1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The aim of the present paper is to define the notion of ablativity in terms of its event structure. To achieve this goal, the authors discuss the contribution of several semantic theories dealing with that conceptual class to finally propose their own definition, extensively based on the cognitive frame-based model by Wotjak (20062011a2016). Even though the survey is mainly concerned with the theoretically relevant aspects of that semantic class, many of them are also illustrated with examples from different languages, especially from Latin, Spanish and German. Finally, the authors explain how ablativity conceptually relates to other semantic classes, such as concomitance or possession.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00045.her
2020-01-10
2023-05-28

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00045.her
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acedo-Matellán, V.
    (2016) The Morphosyntax of Transitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. adesse = Universidade de Vigo
    adesse = Universidade de Vigo. online. Base de datos de Verbos, Alternancias de Diátesis y Esquemas Sintáctico-Semánticos del Español. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo. adesse.uvigo.es (accessed13 March 2018).
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Busse, D.
    (2012) Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110269451
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269451 [Google Scholar]
  4. Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M., & Bickel, B.
    (2008) The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology / Universität Leipzig, www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php (accessed13 March 2018).
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dowty, D. R.
    (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  7. dwds = Berlin Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften
    dwds = Berlin Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. online. Digitales Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. www.dwds.de/ (accessed13 March 2018).
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Fillmore, Ch. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. García Hernández, B.
    (1980) Semántica estructural y lexemática del verbo. Reus: Avesta.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2002) El significado fundamental del prefijo latino de-. InL. Sawicki & D. Shalev (Eds.), Donum grammaticum. Studies in Latin and Celtic Linguistics in Honour of Hannah Rosén, (pp.141–150). Louvain: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (2005) L’antonymie aspectuelle des préverbes allatifs et ablatifs. InC. Moussy (Ed.), La composition et la préverbation en latin (pp.229–241). Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. García Padrón, D.
    (2004) Significado y variación de la raíz part- en español. Revista de la Sociedad española de Lingüística, 34(2), 455–479.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gawron, J. M.
    (2011) Frame Semantics. InC. Maienborn, K. V. Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: an International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol.1, (pp.664–687). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226614.664
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.664 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, A.
    (2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gruber, J.
    (1965) Studies in Lexical Relations. Cambridge: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2003) Thematic Relations in Syntax. InM. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory (pp.257–298). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hernández Arocha, H.
    (2014) Las familias de palabras. Relaciones entre morfología, semántica y estructura argumental en los verba dicendi “dec(ir)” y “sag(en)”. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  18. (2016a) Wortfamilien im Vergleich. Theoretische und historiographische Aspekte am Beispiel von Lokutionsverben. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑06139‑0
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-06139-0 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2016b) Locución y modelos para su descripción semántica. Lebende Sprachen, 61(4), 117–174. 10.1515/les‑2016‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/les-2016-0005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hernández Socas, E.
    (2017) La prefijación ablativa y su representación semántico-conceptual. Estudio contrastivo de equivalencias interlingüísticas entre alemán, lenguas clásicas e iberorromances. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, Habilitationsschrift.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hjelmslev, L.
    (1972 [1935–1937]) La catégorie des cas. Étude de grammaire générale. München: Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackendoff, R.
    (1985) Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (1991) Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2002) Foundations of Language. Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2011) Conceptual Semantics. InC. Maienborn, K. V. Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: an International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol.1, (pp.688–709). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226614.688
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.688 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaufmann, I.
    (1993) Semantic and conceptual aspects of the preposition durch. InC. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing (pp.221–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872576.221
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.221 [Google Scholar]
  27. Klix, F.
    (1984) Über Wissensrepräsentationen im menschlichen Gedächtnis. InF. Klix (Ed.), Gedächtnis – Wissen – Wissensnutzung (pp.9–73). Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (1987) On the role of knowledge in sentence comprehension. Preprints of the Plenary Session Papers: XIVth International Congress of Linguists (pp.111–124). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Krause, M. & Doval, I.
    (2012) Spatiale Relationen kontrastiv. Deutsch-Spanisch. Tübingen: Julius Groos.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Krifka, M.
    (1998) The origins of Telicity. InS. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and Grammar (pp.197–235). Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kunze, J.
    (1993) Sememstrukturen und Feldstrukturen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lorenz, W. & Wotjak, G.
    (1977) Zum Verhältnis von Abbild und Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2vols.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Mani, I., Pustejovsky, J., & Gaizauskas, R.
    (Eds.) (2005) The Language of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mani, I., & Pustejovsky, I.
    (2012) Interpreting Motion. Grounded Representation for Spatial Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601240.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601240.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Marchand, H.
    (1974 [1973]) Reversative, Ablative, and Privative Verbs in English, French, and German. InD. Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in Syntax and Word-Formation. Selected Articles by Hans Marchand (pp.405–413). München: Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Morera, M.
    (1988) La estructura semántica del sistema preposicional del español moderno y sus campos de usos. Puerto del Rosario: Servicio de Publicaciones del Cabildo Insular de Fuerteventura.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (2013) Las partículas de alejamiento españolas de, abs-, ex-, dis-, des- y desde: estructura semántica y campos de uso. LEA: Lingüística Española Actual, XXXV(1), 41–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2014) El punto de vista del observador como rasgo semántico de los signos descriptivos. Verba, 41, 75–102. 10.15304/verba.41.1668
     https://doi.org/10.15304/verba.41.1668 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2015) Nota semántica sobre las llamadas partículas negativas no, in-, a-. an-, des-, dis-, anti- y contra-. InM. d. C. Fumero Pérez & J. J. Batista Rodríguez (Eds.), Cuestiones de lingüística teórica y aplicada (pp.51–66). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Õim, H., & Saluveer, M.
    (1985) Frames in linguistic description. Quaderni di semantica, VI, 295–305.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. pdl = Perseus Digital Library
    pdl = Perseus Digital Library (online). Perseus Collection: Greek and Roman Materials. Massachusetts: Tufts University, www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus:collectio:Greco-Roman (accessed13 March 2018).
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Pinker, S.
    (2013) Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. 10.7551/mitpress/9700.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9700.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pottier, B.
    (1962) Systématique des Éléments de Relation. Étude de morphosyntaxe structurale romane. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1995) The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Randell, D. A., Cui, Z., & Cohn, A. G.
    (1992) A spatial logic based on regions and connection. InProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (pp.165–176). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Luzondo Oyón, A.
    (2017) Constructions across three levels of meaning representation. InJ. A. Cutillas Espinosa (Eds.), Estudios de filología inglesa: Homenaje al profesor Rafael Monroy (pp.555–578). Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Stiebels, B.
    (1996) Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte. Zum semantischen Beitrag von verbalen Präfixen und Partikeln. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1515/9783050072319
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050072319 [Google Scholar]
  49. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT, 2vols.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (2011) Cognitive Semantics: An overview. InC. Maienborn, K. V. Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol.1 (pp.622–642). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226614.622
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.622 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wotjak, G.
    (1977) Untersuchungen zur Struktur der Bedeutung. 2., ergänzte Auflage. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2006) Las lenguas, ventanas que dan al mundo. Salamanca: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Salamanca.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (2011a) Las lenguas ¿comparables e incomparables? À la recherche du Tertium Comparationis perdu). InE. Lavric, W. Pöckl & F. Schallhart (Eds.), Comparatio delectat. Akten der VI. Internationalen Arbeitstagung zum romanisch-deutschen und innerromanischen Sprachvergleich. vol.II (pp.19–60). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2011b) Convergencias y divergencias en torno a la descripción de verbos. InLorenzo Hervás (Ed.), Documentos de trabajo de Lingüística teórica y general. Homenaje a Valerio Báez San José, (pp.31–62). Madrid: Universidad Carlos III.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (2016) ¿Podemos recurrir a la Teoría de Valencias para describir construcciones con verbos como predicados centrales?InJ. Cuartero Otal, J. P. Larreta Zulategui & C. Ehlers (Eds.), Querschnitt durch die deutsche Sprache aus spanischer Sicht. Perspektiven der Kontrastiven Linguistik, (pp.47–70). Berlin: Frank&Timme.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00045.her
Loading
The conceptual basis of ablativity
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 17, 511 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00045.her
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00045.her
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00045.her
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ablativity; cognitive-conceptual structure; event structure; frame semantics

Most Cited

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