In this study, we examined the zero-encoding (ZE) strategy in motion event expression, where a manner verb combines with a locative prepositional phrase, leaving the path implicit (e.g., run in the room with the intended meaning ‘run into the room’). We analyzed 8000 instances of a comparable set of ten manner verbs in satellite-framed English and verb-framed French (4000 per language), each systematically paired with a containment (English: in , French: dans ‘in’) and a support preposition (English on , French sur ‘on’). We tested to what extent ZE is shaped by structural factors (language type) and by conceptual ones (preposition type, verb type, ground type). The results revealed striking crosslinguistic similarities, with comparable rates of ZE regardless of language type. Moreover, both languages were closely aligned in conceptual preferences: ZE occurred predominantly with directional manner verbs associated with movement along a spatial axis (e.g., ‘jump’, ‘run’), while it was virtually absent with pure manner verbs not inherently involving displacement (e.g., ‘dance’, ‘float’). It also showed a stronger association with bounded grounds with clearly defined boundaries (e.g., ‘room’, ‘table’) over unbounded ones with less sharply defined spatial limits (e.g., ‘desert’, ‘neighborhood’)—likely due to the relative ease of inferring a boundary-crossing path from the conceptual properties of manner and ground components. No systematic differences were found between containment and support relations in either language. Taken together, these findings suggest that ZE functions as a pragmatically anchored, typology-independent coding strategy that transcends the traditional satellite-versus verb-framing distinction. • Zero encoding occurs at similar rates across language types. • Zero encoding occurs more with directional than with pure manner verbs. • Zero encoding occurs more with bounded than with unbounded grounds. • Zero encoding shows no preference between containment and support events. • Zero encoding acts as a pragmatically grounded, typology-independent strategy.
Lewandowski et al. (Tue,) studied this question.