When passing over to the next type of framing event, we are also leaving the fairly obvious metaphoric relationship existing between Motion and the other two framing events treated hitherto, Temporal contouring and State change. Still, Talmy 2000-II make a good case for considering also the next type of complex events as macro-events consisting of framing event and co-event, and for building a core schema analogous with Motion. Let us first describe this framing event type in some detail.
Action correlating57 is, according to Talmy, akin to a broader phenomenon that can be termed coactivity, where a first agency executing an activity is associated with a second agency whose activity is correlated with the first. This second activity is either comparable to or complementary to the first activity. The first agency is often a subject NP and the second an object NP. Coactive objects are typically required by symmetric verbs, comitatives, and datives. The sentence ‘I ran after Jane’ is given as an illustration, since it is required that Jane also engages in swift forward motion for this sentence to be correct.
Action correlating as framing event is a narrowing down of this general concept of co-activity.
By Action correlating, an intentional Agent effects or maintains a particular correlation between an action performed by herself and an action performed by another Agency. The framing event consists of the establishment of this correlation per se.
The core schema of all the types of Action correlating is seen as analogous to the Motion schema of Path (+Ground): the correlation of one action with respect to another parallels the path of one object with respect to another. The Agent’s action is thus placed as figural entity in correlation with an Agency’s action as ground entity. The co-event is the specific action performed by the Agent.
The co-event bears a constitutive support relation to the framing event, since it is the specific activity of the co-event that constitutes the actions to be correlated (Talmy 2000-II: 253-5). Talmy schematizes the macro-event in two different ways (Talmy 2000-II: 255), where the b. version is an adaptation that is closer to the languages used in his examples (English, German, Spanish]:
46) Action correlation schemas
a. [Agent PUT Agent’s Action In-Correlation-With Agency’s Action′ ] CONSTITUTED-BY [Agent PERFORM]
b. [Agent ACT In-Correlation-With Agency] CONSTITUTED-BY [Agent PERFORM]
The typological distinction between verb-framed and satellite-framed languages appears in this framing event type as well. In satellite-framed languages the core schema maps onto a satellite (plus adposition), and the co-event maps into the main verb. In verb-framed languages, the combination of the ACT component and the core schema maps onto the main verb (plus adposition) and the co-event maps onto an adjunct. The different types of Action correlating are also to some extent language-specific, so that one language can have only a few or several more of the categories cited below as existing within this framing event.
The correlation types cited by Talmy are ‘concert’, ‘accompaniment’, ‘imitation’,
‘surpassment’ and ‘demonstration’. In the first four types, verb-framed and satellite-framed languages seem to differ on the expression of the nature of the Agent’s Action: the Agent and the Agency may perform the ‘same action’ or ‘same-category action’ in satellite-framed languages, while verb-framed languages (at least Spanish) allow only the ‘same action’-interpretation in the co-event adjunct. A non-identical action must be structurally distinguished even if it is of the same category.
Making music may be used as an example both of Action correlating as such and of the difference between same event and same-category events. When saying in English John played along with him/the phonograph record, there is a correlation of the action of John and that of the other Agency. This activity may consist of John’s playing the same melody as the other, or rendering a different part, or accompanying a singer’s voice. When playing the same melody the activity is
‘same’, in the other cases it is ‘same-category’ (Talmy 2000-II: 257-259).
The last type, ‘demonstration’, has the Agent and the Agency performing different-category actions. In a typical situation of demonstration, the Agent executes an activity so that the Agency can register it either as information about the Agent or as a model for performing the same activity. The
whole situation can have the metaphoric sense of transfer from the Agent to the Agency. One difference from the preceding types is that here the Agency’s activity, typically observation, is fixed, and as such it regularly diverges from the Agent’s activity. This stretches the notion of correlating from interrelating identical or comparable activities, to a coordination of complementary activities (i.e.
demonstration and observation). However, the case of ‘demonstration’ is still akin to the other types of correlation by virtue of relating the activity of one entity to the activity of the other entity. A revision of the schematization given above is nevertheless necessary (Talmy 2000-II: 260-61).
47) Action correlation schemas revised for demonstration
a. [Agent PUT Agent’s Action In-Demonstration-To Agency’s OBSERVATION]
CONSTITUTED-BY [Agent PERFORM]
b. [Agent ACT In-Demonstration-To Agency] CONSTITUTED-BY [Agent PERFORM]
It is the linguistic expression used for correlated actions that is of interest here, not the interaction as such between two entities. The linguistic expression points to a conceptualization of two events as being in a certain relation to each other, and without this conceptualization or understanding, the linguistic expression would be different. The actions as such, as physically occurring events, can take place independently of any understanding of the two as comparable or complementary events.
A point in case may be the difference of expression of ‘concert’ and ‘accompaniment’ as exemplified in the following sentences. I jog together with him suggests a regular schedule of jointly executed activity, while I jog along with him rather suggests that the other person has his own independent routine where the speaker occasionally joins him. But seen as activity per se, without any conceptual overlay, the two situations are physically the same: two persons jogging along the same path.
In the case of Nizaa, and more particularly Nizaa verb chains, it is important not to loose from sight the fact the both verbs in chains are predicated of the subject, and not of a second agency. But when the final verb has meaning elements of coactivity, it frames the first verb as Action correlating.
We shall therefore in the following paragraphs discuss such coactive verbs used in final position. First we will consider two verbs belonging to the categories comitative and dative verbs mentioned above.
Then we shall look at two verbs originally belonging to the motion domain but used in dialogue situations with Action correlating framing effect, before finishing with a special use of one of these verbs.
6.4.1 Comitative with x√æ√æœ ‘be.together’
There are in the corpus 6 chains with the final position verb x√æ√æœ ‘assemble; be.together’ (one of these chains consists of x√æ√æœ reduplicated). We have already noted instances where this verb has a
motion reading, denoting ‘assemble’ rather than ‘being. together’ (8) and 10)). But in 48) and 49) below, the comitative is the only possible reading:
48) Sag V1 V2 Opat LOC