1887
Volume 36, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In contrast to grammaticalization studies of lexical verbs changing into auxiliaries, the realm of semantic changes associated with lexical verbs is an understudied area of historical semantics. We concentrate on the emergence of verbs of success from more semantically concrete verbs, uncovering six conceptual metaphors which all co-occur with non-canonical encoding of subjects in Indo-European. Careful scrutiny of the relevant data reveals a semantic development most certainly inherited from Indo-European; hence, we reconstruct a -‘succeeds’ construction at different levels of schematicity for Proto-Indo-European, including a novel reconstruction of a conceptual metaphor, , and the mapping between this metaphor and the verb-class-specific argument structure construction. Hence, this article offers a systematic analysis of regularity in semantic change, highlighting the importance of predicate and argument structure for lexical semantic developments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.00014.bar
2019-12-18
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allen, Cynthia L.
    1986 Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics22. 375–409. 10.1017/S0022226700010847
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010847 [Google Scholar]
  2. 1995Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ASD = An Anglo-Saxon dictionary
    ASD = An Anglo-Saxon dictionary 1966 Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth, edited and enlarged byT. Northcote Toller. London: Oxford University Press.
  4. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    1999 Case and argument structure of some loan verbs in 15th century Icelandic. InInger Haskå & Carin Sandqvist (eds.), Alla tiders språk. En Vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson november 1999, 9–23. (Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 55). Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk [Department of Scandinavian Languages].
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2000 Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution37. 25–51. 10.1075/nowele.37.02bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.37.02bar [Google Scholar]
  6. 2001a The role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic inchoative. InArthur Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson & Åke Viberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian conference of linguistics 2000, 127–137. Lund: Department of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2001bCase in Icelandic – A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. (Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 57). Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2004 The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. InWerner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology, 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2008Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2009 The development of case in Germanic. InJóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.108.09bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.108.09bar [Google Scholar]
  11. 2011 The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua121(1). 60–79. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2012 Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society32 (2006) 467–478. 10.3765/bls.v32i1.3438
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v32i1.3438 [Google Scholar]
  13. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Carlee Arnett, Stephen Mark Carey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Gard B. Jenset, Guus Kroonen & Adam Oberlin
    2016 Dative subjects in Germanic: A computational analysis of lexical semantic verb classes across time and space. STUF: Language Typology and Universals69(1). 49–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman
    2013 The story of ‘Woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies41(3–4). 321–377.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson
    2003 The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics39(3). 439–472. 10.1017/S002222670300207X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670300207X [Google Scholar]
  16. 2012 Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society110(3). 363–393. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2012.01318.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01318.x [Google Scholar]
  17. 2020 How to identify cognates in syntax: Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. InJóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Lujan (eds.), Reconstructing syntax. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea
    2015 Diachronic construction grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. InJóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
  19. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Leonid Kulikov, Roland A. Pooth & Peter Alexander Kerkhof
    . Forthcoming. Oblique anticausatives: A morphosyntactic isogloss in Indo-European. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman
    2013 The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change3(1): 28–67. 10.1163/22105832‑13030101
    https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-13030101 [Google Scholar]
  21. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara McGillivray
    2012 Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language36(3). 511–547. 10.1075/sl.36.3.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.03bar [Google Scholar]
  22. Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður
    2014 Oblique anticausative in Lithuanian: A comparative approach. BaltisticaXLIX(1). 15–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Boas, Hans C.
    2003A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bréal, Michel
    1900Semantics. Studies in the science of meaning. London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed
    2011 The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology21 (3–4). 545–572. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9175‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9175-0 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson
    2000 Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society23. 65–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Bynon, Theodora
    1977Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165709
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165709 [Google Scholar]
  29. Calude, Andreea S. & Mark Pagel
    2011 How do we use language? Shared patterns in the frequency of word use across 17 world languages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B366. 1101–1107. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0315
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0315 [Google Scholar]
  30. Carling, Gerd
    2017 The syntax of Tocharian. InJared Klein, Brian Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, Vol.31352–1364. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110523874‑032
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110523874-032 [Google Scholar]
  31. Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca & William S. Y. Wang
    1986 Spatial distance and lexical replacement. Language62(1). 38–55. 10.1353/lan.1986.0115
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1986.0115 [Google Scholar]
  32. Christiansen, Bethany J. & Brian D. Joseph
    2016 On the relationship between argument structure change and semantic change. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America1(26). 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Clackson, James
    2007Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511808616
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808616 [Google Scholar]
  34. Comrie, Bernard
    2008 Linguistic diversity in the Caucasus. Annual Review of Anthropology37. 131–143. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123248
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123248 [Google Scholar]
  35. Conti, Luz
    2008 Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt, Historische Sprachforschung121. 94–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2009 Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung122. 182–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Cornillie, Bert
    2008 On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-)auxiliaries in Spanish. InElena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 77–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.77.05cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.77.05cor [Google Scholar]
  38. Croft, Willam
    2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Danesi, Serena
    2014a Subjecthood and non-canonical case marking: A case study on modal verbs in Ancient Greek. Paper presented at theEVALISA/ContraGram Workshop on Non-Canonical Subjects, Ghent, March 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2014b Accusative subjects in Avestan: ‘Errors’ or noncanonically marked arguments. Indo-Iranian Journal57(3). 223–260. 10.1163/15728536‑05703017
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15728536-05703017 [Google Scholar]
  41. Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2017 Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language: An alternative approach to the gerundive + “dative of agent” construction in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen122. 143–188. 10.1515/if‑2017‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/if-2017-0007 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2018 Where does the modality of Ancient Greek modal verbs come from? The relation between modality and oblique case marking. Journal of Greek Linguistics18(1). 45–92. 10.1163/15699846‑01801005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-01801005 [Google Scholar]
  43. David, Oana Alexandra
    2016 Metaphor in the grammar of argument realization. University of California, Berkeley, Doctoral dissertation.
  44. D’Arcy, Alexandra
    2006 Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech81(4). 339–357. 10.1215/00031283‑2006‑024
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2006-024 [Google Scholar]
  45. Derksen, Rick
    2015Etymological dictionary of the Baltic inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 13). Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Diewald, Gabriele
    1999Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110945942
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110945942 [Google Scholar]
  47. Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova
    2010Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110241037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037 [Google Scholar]
  48. Diewald, Gabriele & Ilse Wischer
    2013 Markers of futurity in Old High German and Old English: A comparative corpus-based study. InGabriele Diewald, Leena Kahlas-Tarkka & Ilse Wischer (eds.), Comparative studies in Early Germanic languages: With a focus on verbal categories, 195–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.138.09die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.138.09die [Google Scholar]
  49. EWA
    EWA = 2014Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Bd.5, ed. byLloyd, Albert L. & Rosemarie Lühr. Göttingen, Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Eythórsson, Thórhallur
    2000 Dative vs. Nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics8. 27–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2002 Changes in subject case marking in Icelandic. InDavid Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 196–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  52. Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2005 Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language81(4). 824–881. 10.1353/lan.2005.0173
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0173 [Google Scholar]
  53. Falk, Cecilia
    1997Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Old Swedish experiencer verbs]. Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Fedriani, Chiara
    2014Experiential constructions in Latin. Brill: Leiden. 10.1163/9789004257832
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004257832 [Google Scholar]
  55. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
    1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language64. 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  56. Firth, J. R.
    1935 The Technique of semantics. Transactions of the Philological Society34(1). 36–73. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1935.tb01254.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1935.tb01254.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Fischer, Susann
    2010Word order change as a source of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.157 [Google Scholar]
  58. Fleischman, Suzanne
    1983The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Fortson, Benjamin W. IV.
    2003 An approach to semantic change. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 648–666. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch21
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch21 [Google Scholar]
  60. François, Alexandre
    2011 Social ecology and language history in the Northern Vanuatu Linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence. Journal of Historical Linguistics1(2). 175–246. 10.1075/jhl.1.2.03fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.1.2.03fra [Google Scholar]
  61. Fried, Mirjam
    2015 Irregular morphology in regular syntactic patterns: A case of constructional re-alignment. InJóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 141–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.05fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.05fri [Google Scholar]
  62. Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
    2005 Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics37(11). 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  63. Gelderen, Elly van
    2018The diachrony of verb meaning: Aspect and argument structure. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315180335
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315180335 [Google Scholar]
  64. Goatly, Andrew
    1997The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203210000
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2007Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2011 Metaphors as resource for the conceptualization and expression of emotion. InKhurshid Ahmad (ed.), Affective computing and sentiment analysis: Emotion, metaphor and terminology, 13–25. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1757‑2_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1757-2_2 [Google Scholar]
  67. Goldberg, Adele
    1995Constructions:A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm
    1854–1971Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. de Haan, Ferdinand
    2007 Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic SEEM-verbs. Rivista di Linguistica19(1): 129–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Haig, Geoffrey
    2008Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198614
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198614 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hall, John Richard Clark
    1916A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary for the use of students. 2nd edn.New York: The Macmillan Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Heine, Bernd
    1993Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Hilpert, Martin
    2008Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  74. Hilpert, Martin & Christian Koops
    2008 A quantitative approach to the development of complex predicates: The case of Swedish pseudo-coordination with sitta ‘sit’. Diachronica25(2). 242–261. 10.1075/dia.25.2.06hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.25.2.06hil [Google Scholar]
  75. Hock, Hans H.
    1990 Oblique subjects in Sanskrit?InM. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 119–139. Stanford: CSLI Publication.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Hock, Hans Henrich
    1991Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219135
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219135 [Google Scholar]
  77. Ihrig, Roscoe Myrl
    1916The semantic development of words for “walk, run” in the Germanic languages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Jackendoff, Ray
    1997 Twistin’ the night away. Language73. 534–559. 10.2307/415883
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415883 [Google Scholar]
  79. Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Thórhallur Eythórsson
    2005 Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics28(2). 223–245. 10.1017/S0332586505001435
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586505001435 [Google Scholar]
  80. Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
    1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language75(1). 1–33. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  81. Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow
    2000 Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. InMichael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 7–23. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Köbler, Gerhard
    2014Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. 6th edn.Available atwww.koeblergerhard.de/ahdwbhin.html
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2002Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Kroonen, Guus
    2013Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Krug, Manfred
    2011 Auxiliaries and grammaticalization. InHeiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 547–558. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Kulikov, Leonid
    2009 Evolution of case systems. InAndrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 439–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 2012The Vedic -ya-presents: Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 19). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
    1964The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  90. 1993 Contemporary theory of metaphor. InAndrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  91. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Le Mair, Esther, Cynthia A. Johnson, Michael Frotscher, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2017 Position as a behavioral property of subjects: The case of Old Irish. Indogermanische Forschungen122. 111–142. 10.1515/if‑2017‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/if-2017-0006 [Google Scholar]
  93. LIV = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben
    LIV = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben 2001 Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, und Brigitte Schirmer. 2nd edn.Wiesbaden: Reichert.
  94. López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya
    2015 Epistemic/evidential markers of the type verb + complementizer: Some parallels from English and Romance. InAndrew Smith, Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Luraghi, Silvia
    2010 Experiencer predicates in Hittite. InRonald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken & Michael J. Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia lux: Anatolian and Indo European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 249–264. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Martín Arista, Javier
    2012 The Old English prefix ge-: A panchronic reappraisal. Australian Journal of Linguistics32(4). 411–433. 10.1080/07268602.2012.744264
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2012.744264 [Google Scholar]
  97. Mayrhofer, Manfred
    1986–1996Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Bd.I–II. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Michaelis, Laura A.
    2009 Sign-based construction grammar. InBernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 155–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 2013 Sign-based construction grammar. InThomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer
    2001Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Mottausch, Karl-Heinz
    1998 “Gehen” und “Stehen” im Germanischen: Versuch einer Synthese. Historische Sprachforschung111, bd.I. 134–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Nicholls, Diane
    2004 What we talk about when we talk about success and failure. MED magazine: The monthly webzine of the Macmillan English dictionaries16 (Feb). URL: www.macmillandictionaries.com/MED-Magazine/February2004/16-metaphor-success-failure.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  103. OED = Oxford English dictionary
    OED = Oxford English dictionary. Available atwww.oed.com
  104. Pinault, Georges-Jean
    2011 Sur l’histoire des cas en tokharien. InMichèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer & Dennis Pardee (eds.), Grammatical case in the languages of the Middle East and Europe, 383–398. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Pokorny, Julius
    1959Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bd.1. Bern, Munich: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Pooth, Roland, Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Leonid Kulikov & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2019 The origin of non-canonical case marking of subjects in Proto-Indo-European: Accusative, ergative, or semantic alignment. Indogermanische Forschungen124: 245–263. 10.1515/if‑2019‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/if-2019-0009 [Google Scholar]
  107. Purtscher, Fridolin
    1902Die untrennbaren Partikeln im althochdeutschen Tatian. Chur: J. Casanova.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Radden, Günter
    1996 Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. InEugene H. Casad (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110811421.423
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110811421.423 [Google Scholar]
  109. Reznikova, Tatiana, Ekaterina Rakhilina & Anastasia A. Bonch-Osmolovskaya
    2012 Towards a typology of pain predicates. Linguistics50(3). 421–465. 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0015 [Google Scholar]
  110. Ringe, Don
    2006From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur
    1995 Old Icelandic: A non-configurational language?NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution26. 3–29. 10.1075/nowele.26.01rog
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.26.01rog [Google Scholar]
  112. Sag, Ivan A.
    2012 Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. InHans C. Boas & Ivan Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Sanders, Willy
    1965Glück: Zur Herkunft und Bedeutungsentwicklung eines mittelalterlichen Schicksalsbegriffs (Niederdeutsche Studien 13). Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Schubert, Thomas W., Sven Waldzus & Steffen R. Giessner
    2009 Control over the association of power and size. Social Cognition27(1). 1–19. 10.1521/soco.2009.27.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  115. Schützeichel, Rudolf
    2012Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110268812
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110268812 [Google Scholar]
  116. Smitherman, Thomas
    2012 Metaphors expressed by argument marking patterns: An historical and typological view. Paper presented atHitches in Historical Linguistics, Bergen, February 22–23, 2012.
  117. Sturtevant, Edgar Howard
    1917Linguistic change: An introduction to the historical study of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  119. Szemerényi, Oswald J. L.
    1996Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. 4th edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Thráinsson, Höskuldur
    2007The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619441
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619441 [Google Scholar]
  121. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
    2001Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486500
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500 [Google Scholar]
  122. Tsepeleva, Valentina
    2015 Tracing changes in argument structures of dative subject predicates in Old Russian and Modern Russian. University of Bergen M.A. Thesis.
  123. Ullmann, Stephen
    1951The principles of semantics. Glasgow: Jackson.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 1962Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Blackwell: Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Viberg, Åke
    1983 The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics21(1). 123–162. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  126. Viti, Carlotta
    2016 The morphosyntax of experience predicates in Tocharian. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie Orientale (CLAO)45. 26–70. 10.1163/19606028‑00451p02
    https://doi.org/10.1163/19606028-00451p02 [Google Scholar]
  127. Waite, Maurice
    2009Oxford thesaurus of English. 3rd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Walkden, George
    2013 The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica30(1). 95–122. 10.1075/dia.30.1.04wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.1.04wal [Google Scholar]
  129. 2014Syntactic reconstruction in Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712299.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712299.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  130. Wegener, Heide
    2001 Verbs of affect from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. InNicole Dehé & Anja Wanner (eds.), Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs, 219–248. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Wischer, Ilse & Mechthild Habermann
    2004 Der Gebrauch von Präfixverben zum Ausdruck von Aspekt/Aktionsart im Altenglischen und Althochdeutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik32(2). 262–385. 10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.262
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.262 [Google Scholar]
  132. WNT = Woordenboek der nederlandsche taal
    WNT = Woordenboek der nederlandsche taal 1882–2001 The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
  133. Wundt, Wilhelm Max
    1904Völkerpsychologie: eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Band 1. Die Sprache. 2nd edn.Leipzig: Engelmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad A.
    2006 A new vision for Israeli Hebrew: Theoretical and practical implications of analyzing Israel’s main language as a semi-engineered Semito-European hybrid language. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies5(1). 57–71. 10.1080/14725880500511175
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14725880500511175 [Google Scholar]
  135. 2009 Hybridity versus revivability: Multiple causation, forms and patterns. Journal of Language Contact2(2). 40–67. 10.1163/000000009792497788
    https://doi.org/10.1163/000000009792497788 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.00014.bar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.00014.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error