English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Since early work by Talmy (1975, 1985), linguistic representation of space has been at the center of research in lexical typology, cognitive linguistics, and psycholinguistics (see, inter alia, the various approaches represented in Slobin (2000), Levinson (2003), Beavers et al. (2010)). Some of the central aspects of spatial representation, however, have remained largely understudied. Particularly poorly understood is the distinction between dynamic and static spatial expressions and the ways that distinction is drawn by speakers of different languages. On the one hand, speakers often choose not to encode a dynamic relation explicitly, even though they have at their disposal a specialized means for unambiguous encoding of a goal or a source of motion (Nikitina 2008, Tutton 2009 for English). On the other hand, speakers sometimes choose to encode a static relation by means of a specialized dynamic expression, even in the absence of any perceivable motion. This paper focuses on the latter aspect of the problem: the use of dynamic expressions for the encoding of static locations. Such use is especially common with expressions encoding a spatial relation for which no specialized adposition exists, including expressions for “right” and “left”.

The Many Ways to Find the “Right” and the “Left”: On dynamic projection models in the encoding of spatial relations