
\documentclass[xelatex]{OSLa3} 
\usepackage{stmaryrd} 
\usepackage{multicol} 
\usepackage{enumerate} 
\usepackage{natbib} 
\usepackage{polyglossia} 
\usepackage{hyphenat} 
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage{cgloss4e}
\usepackage{linguex} 
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{tikz} 
\usepackage{tipa}
\usepackage{threeparttable}
\usepackage{multirow}
\widowpenalty=10000 \clubpenalty=10000 \setmainlanguage{english} \DeclareRobustCommand\dash{\unskip\nobreak\thinspace\textemdash\allowbreak\thinspace\ignorespaces} 
\usepackage{todonotes} 
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\setmainlanguage{english}
\setotherlanguage{russian}
\newfontfamily\russianfont[Mapping=text-tex,SmallCapsFont={Linux Libertine O C},ItalicFont={Linux Libertine O Italic}]{Linux Libertine} % Linux Libertine

\setcounter{page}{263}
\newcommand{\ru}[1]{\begin{russian}#1\end{russian}}
\newcommand{\ruit}[1]{\textit{\ru{#1}}}

%\renewcommand\firstrefdash{}
\usepackage{array} 
\usepackage{supertabular} 
\usepackage{hyperref} 
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{framed}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{parsetree}
\newcommand{\smalltodo}[1]{\todo[size=\tiny]{#1}}

\renewcommand\firstrefdash{}
\newcommand{\sem}[2][]{\mbox{ $[[ #2 ]]^{#1}$}}
\begin{document}

\title{Manner of motion, evaluative and pluractional morphology}
\def\titlehead{Manner of motion, evaluative and pluractional morphology}
\author{Dejan Stosic}
\affiliation{Universit\'{e} de Toulouse-Le Mirail}
\def\authorhead{Dejan Stosic}



\hyphenation{Kuz-ne-co-va Ma-ka-ro-va ex-pe-ri-men-tal}
\setcounter{page}{1}



\maketitle
 

\begin{abstract}
Several works inspired by Talmy's typology provided a very complete survey and
description of various kinds of linguistic elements and strategies across
languages for expressing two basic components of motion events: path and manner.
This research has mainly focused on lexical and syntactic means of expressing
path and manner and how these elements are combined in a single clause.
Morphological means are mentioned when talking about encoding the path of motion
but hardly ever when studying the expression of manner. This article shows that
some languages widely use many affixational and non-affixational processes of
``evaluative'' and ``pluractional'' morphology to express manner (e.g., Serbian
\textit{leteti }`to fly' $>$ \textit{letuckati }`to flutter', Zoque \textit{wit
}`to walk' $>$\textit{ witwitnay }`to walk aimlessly'). This research mainly
focuses on data from Serbian, but also offers a comparative perspective to
highlight the widespread use of such morphological means in encoding manner. It
pays particular attention to the role of morphology in the linguistic expression
of manner in the semantic domain of motion.
\end{abstract}


\section{introduction}
\label{sec:1}



Many theoretical and experimental studies have been carried out in recent
deca\-des on the expression of motion events across languages. The main impulse
that motivated these studies came from the well-known Talmy's typology
contrasting ``Satel\-lite framed'' and ``Verb framed languages''; see \citep{talmy1975semantics, talmy1983how, talmy1985lexicalization,  talmy2000textittoward}. By distinguishing a very small set of lexicalization patterns
in the domain of motion verbs, this typology provides very powerful tools for
exploring the relationship between language and cognition. It particularly
brought to the fore various kinds of elements involved in expressing some basic
components of motion events (e.g., path, manner, figure, ground, etc.) at both
the syntactic and lexical levels. This article shows the importance of the
morphological encoding of manner in the verbal domain from a cross-linguistic
perspective.


The article is structured as follows: Section \ref{sec:2} briefly recalls the main
assumptions of Talmy's typology. Section \ref{sec:3}  presents various kinds of
\label{OLE_LINK1}\label{OLE_LINK2}elements available across languages for
expressing manner, with an emphasis on morphological elements. The fourth section
is about ``evaluative morphology'' and ``pluractionality'', which are currently
the two main approaches to the study of verbs constructing the meaning of manner
at the morphological level. The fifth section is a case study of Serbian
derivative verbs involved in the morphological marking of manner. This section
also presents some contrastive and more general typological considerations on
manner, motion, and evaluative morphology. The last part concludes the study by
summing up the main theoretical and analytical results, and suggests some open
questions and directions for further research.

\section{Talmy's typology: an overview}
\label{sec:2}



Talmy's typology, which contrasts Verb framed and Satellite framed languages, is
based on how two crucial semantic components of motion/location
descriptions---path and manner---are encoded across languages. In Verb framed
languages (VfLs; e.g., French, \ref{ex1}, Turkish, Japanese, Basque, and Hebrew), the
``path of motion'' is characteristically encoded by the verb so that the manner
generally appears as optional information expressed by marginal adverbial
elements. In Satel\-lite framed languages (SfLs; e.g., English, \ref{ex2}, Slavic,
Dutch, Finnish, and Hungarian), the path component is preferably encoded by
various particles or ``satellites'' associated with the verb, such as
prepositions, prefixes, postpositions, and so on, which makes it possible to
express manner in the verb itself:


\ex. \label{ex1}  Jean \textbf{est entr\'{e}} dans
la maison \uline{en courant}. \hfill(French, VfL)
\\ `John entered the house running.'

\ex.  \label{ex2}  John \uline{ran} \textbf{into} the house.
\hfill(English, SfL)

Scholars inspired by this typology have pointed to a wide variety of options for
encoding each major semantic component of directed motion events. If path is
encoded in the verb, and depending on more general language-specific lexical,
syntactic, and morphological devices, manner may be expressed by:

\begin{itemize}
\item Adverbs (e.g., English)
\item PPs (e.g., French)
\item Gerunds (e.g., Spanish)
\item Subordinate clauses (e.g., French)
\item  Ideophones\footnote{Ideophones could be defined as onomatopoeic adverb
formations that imitate sound or shape. These expressions are widely used in many
African and Australian languages, as well as in, for example, Japanese, Korean,
and Thai.} (e.g., Japanese; cf. \citep{wienold1995lexical})
\item  Verbs, if the language has serial verbs or compound verbs (e.g., Thai), and
so on.
\end{itemize}

If manner is encoded in the verb, and depending on more general
language-specific lexical, syntactic, and morphological markers, path can be
expressed by:

\begin{itemize}
\item  Adpositions (prepositions, postpositions, particles, etc.; e.g., English)
\item  Affixes (e.g., Slavic)
\item  Applicatives (e.g., Tswana)
\item  Semantic cases (e.g., Finnish)
\item  \textit{Until}-markers (e.g., Japanese)
\item  Verbs, if the language has serial verbs or compound verbs (e.g., Thai), and
so on.
\end{itemize}

This diversity of devices for encoding path and manner, as well as the fact that
many languages present mixed typological profiles, call Talmy's two-way typology
into question, but I do not address this issue here; see \citep{talmy2000textittoward}; \citep{slobin1987thinking, slobin1996fromthought, slobin2004many}; \citep{verhoevent2004textitrelating}; \citep{beavers2010typology};
\citep{filipovic2007talking}; \citep{zlatev2004third}. Most of that research research has
focused on lexical and syntactic elements and how they are combined in a single
clause. Interestingly, morphological means are mentioned when talking about
encoding the path but hardly ever when talking about expressing the manner of
motion; see, however, \citep{foley1984r}; \citep{comrie1985causative}; \citep{levin2009root}; \citep{eberh09}. Regardless of the descriptive or theoretical benefits of Talmy's typology,
it does not take these kinds of linguistic elements into account. In more general
terms, no studies have systematically investigated the morphological encoding of
either manner of motion or manner in general.

I argue that many affixational and non-affixational processes of ``evaluative''
and ``pluractional'' morphology must be taken into account when studying
cross-linguistic diversity in the expression of manner, as shown in \ref{ex3}:

\ex. \label{ex3}  \textit{tr\v{c}ati} `to run' /
\textit{tr\v{c}\textbf{kara}ti} `to run around, to run slowly' \\
\textit{skakati} `to jump' /
\textit{skak\textbf{ut}ati} `to hop (around)' \\
\textit{skitati} `to wander' /
\textit{\textbf{pro}skitati} `to wander around a bit' \hfill (Serbian) \\
\textit{marcher }`to walk' /\textit{ march\textbf{ott}er}`to walk with difficulty, to walk \\ taking small steps, to walk unsteadily' \\
\textit{sauter} `to jump' /
\textit{saut\textbf{ill}er} `to hop (around)' \hfill (French)
\\ \textit{wit }`to walk' /\textit{ witwitnay }`to walk
aimlessly' (reduplication) \hfill (Zoque\footnote{The Zoque languages are spoken in Southern
Mexico.})

As seen in these examples, \textit{tr\v{c}karati }refers to a very specific way
of running, \textit{marchotter }a very specific way of walking, and so on. These
kinds of means can play a very important role in expressing manner of motion,
particularly in languages with rich evaluative morphology. Moreover, if ``the
wide variation in motion event encoding falls out from general constraints on how
manner and path may be encoded in language'' \citep[370]{beavers2010typology},
in some languages morphology may considerably contribute to the expression of
manner in all semantic domains.

\section{Manner beyond lexicon and syntax (Stosic 2011)}
\label{sec:3}




\citet{stosic2011le} showed that the study of manner must be based on a multilevel
approach because it can be expressed by at least five means: syntactic, lexical,
morphological, grammatical, and suprasegmental. Accordingly, the term ``syntactic
manner'' is used for expression at the syntactic level, ``lexical manner'' for
expression at the lexical level, and so on. The following subsections briefly
present all five types of encoding manner.

\subsection{Syntactic Manner}

Languages use many kinds of syntactic units and constructions to express manner.
In most languages, different types of syntactic constituents  ``manner adjuncts''
or ``manner adverbials'') are combined with verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs
to indicate a specific way that a process, state, or quality is realized; for
example, in Serbian:



\ex. \label{ex4} Hodao je veoma \textbf{brzo}. \hfill (Adverbs)
\\`He was walking very quickly.'

\ex. \label{ex5} Bila je nekako \textbf{\v{c}udno} mirna.
\\ `She was somehow strangely quiet.'



\ex. \label{ex6} Tr\v{c}ao je \textbf{s neverovatnom lako\'{c}om}. \hfill (Prepositional phrases)
\\`He was running with unbelievable ease.'



\ex. \label{ex7} Ptice su letele \textbf{kao slepi mi\v{s}evi}. \hfill (Subordinate clauses)
\\`The birds were flying like bats.'



\ex. \label{ex8} Sve vreme je govorio \textbf{zamuckuju\'{c}i}. \hfill (Gerunds / present participles)
\\`He talked stuttering all the time.'



\ex. \label{ex9} Odgovorio je \textbf{pognute glave}. \hfill (Genitive constructions)
\\`He answered with his head bowed down.'

This list is not exhaustive: there are many other types of manner adjuncts and
structures across languages. These manner expressions have been extensively
studied over the last few decades; see \citep{hassel10}; \citep{molinier2000textitgrammaire}; \citep{lang2003textitmodifying}, among many others.

\subsection{Lexical Manner}

In addition to syntactic means of expressing manner, all languages have a very
large lexicon of verbs, simple adverbs, nouns, ideophones, and so on whose
meaning involves a manner component.

\ex. \label{ex10} \textit{to fly, to walk, to run, to sneak, to
hop, to jump, to limp}, etc. \hfill (English verbs) \\
 \textit{fast, hard, well}, etc. \hfill (adverbs) \\
\textit{manner, way, method, style, approach}, etc. \hfill (nouns)

Lexicalization of manner has been studied from many different approaches in
lexical semantics, particularly in the verbal domain.

First, there is very extensive research on ``Lexical Conceptual Structure'' and
similar notions (see \citep{levin2005m, levin2009root}; \citep{levin2011m}; \citep{hovav1998building}; \citep{jackendoff1983semantics, jackendoff1990semantic}; \citep{hale2002prolegomenon}) that all involve
some type of predicate decomposition and are designed to capture facets of
meaning that determine the grammatical behavior of the verb. In these lexical
decomposition approaches, manner is one of basic semantic components that
structures both linguistic knowledge and cognition (for an overview, see \citep{levin2011m}).

Second, several linguistic and psycholinguistic studies based on Talmy's
typology (see \citep{talmy2000textittoward}; \citep{berman1994relating}; \citep{slobin1987thinking, slobin1996fromthought, slobin2004many};
\citep{bowerman1996learning}; \citep{hickmann2006space}; \citep{verhoevent2004textitrelating};
\citep{beavers2010typology}; \citep{filipovic2002verbs}; \citep{zlatev2004third}) have led
scholars to make and compare inventories of manner of motion verbs in many
languages. This has shown that SfLs (Serbian, English, German) generally have a
very large vocabulary of manner of motion verbs. Given the availability of the
verb for encoding manner (path being expressed by satellites), manner is
linguistically and cognitively much more salient in SfLs than in VfLs; see \citep{slobin2003language, slobin2006what}.

Finally, Miller and Fellbaum, who developed the \textit{WordNet} lexical
database \citep{fellbaum1998wordnet}, proposed a third approach to the lexicalization of
manner in verbs \citep{fellbaum1990folk}; \citep{miller1992semantic}; \citep{fellbaum2002onthesemantics}. The objective is to establish lexical relations that structure the lexicon
by carving it up into semantically coherent sub-wholes. English verbs are mainly
organized in terms of troponymy, which is a hierarchical ``manner'' relation:
``most lexicalized verb concepts refer to an action or event that constitutes a
manner elaboration of another activity or event''{\scriptsize  } \citep[217]{miller1992semantic}. Thus, troponymy links verbs like \textit{to walk, to run, to
jump, to fly} to the basic motion verb \textit{to move}. According to \citet[24]{fellbaum2002onthesemantics}, ``the subordinate concept contains the superordinate, but adds some
additional semantic specification of its own'':

\ex. \label{ex11} \textit{to move:} $ \, \leftarrow{}$T$\rightarrow{}$\textit{ to
walk} $\leftarrow{}$T$\rightarrow{}$\textit{ to stumble} \hfill (English) \\
\textit{to walk}: `move at a regular pace by lifting
and setting down each foot in turn' \\
\textit{to stumble}: `walk unsteadily'
(\textit{WordReference})

The originality of this approach is that it is not limited to the motion domain
and it shows the widespread lexicalization of manner in all semantic domains.

These various studies in lexical semantics have shown the importance of lexical
encoding of manner across languages.

\subsection{Morphological Manner (MM)}

In many languages different morphological processes form manner adverbs, as
shown in \ref{ex12}--\ref{ex13}:

\ex. \label{ex12} \textit{brief-ly, wrong-ly, slow-ly, frog-wise,
prayer-wise}, etc. \hfill (English)

\ex. \label{ex13}  \textit{tim-e-tim-e} `secretly, in hiding',
\textit{jem'-jem} `regularly, repeatedly, often', \textit{gu-rung-ga-rang}
`aimlessly, of roaming about',  \citep[264--265]{burling2003language} \hfill (Garo\footnote{Garo is
spoken in Bangladesh.})

Regarding the verbal domain, although morphological means of expressing manner
are rarely discussed in the literature, there are a few mentions of such means.
Thus, \citet[39--47]{foley1984r} report some data from
Lakhota\footnote{Lakhota is spoken in North Dakota, South Dakota, North Nebraska,
South Minnesota, Northeast Montana, and in Canada.} with many prefixes (e.g.,
\textit{ya-, na-})\textit{ }that describe the way some actions happen; combined
with verb stems, these prefixes form verbs expressing manner:

\ex. \label{ex14} \textit{ya-} `with the mouth' 
\\ \textit{na-} `with the foot or leg'
\\ \textit{ka-} `by a sudden impact', etc. \hfill (Lakhota)

\ex. \label{ex15}   \textit{ya-ble\v{c}ha} `break or cut
with the teeth' \\
\textit{na-ble\v{c}ha }`break by kicking
or stepping on', etc.  \hfill (Lakhota) \\ \citep[cf. also][]{levin2009root}

Further, \citet[344]{comrie1985causative} explicitly claims that: ``derivative verbs exist in
many languages to indicate the manner in which an event occurs''. He gives some
examples from Zulu\footnote{Zulu (about ten million speakers) is spoken in South
Africa.}, in which manner verbs formed with the suffix -\textit{isisa} indicate
``that an action is carried out with force, with greater than expected
intensity'':

\ex. \label{ex16} \textit{buza }`to ask' $>$ \textit{buz-isisa
}`to ask insistently'
\\ \textit{thanda }`to love' $>$ \textit{thand-isisa }`to
love exceedingly' \hfill (Zulu)

\citet{comrie1985causative} also mentions that such manner derivatives may indicate
attenuative meaning. In Russian, for example, this meaning arises with the prefix
\textit{pri-}, and in Zulu through reduplication, as shown in \ref{ex17}:

\ex. \label{ex17} \textit{na\v{z}at' }`to press' $>$\textit{
pri-na\v{z}at' }`to press lightly' \hfill (Russian) \\
\textit{ndiza }`to fly' $>$ \textit{ndizandiza
}`to fly a little' \hfill (Zulu)

Furthermore, Comrie includes in manner derivatives many aspectuals expressing
actions that occur very quickly, for a short time, or for a long time, which are
repeated at intervals or iterated, and so on. Such meanings can be expressed by
either affixation or reduplication, as in the following Russian examples:

\ex. \label{ex18} \textit{stojat${'}$} `to stand' $>$
\textit{po-stojat${'}$} `to stand for a short time' \\
\textit{ka\v{s}ljat${'}$ }`to cough' $>$\textit{
ka\v{s}lj-anu-t${'}$ }`to give a cough' (a momentary event) \hfill (Russian)

Finally, \citep{amiot2011sautiller} and \citep{stosic2011quand} showed that French
verbal derivatives such as \textit{sautiller }`to hop (around)' ($<$
\textit{sauter }`to jump'),\textit{ boitiller }`to limp slightly' ($<$
\textit{boiter }`to limp'),\textit{ voleter }`to flutter' ($<$ \textit{voler }`to
fly'), and\textit{ marchotter }`to walk with difficulty / taking small steps /
unsteadily' ($<$ \textit{marcher }`to walk') all express a specific way of
performing the action indicated by the verb stem. All of them are formed by a
particular kind of suffixation belonging to ``evaluative morphology'' (see
Section \ref{sec:4.1} below).

Even though these types of manner expressions are scarcely ever mentioned in the
literature on motion, the meanings that they construct are regularly taken into
account when languages code them at the lexical or syntactic level. In the
following examples, there is no plausible reason to consider only the expressions
that occur in a) as encoding manner but not those in b), which all convey a
specific manner of motion:

\ex. \label{ex19}  a. English  \textit{to hop (around)} 
\\ b. Serbian \textit{skak\textbf{uta}ti}; French
\textit{saut\textbf{ill}er};  Italian \textit{balz\textbf{ell}are }`to hop
(around)'

\ex. \label{ex20} a. English \textit{to flutter (about)} \\
 b. Serbian \textit{letu\textbf{cka}ti};
  French\textit{
vol\textbf{et}er}; Italian\textit{ vola\textbf{cchi}are }`to flutter
(about)'


\ex. \label{ex21} a. English \textit{to trudge (along)};
Japanese\textit{ \textbf{tobotobo} aruku}; French\textit{ marcher
\textbf{p\'{e}niblement/d'un pas lourd}}
\\ b. Hebrew \textit{di\v{s}de\v{s}};  Serbian
\textit{hodu\textbf{cka}ti }`to trudge (along)'

The same conceptual content is rendered by different kinds of linguistic
elements: lexical or syntactic ones in a) and morphological ones in b) (by
reduplication in Hebrew, and by affixation in French, Italian, and Serbian).
Definitions in monolingual dictionaries are also very explicit about the presence
of the manner `component' in such derivatives; the French verb
\textit{marchotter} ($<$ \textit{marcher} `to walk') is defined as `to walk with
difficulty, to walk taking small steps, to walk unsteadily' (\textit{TLFi}).
Thus, in the verbal domain, a number of manner concepts are widely expressed by
different morphological means.

\subsection{Grammatical Manner}

Languages generally possess a small set of grammatical items referring to a few
basic conceptual categories such as \emphasis{person, object, activity, space,
time, quality,} and \emphasis{manner}. Manner is one of the few basic domains of
conceptualization that are crucial for structuring experience, cf.~\citep{jackendoff1983semantics}; \citep{heine91}; \citep{haspelmath1997indefinite}. In the majority of
languages it may also be expressed by interrogative and indefinite adverbs or
pronouns. Very often, these expressions are monomorphemic, but not always.

\ex. \label{ex22}  \textit{how?},\textit{ anyway, anyhow,
someway, somehow, no way} \hfill (English) \\
 \textit{kako? }`how?',\textit{ nekako
}`somehow',\textit{ nikako }`in no way',\textit{ ikako }`in any way',\textit{
onako }`in that way',\textit{ ovako }`in this way',\textit{ svakako
}`anyhow',\textit{ tako }`this way' \\ \hfill (Serbian)

\subsection{Suprasegmental Manner}

The use of pitch and prosodic phenomena to encode manner is very frequent some
languages, in which the kind and position of the pitch distinguish meaning. In
such languages, manner adverbials can be marked by a change in quality or
quantity. For example, in Serbian, which has four ``pitch accents'' involving
rising or falling pitch on long or short vowels, in some cases two different
accents distinguish adjectives from cognate manner adverbs, as in \ref{ex23}--\ref{ex24}:

\ex. \label{ex23} M\ipa{ȃ}l\={o} se pomerilo. (long falling tone\textit{ }= adjective)
= Ne\v{s}to m\ipa{ȃ}l\={o} se pomerilo.
\\ `Something little moved'

\ex. \label{ex24} M\ipa{ȁ}lo se pomerilo. (short falling tone = adverb)
= Ne\v{s}to se m\ipa{ȁ}lo pomerilo.
\\ `(Something) moved a little'

This opposition is not a systematic one in Serbian.

According to \citet[153]{patri1998fondements}, in Diyari, spoken in Australia, inserting a
prosodic break after an adjective integrated in the subject NP turns it into a
manner adverb:

\exg.\label{ex25}{nawu-ja} {\ng{}anti} {tu\ng{}ka} {pani-ji} 
\\ Pr-3p.sg N-meat Adj-rotten V-smell-3p.sg.pres
\\
`this rotten meat smells'

\exg.\label{ex26}nawu-ja {\ng{}anti \,  \textbf{{\small
$\vert{}$}}} tu\ng{}ka pani-ji \\
Pr-3p.sg N-meat Adv-MAN.rotten V-smell-3p.sg.pres
\\
`this meat smells rotten'

\todo{vertical line in glossing????}

In both Serbian and Diyari, elaboration of the manner component in discourse is
obtained by using prosodic elements in speech.

To sum up, an onomasiological approach to the linguistic expression of manner is
needed because of its considerable complexity and the variability of encoding
strategies across languages. Languages differ greatly in how they make use of
each of the five types of manner pointed out in this section. English, for
instance, is known for its ability to encode a large variety of manner meanings
at the lexical level, cf. \citep{fellbaum1998wordnet}. For example, English verbs expressing
crying distinguish among \textit{cry, weep, sob, blubber, whimper, pule, }and
\textit{mewl}, whereas Japanese simply has \textit{naku }`to cry'. In order to
express the same distinctions, Japanese must combine at the syntactic level its
only neutral verb for crying with ideophones obtained by partial or complete
reduplication (see \citep[319--323]{wienold1995lexical}:

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=288pt]{fig0.png}
\caption{From \citep[320]{wienold1995lexical}}
\label{fig:0}
\end{figure}



English is not without evaluative suffixation or reduplication (e.g., \textit{to
zigzag}), but it only infrequently uses these to express manner of motion.

Regarding the expression of manner at the morphological level, many works
mention this possibility but no systematic study has been conducted on this topic; see, however, \citep{stosic2011quand}.

\section{From evaluative morphology and pluractionality to  manner}

This section assesses the possible role of morphological manner in the
expression of motion. The study mainly includes relevant data from Serbian, but I
also offer a comparative view to highlight the widespread use of such
morphological means in encoding manner. Two main research directions have focused
on this type of linguistic element: evaluative morphology and a broad field of
research on pluractionality.

\subsection{Evaluative morphology}
\label{sec:4.1}

Evaluative morphology is a subfield of derivational morphology that forms
lexemes expressing some deviation from the ``norm'' or ``standard'' fixed by the
base. More precisely, lexical items and constructions are traditionally
considered to be evaluative if they carry values such as \emphasis{big, small,
good, }and\emphasis{ bad}, that is diminution, augmentation, endearment, contempt,
and so on: \textit{booklet, aunty, doggy, sweetie, weakling}; see \citep{scalise1986textit}; \citep{stump1993}; \citep{dressler1994morphopragmatics}; \citep{1994textitcours}; \citep{grandi2002morfologie, grandi2009restrictions}; \citep{fradin2003le}; \citep{grandi2005prefixsuffix}; \citep{fradin09}.
\citet[46]{grandi2009restrictions} defines evaluation in the following way:

In short, a construction can be defined as evaluative if it satisfies two
conditions, one relating to semantics and the other to the formal level. The
first condition indicates that a linguistic construction can be defined as
evaluative if it has the function of assigning a value, which is different from
that of the ``standard'' (within the semantic scale which it is part of), to a
concept. This value is assigned without resorting to any parameters of reference
external to the concept itself. The second condition indicates that an evaluative
construction must include at least the explicit expression of the standard (by
means of a linguistic form which is lexically autonomous and is recognised by the
speakers of the language as an actual word) and an evaluative mark (a linguistic
element that expresses at least one of the semantic values traditionally classed
as evaluative: \emphasis{big, small, good, bad} \citep[46]{grandi2009restrictions}.)

Commonly called diminutives, these expressions are often considered as belonging
to expressive language because their use is always based on the speaker's
qualitative or quantitative appreciation of what he is talking about. As such,
evaluative morphology (or subjective morphology) is usually opposed to conceptual
morphology, which is much more objective/realistic (e.g., \textit{run $>$ runner,
form $>$ formation, bad $>$ badly}, etc.).\textit{ }Across languages, several
morphological processes are used in forming evaluatives: affixation,
eduplication, apophony, and so on, as observable in \ref{ex27}:

\ex.\label{ex27} \textit{pevati
`}to sing' / \textit{pevu\v{s}iti }`to hum' \hfill (Serbian affixation)
\\
 \textit{nam }`to
sleep' / \textit{nimnem }`to dose, to take a nap' \hfill (Hebrew reduplication)
\\
 \textit{loqu} `to
play/sing' / \textit{loequ} `to play/sing repeatedly' \hfill (Chechen apophony)

Note that some (less inflecting and/or more analytic) languages construct
evaluative meanings at the syntactic level:

\ex.\label{ex28} a little boy \hfill (English)
\\
 Donne-moi ta \uline{petite} main!
\\
`Give me your little hand' \hfill (French)
\\
 \uline{oioi} naku \hfill (Japanese)
\\`to blubber'

Evaluative morphology rules are characterized by several properties, which have
been the topic of many discussions in the literature; see \citep[132 ff.]{scalise1986textit};
\citep{stump1993}; \citep{dressler1994morphopragmatics}; \citep{bauer1997evaluative}; \citep{grandi2009restrictions}; \citep{fradin09}. The most important of these rules are:

a) They express some deviation from the ``norm'' or ``standard'' fixed by the
semantics of the base:

\ex. \label{ex29} \textit{pevati }`to sing' vs.
\textit{pevu\v{s}iti} `to hum, to sing \textit{sotto voce}' \hfill (Serbian)

In some cases, this deviation can be purely pragmatic because nothing really
changes in the event processing at the referential level (e.g., when talking
about infants or in the presence of babies and children). This is what \citep[560]{bauer1997evaluative} calls ``strong `expressive' pragmatic effect'' and what leads
\citet[85]{savickiene2007diminutives} to argue that diminutives have two basic
meanings, the semantic meaning of smallness and a pragmatic meaning indicating
endearment, sympathy, empathy, pleasure, and irony.

b) They allow consecutive application:

\ex. \label{ex30} \textit{inja }`dog', \textit{injana }`little
dog', \textit{injanyana }`very little dog'  \hfill (Zulu) \\ \citep[4]{stump1993}
\\
 \textit{soba }`room', \textit{sobica }`little/small room',
\textit{sobi\v{c}ak }`very small room' \hfill (Serbian)

c) They do not change the syntactic category of the base (homocategoriality):

\ex. \label{ex31} V $>$ V:\textit{ raditi $>$ raduckati }`to work
half-heartedly' \hfill (Serbian)

d) They form paradigms so that in many cases they are substitutable:

\ex. \label{ex32}  \textit{pevati }`to sing' $>$
\textit{pev\textbf{u\v{s}i}ti, pev\textbf{ucka}ti, pev\textbf{ka}ti,
pev\textbf{u\v{s}ka}ti} \hfill (Serbian)

e) The same evaluative morpheme can take as input more than one category of the
base:

\ex. \label{ex33}(-\textit{et}) N $>$
N: \textit{sac} `bag' $>$ \textit{sach\textbf{et}}
`little bag' \\
Adj $>$ Adj: \textit{gentil} `kind' $>$
\textit{gentill\textbf{et}} `sweetie, pleasant enough' \\
V $>$ V: \textit{voler} `to fly' $>$
\textit{vol\textbf{et}er} `to flutter' \hfill(French)

Most works dealing with evaluation have focused on nominal and adjectival
evaluatives, whereas the verbal domain has not been sufficiently explored across
languages; see \citep{greenberg2010event}; \citep{grandi2009restrictions}; \citep{tovena2008event}; \citep{amiot2011sautiller, amiotforthcoming}; \citep{stosic2011quand}. According to \citet{grandi2009restrictions}, the main
reason for this lack is the relatively small cross-linguistic diffusion of verbal
evaluatives compared to nominal ones. It is not excluded, however, that both
formal and semantic complexities of verbal evaluatives act as a deterrent.

Although the term ``evaluation'', as already indicated, allows the recognition
of a particular type of morphology, in the verbal domain it does not plausibly
explain what the deviation from the norm is actually due to. Where does the
non-conformity in the realization of a process really come from? Which change in
event processing can make one use evaluative verbs instead of their bases?
Diminution in itself is not a satisfactory explanation because in many cases it
is very difficult to determine which dimension of the action is reduced. Thus,
traditional semantic values such as diminution or augmentation seem to be much
more suitable for the nominal domain. For this reason, the complementary notion
of pluractionality must be taken into account when describing these kinds of
morphologically complex verbs.

\subsection{Pluractionality}

Many works deal with the same type of phenomena without using the idea of
evaluation.\footnote{Tovena's  statement is very revealing of this fact: ``A situation described by an event-internal pluractional verb is presented
as modified with respect to a canonical one, which can be viewed as setting the
standard or constituting the prototype.'' \citep[51]{tovena2011when}} This study, which explores the notion
of pluractionality, draws a very interesting parallel between nominal and verbal
plurality by making the hypothesis that certain verbs are capable of denoting
sets of events in the same way that some nouns designate sets of objects (cf.
\citep{newman1980textitthe, newman2012pluractional}; \citep{laca06}; \citep{hofherr2012verbal}). The term
``pluractionality'' thus indicates that ``the event denoted by the verb is, in
some sense, pluralized: repeated in time, distributed in various locations, holds
of many participants, etc.'' \citep[119]{greenberg2010event}. Pluractionality has been
widely studied in morphology, semantics, and typology, as well as in various
works describing individual languages; see \citep{newman1980textitthe, newman1990textitnominal}; \citep{cusic1981verbal}; \citep{yu2003pluractionality}; \citep{geenhoven2005atelicity}; \citep{laca04}; \citep{wood2007textitthe}; \citep{greenberg2010event}; \citep{tovena2008event}. From a semantic point of view,   Cusic's dissertation  \citep{cusic1981verbal} provides one of
the most systematic explanations of the wide range of readings associated with
pluractional markers. I therefore follow that analysis in this article.

First of all, it is important to distinguish between \textit{event-internal
pluractionality} and \textit{event-external pluractionality}. The former is
observed ``when a single event on a single occasion consists of internal phases''
(e.g., \textit{to nibble}), and the latter ``when a single bounded event
(internally plural or not) is repeated on a single occasion'' or ``when a single
bounded event is repeated on different occasions'' (e.g., \textit{to nibble
again, to call again and again}; \citep[67]{cusic1981verbal}). The following discussion only
concerns \textit{event-internal pluractionality, }which can lead to a large
variety of semantic effects according to Cusic. Some of them, such as diminutive
and augmentative readings, are shared among many works dealing with evaluative
morphology and others are specific to the domain of pluractionality, such as
``tentative,'' ``incassative,'' and ``conative'' readings. A brief definition of
these values will provide a better understanding of how they can be subsumed into
a more general concept of manner.

Diminutive reading is observed when the event is reduced in some of its
dimensions. Diminution can apply to the entire event, some of its subparts, any
entity involved in the process, and so on. According to \citet[81--82]{cusic1981verbal},
``the repetition decreases the size or importance of the units of the action, as
if to keep a constant overall quantity while increasing the number of parts.''
Augmentative reading appears when ``the amount of activity increases and possibly
also the amount of `substance' implied as being acted upon'' (\citep[85]{cusic1981verbal}; e.g., Serbian \textit{trajati} `to last' $>$ \textit{potrajati }`to take a
while, longer than expected'). Tentative reading is available when ``the action
is performed half-heartedly or with less effort than expected'' (\citep[82--83]{cusic1981verbal}; e.g., Serbian \textit{raditi} `to work' $>$
\textit{raduckati} `to work without much enthusiasm, to work half-heartedly').
Incassative reading is assigned to situations with ``a kind of repetitive
plurality in which there is no attempt to do anything in particular, merely an
aimless or undirected activity'' (\citep[83--84]{cusic1981verbal}; e.g., Serbian
\textit{tr\v{c}ati }`to run' $>$ \textit{tr\v{c}karati }`to run around, to run
here and there'). Finally, conative reading is obtained when a verb describes an
action that ``falls short of producing some desired result'' (\citep{greenberg2010event};
e.g., Serbian \textit{hodati} `to walk' $>$ \textit{hoduckati} `to walk with
difficulty, to walk taking small steps, to walk unsteadily').

Note that evaluation and pluractionality are two distinct phenomena that are not
mutually exclusive and that only partially overlap. Although the same set of
means or elements is often used to express both of them across languages
(affixes, apophony, reduplication, etc.), each is quite autonomous. This means
that there is evaluation without pluractionality \ref{ex34} and that there exists
pluractionality without evaluation \ref{ex35}--\ref{ex36}:

\ex. \label{ex34}\textit{\textbf{po}maziti} `to stroke',
\textit{\textbf{pro}pr\v{z}iti} `to fry a little', \textit{pev\textbf{u\v{s}i}ti}
`to hum' \hfill(Serbian)

\ex. \label{ex35}\textbf{Po}skakali su u vodu. (plural
subject obligatory)
\\`They jumped into the water one after the
other.'  \hfill(Serbian)

\ex. \label{ex36}\textbf{Po}ispreme\v{s}tao je
stolove/burad.\textit{ }(plural or collective object obligatory)
\\ `He moved all the tables/barrels.' \hfill(Serbian)

There is overlap between evaluation and pluractionality in Serbian when
derivatives obtained by some evaluative affixes express event internal
pluractionality; see \citep{amiotforthcoming}. Thus, the verb
\textit{letuckati }`to flutter' ($<$ \textit{leteti} `to fly') conveys both the
evaluative and pluractional meaning: the representation of the action of flying
does not match its canonical representation because there is ``increase in
frequency and decrease of one or more other dimensions'' \citep[43]{tovena2011when}. This
irregularity or deviation from the norm, due to fragmentation (i.e., internal pluralization) of the action, is what semantically justifies the use of
evaluative morphology to describe such situations in many languages. Henceforth,
I use the term ``evaluative-pluractional (E-P) verb/marker'' to refer to elements
at the intersection of the two sets of derivatives:

\begin{figure}[htbp]
	\centering
\includegraphics[width=317pt]{fig1.png}
	\caption{Evaluation and Pluractionality as partly overlapping phenomena}
	\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}


Thus evaluative and pluractional markers very often (but not always) suggest a
substantial modification in the realization of events described by verb stems,
especially in their internal structure; see, among others, \citep{cusic1981verbal}; \citep{newman1990textitnominal}; \citep{geenhoven2005atelicity}; \citep{grandi2009restrictions}; \citep{greenberg2010event}; \citep{tovena2009pluractionality, tovena2011when};  \citep{amiot2011sautiller}. This is why a connection is regularly made with aspect; see
\citep{cusic1981verbal}; \citep{shluinsky2009individuallevel}; \citep{hofherr2012verbal}; \citep{amiot2011sautiller, amiotforthcoming}. Interestingly, even though some evaluative and pluractional verbs
clearly encode a particular way in which the action described by the base
happens, the phenomena that they express have never been related to manner. In
\ref{ex37}, all of the Serbian derived motion verbs highlight some deviation from a
prototypical way of running, jumping, hopping, and trotting:

\ex. \label{ex37} \textit{ska-kut-ati} `to hop (around), to skip
along' \\
\textit{tr\v{c}-kara-ti} `to run around, to run here and there' \\
\textit{hram-uck-ati} `to limp slightly' \\
\textit{kas-k-ati} `to trot around, to jog' \\

Example \ref{ex37} suggests that the derived verb expresses a process of the same type
as the process denoted by the base verb, albeit not totally identical (its
intensity is weaker, the motion is ``broken'' or faltering, the object it bears
upon is more limited, etc.). Because of this modification, signaled by the
morphological marking, the action is conceived as being taken in a specific way,
and hence as not being in conformity with its prototypical representation. As
argued in \citep{stosic2011quand}, this deviation from the norm---whatever values
it is based on---is what generates the manner interpretation of morphologically
complex verbs at issue.

What emerges from this survey of research on evaluation and pluractionality is,
first, that a valuable description of these kinds of linguistic phenomena needs
to combine the two approaches\footnote{For more details about this methodological
necessity, see \citep{stosic2010evaluation}.} and, second, that some evaluative and
pluractional verbs must be considered as a possible strategy for expressing
manner. The case study of Serbian in the following section further illustrates
this descriptive and theoretical necessity.

\section{Morphological encoding of manner in Serbian}

Even though there is no explicit theoretical or methodological link between the
approaches to manner discussed in the three previous sections, each of them
contributed to inventorying various linguistic means for expressing manner and
made it possible to study how morphology plays a role in its expression. In line
with our previous research, whose originality lies in establishing a direct
connection between evaluative and/or pluractional morphology and manner in the
verbal domain (cf. \citep{stosic2011le}; \citep{amiot2011sautiller}; \citep{stosic2011quand}), this
section addresses the extent to which morphological means of expressing manner
can be used in languages and how much languages can differ from one another in
their use of this encoding strategy. I first present a case study of Serbian
data. I then introduce some contrastive considerations.

\subsection{Evaluative verbs in Serbian}

Evaluative verbs in Serbian have been discussed in many works dealing with
``dim\-inutives''; see \citep{grick55, grick95}; \citep{1982prilog}; \citep{babi86};
\citep{1997leksivcka}; \citep{klajn03}; \citep{2007poetski}.\footnote{Even
though some of these studies deal with Serbo-Croatian or Croatian, they are
highly relevant for describing evaluatives in Serbian.} Some grammarians have
also attempted to provide a consistent account of their formation and semantics; see \citep{1989textitsavremeni}; \citep{baric97};
\citep{2005textitgramatika}. These studies have shown that evaluative verbs
are mainly formed by means of suffixes, but that there are also a few prefixes
capable of constructing evaluative and/or pluractional meanings. Note that in
Serbian, unlike most Indo-European languages, suffixes forming evaluative verbs
are different from those used to form evaluative nouns or
adjectives:\footnote{However, according to \citet{grick55}, nominal and verbal
evaluative suffixes are historically related:


N: \textit{devojka }`girl' /\textit{ devoj\v{c}u-\textbf{ra-k} }`little girl'

V: \textit{tr\v{c}ati} `to run' /  \textit{tr\v{c}-\textbf{k}a-\textbf{ra-}ti}
`to run around'.}

\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Evaluative suffixes in Serbian}
\label{tab:1}
\begin{tabular}{p{98pt}p{250pt}}

\emphasis{Parts of speech}
 & 
\emphasis{Suffix}
 \\

{\small Noun}
 & 
\textit{-ac, -ak, -arak, -erak, -eljak, -uljak, -i\v{c}ak, -etak, -ce, -ance,
-a\v{s}ce, -ence, e\v{s}ce, \v{c}e, -in\v{c}e, -i\v{c}e, -ica, -\v{c}ica,
-i\'{c}, -\v{c}i\'{c}, -ka, -ca, -i\'{c}-ak, -i\v{c}-ak, -i\v{c}-ica}
 \\

{\small Adjective}
 & 
\textit{-kast, -i\v{c}ast, -cki, -e\v{s}an, -u\v{s}an, -a\v{s}an, -ahan,
-a\v{c}ak, -unjav, -u\v{s}kast, -uljast}
 \\

{\small Verb}
 & 
\textit{-k-ati,} \textit{-nu-ti, -uc-ati, -ck-ati, -uck-ati, -uk-ati, -ut-ati,
-kara-ti, -ucnu-ti, -kari-ti, ak-ati, -u\v{s}i-ti, -\v{s}k-ati, -ulji-ti, -ta-ti,
-u\v{s}k-ati, -ik-ati, -as-ati, -at-ati, -ek-ati, -et-ati, -uknu-ti, -ket-ati,
-olji-ti, -cnu-ti, -lji-ti, -ra-ti, -a-ti, -ota-ti}
 \\
\end{tabular}

\end{table}

As seen in Table \ref{tab:1}, there are about thirty verbal evaluative suffixes in
Serbian. Some of them have many allomorphs and some can be analyzed into two
morphemes, but that is not the issue here; see \citep{grick55}; \citep{klajn03}.

Regarding prefixes, much less numerous than suffixes, Serbian uses the same
units to form evaluative/pluractional verbs, and evaluative adjectives and
adverbs. Table \ref{tab:2} shows this parallelism:\footnote{In this analysis, I do not take
into account the prefixes \textit{pre-} `over, hyper' \textit{nad-} `over,
super', and \textit{pod-} `under', expressing such evaluative meanings as
\emphasis{too, too much / not enough}, e.g., \textit{preceniti} `overestimate',
\textit{preosetljiv} `hypersensitive', \textit{potceniti} `underestimate', 
\textit{pothranjen} `underfed', \textit{nadja\v{c}ati} `to overcome'; see \citep{amiotforthcoming}.\label{ftn:test}}

\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Evaluative prefixes in Serbian}

\label{tab:2}
\begin{tabular}{|p{26pt}|p{127pt}|p{105pt}|p{74pt}|}
\hline

\emphasis{Prefix}
 & 
\emphasis{Verb}
 & 
\emphasis{Adjective}
 & 
\emphasis{Adverb}
 \\
\hline

\textit{{\small po- }}
 & 
{\small \textit{poigrati se }`to play for a while'}
 & 
{\small \textit{podebeo }`rather stout'}
 & 
{\small \textit{pomalo }`a little bit, now and then'}
 \\
\hline

\textit{{\small na-}}
 & 
{\small \textit{na\v{c}uti }`to hear of vaguely'}
 & 
{\small \textit{nagluv }`hard-of-hearing'}
 &  \\
\hline

\textit{{\small pri-}}
 & 
{\small \textit{pridr\v{z}ati} `to hold for a while'}
 & 
{\small \textit{priglup }`rather stupid'}
 &  \\
\hline

\textit{{\small pro-}}
 & 
{\small \textit{prolutati }`to roam for a while'}
 & 
{\small \textit{prohladan }`rather cool'}
 &  \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{2pt}

\end{table}



Previous research on evaluative verbs in Serbian has not measured how wide\-spread
they are in the lexicon. The most complete inventory can be found in \citep{1982prilog}, who lists about 330 derivatives of this kind; see also \citep{klajn03}. In
order to establish how productive verbal evaluative morphology is, I took an
inventory of verbs from the \textit{Serbian Electronic Dictionary}, which has
about 300,000 entries; see \citep{2005textit}. I extracted and analyzed 20,000
potential candidates formed by one of these suffixes or prefixes. This method,
based on a large sample of lexicographic data, allowed me to identify around
1,570 evaluative verbs from all semantic domains. Some of them are exclusively
formed by suffixation (about 600), some exclusively by prefixation (about 610),
and the others combine suffixation and prefixation (about 360). As shown in
Figure \vref{fig:2}, all suffixes are not equally productive: in my sample, the
suffixes\textit{ -k }and \textit{nu} are the most frequent and they form half of
my corpus:


\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=360pt]{fig2.png}
\caption{Productivity of Serbian evaluative suffixes (\%)}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}

The distribution of prefixes in the corpus is given in Figure \vref{fig:3}.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=360pt]{fig3.png}
\caption{Prefixes forming evaluative verbs in Serbian (\%)}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}



These prefixes deserve an in-depth study because of the variety of evaluative
values that they can construct; some of them mostly convey diminution (such as
\textit{pro-}), others mainly express augmentation (e.g., \textit{na-}), and many
prefixes inextricably combine evaluation and pluractionality (e.g.,
\textit{po-}). Because my primary objective is to inventory evaluative verbal
derivatives in Serbian, this article does not address possible semantic
distinctions. It should be noted that in the verbal domain, among all these
prefixes, only \textit{na-, po-, pro-},\textit{ }and \textit{pri-} can convey
evaluative meanings independently of suffixation.

Even though this inventory must be completed and refined (see footnote \ref{ftn:test}), it is clear that Serbian greatly exploits the morphological device
for expressing manner, mainly through the formation of a large number of
evaluative verbs, including those that convey event-internal pluractionality. The
cross-linguistic evidence below further emphasizes the importance of this manner
of encoding strategy in Serbian.

\subsection{Contrastive considerations}

To better evaluate the potential role of morphological means in expressing
manner, I first compare Serbian data, presented in the previous section, with
French and Italian data. This choice is guided first by the fact that French and
especially Italian are known for their very rich evaluative morphology (see
\citep[61]{grandi2009restrictions}), and second by the availability of studies collecting and
presenting comparable data from these two languages (see \citep{grandi2009restrictions} for Italian,
\citep{amiot2011sautiller} for French). Moreover, as is the case with this analysis,
those dealing with French and Italian are based on lexicographic material.

As shown in Table \vref{tab:3}, compared to French and Italian, Serbian has a very high
capacity to form and use evaluative affixation in the verbal domain.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Evaluative derived verbs in French, Italian, and Serbian}
\label{tab:3}
 \begin{threeparttable}[b]
\begin{tabular}{p{45pt}p{45pt}p{45pt}p{45pt}p{97pt}}

\emphasis{Language}
 & 
\emphasis{Verbs \#}
 & 
\emphasis{Source}
 & 
\emphasis{Corpus \#}
 & 
\emphasis{Reference study}
 \\

{\small Serbian}
 & 
{\small 1,550}
 & 
\textit{{\small SED}}\tnote{1}
 & 
{\small 300,000}
 &  \\
\multirow{2}{*}{{\small Italian}} & 
{\small 300} & 
\textit{{\small GRADIT}}
 & 
{\small 270,000}
 & 
{\small \citet{grandi2009restrictions}}
 \\
 &  & 
\textit{{\small DISC}}
 & 
{\small 185,000}
 &  \\

{\small French}
 & 
{\small 180}
 & 
\textit{{\small TLFi}}
 & 
{\small 100,000}
 & 
{\small \citet{amiot2011sautiller}}
 \\
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\footnotesize{
\item [1]  Serbian Electronic Dictionary 
}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}

This table confirms that languages differ in their richness in evaluatives 
\citep[cf.][]{savickiene2007diminutives} and it shows that a direct correlation can be
established between the degree of inflectionality and the number of evaluatives
found. Thus, Serbian as a strongly inflecting language has many more evaluative
verbs than Italian and French, considered weakly inflecting languages, cf. \citep{dressler07}. Moreover, according to \citet[240]{dressler2012acquisition},
French morphology is less inflecting than Italian morphology, which matches
exactly with their respective richness in evaluative verbs. Although confirmation
of this correlation requires a larger sample of languages, the results suggest
that there are languages, such as Serbian, that make very extensive use of
evaluative verbs for describing actions that are performed in a non-canonical
way. The case study of Serbian thus provides a strong argument for why
morphological devices should not be ruled out when trying to capture the options
available to languages for encoding manner.

\subsection{Morphological expression of manner of motion in Serbian}

In the semantic domain of motion, I examine the extent to which morphological
encoding of manner component is exploited in the lexicon of Serbian motion verbs.
The data indicate that there is a relatively small set of motion verbs that can
construct additional manner senses by using evaluative suffixation and/or
prefixation:

\ex. \label{ex38} Thirty motion verbs used as base for morphologically
encoding manner in Serbian: \\
\textit{bazati }`to roam about'\textit{, be\v{z}ati }`to flee'\textit{, cunjati
}`to wander', \textit{\'{c}opati }`to limp'\textit{, gegati (se) }`to
waddle'\textit{, gmizati }`to crawl'\textit{, hodati} `to walk'\textit{, hramati
}`to limp'\textit{, jezditi }`to ride', \textit{juriti }`to race'\textit{, kasati
}`to trot, to run'\textit{, klizati (se) }`to skid, to slip'\textit{, krstariti
}`to cruise', \textit{leteti }`to fly', \textit{lunjati }`to wander',
\textit{lutati }`to wander', \textit{ploviti }`to sail', \textit{puzati }`to
crawl'\textit{, \v{s}epati }`to limp'\textit{, \v{s}etati (se) }`to go for a
walk'\textit{, skakati }`to jump (imp)'\textit{, skitati }`to wander',
\textit{sko\v{c}iti }`to jump (perf)'\textit{, \v{s}vrljati }`to roam'\textit{,
teturati se }`to stagger', \textit{tr\v{c}ati }`to run', \textit{tumarati} `to
roam'\textit{, voziti (se)} `to drive', \textit{vrzmati se }`to move around',
\textit{vu\'{c}i se} `to hang around'


It thus seems that motion verbs are not fertile bases for evaluative morphology:
they represent about 5\% (30/600) of all the base verbs from which the evaluative
verbs examined are derived. These bases form about one hundred evaluative motion
verbs, which represent around 6\% of all evaluative verbs in my corpus. Figure \ref{fig:4}
shows which motion verbs give the greatest number of evaluatives as output (e.g.,
\textit{leteti} `to fly' $>$ \textit{letuckati, letkariti, letkarati, letnuti,
lete\v{s}kati, letkati, letucati, letati, doletnuti, poletnuti}):


\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=360pt]{fig4.png}
\caption{The most productive Serbian motion verbs as base for forming
evaluatives}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}

Essentially the same phenomenon can be observed in French and in Italian, as
shown in the lists in \ref{ex39} and \ref{ex40}, respectively, extracted from \citep{amiot2011sautiller} and \citep{grandi2009restrictions}:

\ex. \label{ex39} Fifteen motion verbs used as base for morphologically
encoding manner in French: \\
\textit{bouger }`to move',\textit{ courir }`to run',\textit{ danser }`to
dance',\textit{ fl\^{a}ner }`to stroll',\textit{ galloper }`to gallop',\textit{
glander }`to loaf about',\textit{ lambiner }`to dilly-dally',\textit{ marcher
}`to walk',\textit{ nager }`to swim',\textit{ promener }`to go for a
walk',\textit{ r\^{o}der }`to roam around',\textit{ sauter }`to jump',\textit{
tra\^{\i}ner }`to hang around',\textit{ troter }`to trot',\textit{ voler }`to
fly',\textit{ voyager }`to travel'


\ex. \label{ex40}Seven motion verbs used as base for morphologically
encoding manner in Italian: \\
\textit{balzare} `to jump', \textit{girare} `to ramble, to wander',
\textit{guidare} `to drive', \textit{inciampare} `to trip', \textit{saltare} `to
jump', \textit{trottare} `to trot', \textit{volare }`to fly'
 

Even though our lists are based on sample data, and are hence incomplete, the
same pattern works for the three languages: one usually finds items that \citet[314]{wienold1995lexical} called ``basic manner of motion verbs'' such as \textit{to jump, to
trot, to fly, to walk} but not any pure path verb. The low compatibility between
motion and evaluation can probably partly explain (but not justify) the omission
of morphological encoding of manner in typological studies dealing with motion
descriptions. However, further investigations are required to explain both this
relative reluctance of the motion domain to use evaluative morphology and why (at
least in Serbian, French, and Italian) path verbs cannot be modified by
evaluative morphemes.

Although there are not too many motion verbs that allow manner modification at
the morphological level, in languages with rich verbal evaluative morphology this
way of expressing manner is all the more important because it directly operates
on the verb, which is the only ``clause-obligatory category'' in most motion
descriptions across languages (see \citep{beavers2010typology}). Yet, the manner
component is not lexicalized in the verb root, but it remains conveyed by the
verb predicate, as being constructed at the morphological level. This is one of
the major factors contributing to the importance of morphological encoding of
manner in languages like Serbian.

\section{Conclusion}

This study is a preliminary empirical investigation of the importance of
morphologically encoding manner in the verbal domain, with particular emphasis on
manner of motion, from a cross-linguistic perspective. My starting point was
Talmy's typology as well as many other works inspired by it because this research
offers the most comprehensive survey of strategies for encoding manner of motion
across languages. \citet{beavers2010typology} further proposed that expressing
manner of motion is dependent on more general morphological, lexical, and
syntactic devices that languages make available for encoding manner. Missing from
all of these studies is any reference to morphological means of expressing
manner. This article examined the role of morphology in the expression of manner
by showing that in the verbal domain many evaluative and/or pluractional
morphological markers do express a non-canonical way of performing an action
described by the base verb.

The following conclusions may be drawn. First, at the theoretical level, I have
shown how evaluative (including evaluative-pluractional) morphology meets manner
and why taking this encoding strategy into consideration is crucial for a
comprehensive analysis of the linguistic expression of manner, especially in
languages with rich evaluative morphology. Second, at the descriptive level, I
have provided an extensive account of evaluative verbs in Serbian, showing at the
same time that they are very numerous in the lexicon (over 1,500) and that they
play a very important role in expressing a great number of manner meanings that,
in many well-documented languages such as English, Spanish, and French, are
either lexicalized or syntactically encoded. The widespread use of verbal
evaluative/ pluractional morphology in some languages thus appears to be an
essential manner-encoding option.

Concerning the motion domain, morphologically encoding manner is rather limited
to a small group of motion verbs, all of which involve manner in their lexical
meaning, but never path. This suggests that motion is rather reluctant to
evaluative morphology, which would only affect the ``basic manner of motion
verbs.'' Further research is needed to determine the accuracy of these
observations; first by comparing the semantic domain of motion to other ones, and
second by extending comparison to a greater number of typologically different
languages.

These results point to an important area of inquiry for future research. Thus,
in light of my findings on the role of Serbian evaluative verbs in language
structure, it would be interesting to explore the extent to which there is
widespread adoption of morphological encoding of manner by speakers in language
use: how does the productivity of the evaluative morphological pattern relate to
its frequency in speech?

Another natural research direction that this work calls for is applying these
results to more general cross-linguistic and typological purposes. Going back to
Talmy's opposition between Satellite-framed and Verb-framed languages, the issue
is the possible typological implications of taking into account morphological
means for encoding manner across languages. In this regard, \citet{slobin2004many, slobin2006what}
has argued that, as a consequence of the availability of the verb for expressing
manner in SfLs, the concept of manner is linguistically and cognitively much more
salient in SfLs (e.g., English, Slavic) than in VfLs (e.g., French). Therefore,
one can ask whether the more extended use of verbal evaluative morphology can
make manner of motion more salient and what its impact could be on the
distinction between ``high-manner-salient'' and ``low-manner-salient'' languages.
Admittedly, English codes a great number of manner meanings at the lexical level,
but Serbian obviously carries out some of these meanings and many others by
morphological means. The questions to be asked are whether the lexical encoding
of some manner meanings such as \textit{to flutter} in English makes it
linguistically and cognitively more salient than its morphological encoding for
Serbian \textit{let-uck-ati }`to flutter' and whether or not their
conceptualization and their cognitive processing are significantly different
depending on the encoding strategy used. These issues will be addressed in future
research.

\section*{acknowledgments}
Thanks
to Dany Amiot and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and critical
remarks on an earlier version of this article. Thanks also to Nooreeda Khodabocus
for her fine copyediting of this article.

\section*{sources}
Tr\'{e}sor de la langue fran\c{c}aise informatis\'{e} ({TLFi}), \\
\url{http://atilf.atilf.fr/tlf.htm}.

\bibliographystyle{sp}
\bibliography{kap4sydslav_new}


\section*{Author contact information}
\noindent {Dejan Stosic}\\ CLLE-ERSS (UMR 5263) \\
{Universit\'{e} de Toulouse-Le Mirail}\\
5, all\'{e}es Antonio Machado \\ 31058  Toulouse Cedex 9 \\
France\\
\url{stosic.ling@gmail.com}
\newline












\end{document}