given the typical lexicalisation pattern in Sversus V-languages. However, we also expected that Uyghur would be more like Turkish than French, given the linguistic means available to produce higher density responses. Yet the three V-languages clearly showed some interesting intratypological and even intra-language differences. What would account for the huge disparity between (a) the Turkish results in the two studies, and (b) the Uyghur results versus French and Turkish results? One of the reasons, at least, seems to do with the differences in the elicitation stimuli used across studies. The stimuli in Allen et al. (2007) depicted the Manner of motion of a set of very artificial objects, which may have led speakers to pay more attention to both aspects of VM than they would typically do. As a result, information density of speakers of V-languages like Turkish and Japanese was as high as English speakers. In contrast, Özçaliskan and Slobin's (2003) analysis of the Frog story data in Turkish showed that motion descriptions combining Manner and Path were almost non-existent, which may have resulted from use of static pictures that did not necessarily highlight one component of VM over the other. Our experimental stimuli included motion situations where humans or animals performed activities along a Path trajectory in manners that were typically and naturally associated with these agents. Therefore, the manners represented in our stimuli did not unduly foreground Manner of motion vis-à-vis Path (cf. Croft et al., 2010; Hendriks & Hickmann, 2015; Özçaliskan, 2015) and this is likely why Uyghur speakers’ VM descriptions were semantically less dense than Turkish speakers in Allen et al. (2007). Significantly, an opposite pattern was revealed in Tusun & Hendriks (under review), which showed that, when narrating the Frog Story, Uyghur speakers’ joint encoding of Manner and Path was more frequent than that of Turkish speakers. Put differently, the degree to which simultaneous encoding of Manner and Path occurs depends to a certain extent on the elicitation material (cf. Fausey and Boroditsky, 2011; Bylund and Athanasopoulos, 2014). With regards to syntactic packaging, Allen et al. (2007) found that for English, the frequency with which the three types of strategies were used were as follows: TS (78%), TC (14%) and LS (12%); for Turkish, the dominant pattern was TC (94%) which was followed by LS (7%) while TS was almost non-existent. Harr's (2012) study showed that French native speakers’ most favoured pattern of syntactic packaging is TS (68%), which is then followed by an equal preference for TC (14%) and LS (13%). Uyghur speakers, as we saw above, use TC most frequently (58%), followed by TS (41%) while LS is extremely rare (1%). Taken together and as predicted, Uyghur speakers are very different in their preference for syntactic packaging compared to English speakers. On the other hand, when compared to other V-languages, Uyghur patterns more closely with Turkish (especially in its use of TC) than with French where TC responses were relatively rare. As has been discussed previously, Turkish, French and Uyghur all need to revert to more complex syntactic structures (see Haspelmath, 1995) in order to express multiple types of information. Therefore, all three languages should impose similar processing constraints as far as using subordinate constructions is concerned (Özçaliskan and Slobin, 2003; Slobin, 2004; Özçaliskan, 2015) and yet subordinate structures seem to be much more common in Uyghur and Turkish as compared to French. The French spatial system is undergoing certain diachronic changes that have rendered it more ‘opaque’ and less systematic compared to Uyghur and Turkish (Engemann, 2012, 2016; Hendriks et al., 2008, Hickmann & Hendriks, 2010; Kopecka, 2006, 2009), which may have made it less likely for French speakers to use these structures in a systematic fashion. A further possible factor might again concern the canonical word order and the implications this has for the use of subordinate structures. Uyghur and Turkish are verb-final languages and as such the subordinate structures (e.g. converbs, converbial phrases) appear before the main verb. This means that during online production, before reaching the core semantic component, i.e. Path, which is typically encoded in the main verb, Uyghur and Turkish speakers have the

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

85

leeway of adding Manner information with a converb (despite the potential processing constraints). French, on the other hand, is an SVO language and Path gets encoded in the verb early on in the utterance. To specify Manner, French speakers need to append subordinate structures to the main Path verb once the basic sentence structure has already been completed. Given that Path, as the most essential component of motion, is already encoded, French speakers might not feel the same need as Uyghur and Turkish speakers to add Manner at that point. As a result, TC constructions are attested more rarely in French than either Uyghur or Turkish. In sum, the comparison of Uyghur motion expression with English, French and Turkish has revealed some interesting inter- and intra-typological differences. In terms of inter-typological differences and in line with our predictions, Uyghur exhibits the lexicalisation pattern of V-languages where Path is typically encoded in the main verb while Manner is encoded in a satellite (converb). Systematic typological differences have been observed for information focus, information density as well as the syntactic packaging of semantic components. With regards to intra-typological differences, we have seen that, although Uyghur, Turkish and French are all V-languages, they display interesting differences with Uyghur patterning more closely to Turkish than to French. These intra-typological differences can potentially be attributed to the nature of the elicitation stimuli, the diachronic process some of the languages are going through (French), and certain language-specific properties (e.g. word order) that are not necessarily shared by all these verb-framed languages. This brings us to the issue of the motion event typology itself. Our analyses have shown that Uyghur is a typical verb-framed language. Specifically, it has typically verb-framed (a) lexicalisation patterns, (b) frequency with which various semantic components are encoded in an utterance, and (c) ways of syntactically organising relevant semantic components across clauses. In this sense, our Uyghur data fit comfortably with Talmy's (1985, 2000) typological predictions for V-framed languages. The fact that Uyghur speakers systematically opted for verb-framing constructions regardless of the inherent differences in the various motion events (cf. Croft et al., 2010; Hendriks & Hickmann, 2015; Nikitina, 2008), i.e. different combinations of Path types (ACROSS, UP, DOWN) with Manner types (e.g. cycling, crawling, running, swimming) is additional evidence that at least for the motion situations examined here, Uyghur is indeed a typical V-language. What do we make of the intra-typological differences that have emerged in our comparison of Uyghur with Turkish and French? How do we interpret such differences in relation to the typology itself? A rather tempting way to go would be to argue that the typology should be taken as representing a cline rather than a dichotomy. Following this logic, Uyghur, alongside Turkish would be prototypical verb-framed languages with English serving as a prototype at the satelliteframing end of the continuum, whereas French sits somewhere between Uyghur/Turkish and English. Doing so, although helpful for illustrative purposes, would lead us into the dangerous trap of typologising about languages in general. A more fruitful avenue at this stage, it seems, is that we first try and pin down the actual causes of intra-typological variations by putting individual languages in their respective contexts while in the meantime, as Croft et al. (2010) rightly point out, examine as many complex event types (e.g. voluntary motion vs. caused motion; single event vs. multiple events) in as many languages as possible in the hope of developing a closer understanding of how universal cognitive processes of event conceptualisation interact with language-specific properties to produce various encoding strategies and what these ultimately reveal about the conceptual architecture of human language, which is what has motivated Talmy's typology in the first place. This perspective necessarily implies that Uyghur is a typical V-language as far as expressing voluntary motion is concerned but that it may display different patterns when other types of motion situations (caused motion or placement events or events with more diverse combinations of Path and Manner) are involved.

7. Conclusion This study set out to establish the status of Uyghur in motion event typology. Twenty adult native speakers of Uyghur were invited to describe a set of 12 voluntary motion video clips in which Manner and Path were presented with equal saliency. Participants’ verbalisations were analysed in terms of locus and focus of information, information density and syntactic packaging. Our results suggest that Uyghur is a very typical V-language in that across item types (UP/DOWN/ ACROSS), Uyghur speakers systematically placed Path information in the verb and other information in the converb and/ or other devices. Furthermore, Uyghur speakers provided significantly more Path verbs (and overall more Path information) than Manner verbs. Although previous research found that the domain of Manner is not as salient in V-languages as it is for S-languages, we nonetheless found that responses containing both Manner and Path (UD2) are significantly more frequent than responses containing only one piece of information (UD1, either Manner or Path). This seems to suggest that when presented with scenarios where both Manner and Path are equally salient while at the same time being required to be maximally informative, the speakers can overcome the typological constraints of their language and give descriptions that may not be entirely in keeping with its typological profile but are sensitive to the task demand. In terms of strategies of syntactic packaging, Uyghur speakers mostly adopt the TC packaging strategy, the TS packaging strategy to a lesser

86

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

extent and the LS strategy very infrequently. We therefore conclude that Uyghur is indeed a very typical verb-framed language. To put our findings in perspective and to contribute to the current discussion on the inter- and intra-typological variation in encoding motion events, we compared our findings with similar studies on English (S-language) and Turkish and French (V-language). The comparison showed that Uyghur is most strikingly different from English in terms of locus of information and to a certain extent focus of information, which is to be expected given the typological differences between the two languages. The differences amongst Uyghur, Turkish and French, all V-languages, are quite revealing. Although the three languages share considerable similarity, they also show interesting differences in terms of locus and focus of information, information density and syntactic packaging strategies. We accounted for these intra-typological differences in relation to certain system-internal diachronic and synchronic processes, some language-specific properties like canonical word order/presence and productive use of case markers in Uyghur and Turkish versus French as well as the nature of the elicitation material. Overall, our data have borne out the predictions of the typological framework of Talmy (2000) and Croft et al. (2010) and therefore support its basic premises. More specifically, Uyghur speakers systematically employed verb-framing constructions, at least for all the motion situations examined. Future studies will benefit by exploring the expression of more complex motion situations in a wider range of languages and language families so that we not only develop an informed understanding of the potentially universal principles of event conceptualisation and their intricate and profound interaction with language-specific properties in language use, but also a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the relationship between language and cognition more generally. Appendix. Descriptions of the experimental stimuli UP/DOWN events 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

A A A A A A

bear climbs up to a beehive, gets some honey and climbs down backwards. cat jumps up a bird's nest, drops an egg and jumps down backwards. caterpillar crawls up to a leaf, eats a piece of the leaf and crawls down again. monkey climbs up a banana tree, takes a banana and slides down backwards. squirrel runs up to a hole, goes in and out of the hole and runs down again. mouse climbs up to a piece of cheese on the table, takes the cheese and slides down again.

ACROSS events: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

A A A A A A

man runs across the road. girl cycles across the railroad track. baby crawls across the street. boy swims across the river. boy slides across the river on his shoes. girl skates across the lake.

References Aksu-Koç, A., 1994. Development of linguistic forms: Turkish. In: Berman, R.A., Slobin, D.I. (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 329--392. Allen, S., Özyurëk, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., Ishizuka, T., Fujii, M., 2007. Language-specific and universal influences in children's syntactic packaging of Manner and Path: a comparison of English, Japanese and Turkish. Cognition 102 (1), 16--48. Ameka, F.K., Essegbey, J., 2013. Serializing language: satellite-framed, verb-framed or neither. Ghana J. Linguist. 2 (1), 19--38. Aske, J., 1989. Path predicates in English and Spanish: a closer look. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 15. pp. 1--14. Beavers, J., Levin, B., Tham, S.W., 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of linguistics 46 (2), 331--377. Brown, A., Gullberg, M., 2012. Multicompetence and native speaker variation in clausal packaging in Japanese. Second Language Research 28 (4), 415--442. Brown, A., Gullberg, M., 2013. L1-L2 convergence in clausal packaging in Japanese and English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16 (3), 477--494. Berthele, R., Stocker, L., 2017. The effect of language mode on motion event descriptions in German--French bilinguals. Lang. Cognit. 9 (4), 648--676. Bowerman, M., Choi, S., 2001. Shaping meanings for language: universal and language specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In: Bowerman, M., Levinson, S.C. (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 475--511.

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

87

Bylund, E., Athanasopoulos, P., 2014. Language and thought in a multilingual context: the case of isiXhosa. Bilingual.: Lang. Cognit. 17 (2), 431-441. Cardini, F.E., 2008. Manner of motion saliency: an inquiry into Italian. Cognit. Linguist. 19 (4), 533--569. Chen, L., Guo, J., 2009. Motion events in Chinese novels: evidence for an equipollently-framed language. J. Pragmat. 41, 1749--1766. Cheng, S. (Ed.), 1997. Xiandai weiwueryu yufa (The grammar of modern Uyghur).Xinjiang People's Publishing House, Urumchi. Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., Taoka, C., 2010. Revising Talmy's typological classification of complex event constructions. In: Boas, H.C. (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 201--235. De Jong, F., 2007. A Grammar of Modern Uyghur. HOUTSMA, Utrecht. Emerson, S.N., Özçaliskan, S., Frishkoff, G.A., 2016. Effects of motion type and modality on word learning in English. Appl. Psycholinguist. 37 (3), 643--671. Engemann, H. (2012). Motion event expression in bilingual first language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Cambridge. Engemann, H., 2016. Learning to think for speaking about space in child bilingualism. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 21 (2), 49--64. Engesœth, T., Yakup, M., Dwyer, A., 2009. Greetings from the Teklimakan: A Handbook of Modern Uyghur. University of Kansas. Fausey, C.M., Boroditsky, L., 2011. Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 18 (1), 150--157. Feiz, P., 2011. Travelling through space in Persian and English: a comparative analysis of motion events in elicited narratives. Lang. Sci. 33 (3), 401--416. Filipovic´, L., Jaszczolt, K.M. (Eds.), 2012. Space and Time in Languages and Cultures. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Furman, R., Küntay, A.C., Özyürek, A., 2014. Early language-specificity of children's event encoding in speech and gesture: evidence from caused motion in Turkish. Language. Cognition and Neuroscience 29 (5), 620--634. Furman, R., 2012. Caused Motion Events in Turkish: Verbal and Gestural Representation in Adults and Children. LOT, Utrecht. Göksel, A., Kerslake, C., 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge, New York. Goschler, J., Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), 2014. Variation and Change in the Encoding of Motion Events. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Grosjean, F., 2000. Processing mixed language: Issues, findings and models. In: Li, W. (Ed.), The Bilingualism Reader. Routledge, London, pp. pp 408)--435. Guo, J., Chen, L., 2009. Learning to express motion in narratives by Mandarin-speaking children. In: Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K., Özçaliskan, S. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language. Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. Psychology Press, New York, pp. pp 193--208. Hahn, R.F., 1991. Spoken Uyghur. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Hahn, R.F., 1998. Uyghur. In: Johanson, L., Csato´, É.Á. (Eds.), The Turkic Languages. Routledge, London, pp. 379--396. Harr, A.K., 2012. Language-specific Factors in First Language Acquisition: The Expression of Motion Events in French and German, vol. 48. Walter de Gruyter. Haspelmath, M., 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In: Haspelmath, M., König, E. (Eds.), Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1--55. Hendriks, H., Hickmann, M., Demagny, A.C., 2008. How adult English learners pf French express caused motion: A comparison with English and French natives. Acquisition et interaction en langur étrangère 27, 15--41. Hendriks, H., Ji, Y., Hickmann, M., 2009. Typological issues regarding the expression of caused motion: Chinese English and French. In: Vukanovic´, M.B., Grmuša, L.G. (Eds.), Space and time in language and literature. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. pp 22--38. Hickmann, M., 2006. The relativity of motion in first language acquisition. In: Hickmann, M., Robert, S. (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 281--308. Hickmann, M., Taranne, P., Bonnet, P., 2009. Motion in first language acquisition: Manner and Path in French and English child language. J. Child Lang. 36 (4), 705--741. Hickmann, et al., 2015. La représentation l’espace-études expérimentales et translinguistiques.. In: (The representation of space-experimental and crosslinguistic studies). Laboratoire Structures Formelles du Langage, Paris. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., Harr, A., Bonnet, P., 2018. Caused motion across child languages: a comparison of English, German, and French. Journal of child language 1--28. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., 2010. Typological constraints on the acquisition of spatial language in French and English. Cognitive Linguistics 21 (2), 189--215. Hendriks, H., Hickmann, M., 2011. Expressing voluntary motion in a second language: English learners of French. In: Cook, V., Bassetti, B. (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition. Psychology Press, New York,p. p 453-478. Hendriks, H., Hickmann, M., 2015. Finding one's path into another language: On the expression of boundary crossing by English learners of French. The Modern Language Journal 99 (1), 14--31. Ibarretxe-Antun~ano, I., 2009. Path salience in motion events. In: Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K., Özçal??iskan, S. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 403--414. Ibrahim, A., 1995. Meaning and Usage of Compound Verbs in Modern Uyghur and Uzbek (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle. Ji, Y., 2009. The expression of voluntary and caused motion events in Chinese and in English: typological and developmental perspectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Ji, Y., Hendriks, H., Hickmann, M., 2011. The expression of caused motion events in Chinese and in English: Some typological issues. Linguistics 49 (5), 1041--1077. Ji, Y., Hohenstein, J., 2014. The syntactic packaging of caused motion components in a second language: English learners of Chinese. Lingua 140, 100--116. Johanson, L., 2009. Uyghur. In: Brown, K., Ogilvie, S. (Eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 1142--1145. Johanson, L., Csato´, É.Á., 1998. The Turkic Languages. Routledge, London. Johnson, M., 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

88

A. Tusun, H. Hendriks / Lingua 226 (2019) 69--88

Kopecka, A., 2006. The semantic structure of motion verbs in French: typological perspectives. In: Hickmann, M., Robert, S. (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems Cognitive Categories. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 83--101. Kopecka, A., 2009. Continuity and change in the representation of motion events in French. In: Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K., Özçal??iskan, S. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 415--426. Kornfilt, J., 2009. Turkish and Turkic languages. In: Comrie, B. (Ed.), The World's Major Languages. Routledge, New York, pp. 519--544. Levinson, S., 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Levinson, S., Wilkins, D., 2006. Grammars of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lewis, G., 2000. Turkish Grammar, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford. MacWhinney, B., 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah. Mandler, J.M., 1992. The foundations of conceptual thought in infancy. Cognit. Dev. 7, 273--285. Mayer, M., 1969. Frog. In: Where Are You?Dial Press, New York. Nikitina, T., 2008. Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals: the case of into and in. In: Ashbury, A., Dotlacil, J., Gehrke, B., Nouwen, R. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 175--209. Ochsenbauer, A.K., Hickmann, M., 2010. Children's verbalization of motion events in German. Cognit. Linguist. 21 (2), 217--238. Özçaliskan, S., 2009. Learning to talk about spatial motion in language-specific ways. In: Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K., Özçaliskan, S. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language. Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. Psychology Press, New York, pp. pp 277--208. Özçaliskan, S., 2013. Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Appl. Psycholinguist. 36, 485--508. Özçaliskan, S., 2015. Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Applied Psycholinguistics 36 (2), 485--508. Özçaliskan, S., Slobin, D.I., 1999. Learning how to search for the frog: expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 23, no. 2. Cascadilla Press, Sommerville, MA, pp. 541--552. Özçaliskan, S., Slobin, D.I., 2003. Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in Turkish and English. In: Sumru Özsoy, A., Didar Akar, M., Nakipoglu-Demiralp, E., Erguvanli-Taylan, A., Aksu-Koç, A. (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Bogazici University Press, Istanbul, pp. 259--270. Özçaliskan, S., Lucero, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., 2016. Is seeing gesture necessary to gesture like a native speaker? Psychol. Sci. 27 (5), 737--747. Pederson, E., 2017. Approaches to motion event typology. In: Aikhenvald, A.Y., Dixon, R.M. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 574--597. Pereltsvaig, A., 2017. Languages of the World: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Shi, W., Wu, Y., 2014. Which way to move: the evolution of motion expressions in Chinese. Linguistics 52 (5), 1237--1292. Slobin, D.I., 1996. Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and French. In: Shibatani, M., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 195--220. Slobin, D., 1997. Mind, code and text. In: Bybee, J., Haiman, J., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), Essays of language function and language type. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. pp 427--467. Slobin, D.I., 2000. Verbalized events: a dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In: Niemeier, S., Dirven, R. (Eds.), Evidence for Linguistic Relativity. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 107--138. Slobin, D.I., 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In: Strömqvist, S., Verhoven, L. (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 219--257. Slobin, D.I., 2006. What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In: Hickmann, M., Robert, S. (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, pp. 59--81. Slobin, D.I., Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eissenbeiss, S., Narasimhan, B., 2011. Putting things in places. In: Bohnemeyer, J., Pederson, E. (Eds.), Event Representation in Language and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 134--165. Slobin, D.I., Ibarretxe-Antun~ano, I., Kopecka, A., Majid, A., 2014. Manners of human gait: a crosslinguistic event-naming study. Cognit. Linguist. 25 (4), 701--741. Slobin, D., Hoiting, N., 1994. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 20, 487--505. Strömqvist, S., Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), 2004. Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London. Talmy, L., 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantics structure in lexical forms. In: Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 36--149. Talmy, L., 1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Para-session on the Grammar of Event Structure, pp. 480--519. Talmy, L., 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring, vol. 2. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Tuohuti, L., 2012. Xiandai weiwieryu cankao yufa[[A Reference Grammar of Modern Uyghur]]. Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe (China Social Sciences Publishing House), Beijing. Tusun, A. Hendriks, H. (under review), Finding the frogs in Uyghur. Tyler, A., Evans, V., 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Xu, Y., 1997. Cong weiwueryu fudongci de gongneng tezheng kan tujueyu fudongci fanchou[[The converb category in Turkic languages: evidence from the functional features of converbs in Uyghur]]. Minzu Yuwen[[Minority Lang. China]] 4, 69--75. Zhao, X., Zhu, Z., 1985. Weiwuer jianzhi[[A Short Introduction to Uyghur]]. The Ethnic Publishing House, Beijing. Zlatev, J., Yangklang, P., 2004. A third way to travel: the place of Thai and serial verb languages in motion event typology. In: Strömqvist, S., Verhoven, L. (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 159--190.