1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Embodied constructions
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In Ancient Greek two-place verbs can take three different argument structure constructions, with nominative first arguments and either accusative or genitive or dative second arguments. While the accusative is the default case across all verb classes, the genitive indicates low agentivity of the first participant and low affectedness of the second, and the dative is especially frequent with social interaction verbs. The paper focuses on constructional patterns and construction variation with experiential verbs. Referring to data from experimental psychology, I argue that the distribution of constructions with either accusative or genitive second arguments reflects physical embodiment based on narrow vs. broad attention focus, as also indicated by constructional patterns of perception verbs. Emotion verbs that take the dative indicate potentially interactive situations, including those that involve social judgment, thus conforming to the pattern of interaction verbs and reflecting social embodiment.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00205.lur
2024-11-15
2024-12-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00205.lur
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aldai, G., & Wichmann, S.
    (2018) Statistical observations on hierarchies of transitivity. Folia Linguistica, (), –. 10.1515/flin‑2018‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2018-0006 [Google Scholar]
  2. Amberber, M.
    (2007) Introduction. The language of memory. InM. Amberber (Ed.), The language of memory in crosslinguistic perspective (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.21.03amb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.21.03amb [Google Scholar]
  3. Andreasen, N. J., & Powers, P. S.
    (1975) Creativity and psychosis: An examination of conceptual style. Archives of General Psychiatry, (), –. 10.1001/archpsyc.1975.01760190072008
     https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1975.01760190072008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Athanasiadou, A., & Tabakowska, E.
    (Eds.) (1998) Speaking of emotions conceptualisation and expression. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110806007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110806007 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beekes, R., & van Beek, L.
    (2010) Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blume, K.
    (1998) A contrastive analysis of interaction verbs with dative complements. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.253
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.253 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cairns, D. L.
    (1993) Aidôs: The psychology and ethics of honour and shame in ancient Greek literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chantraine, P.
    (1973) Morphologie historique du Grec. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (1977) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (1981) Grammaire Homérique II: Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Conti, L., & Luraghi, S.
    (2014) The Ancient Greek partitive genitive in typological perspective. InS. Luraghi & T. Huumo (Eds.), Partitive case and related categories (pp.–). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346060.443
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346060.443 [Google Scholar]
  12. Croft, W.
    (1993) Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. InJ. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the lexicon (pp.–). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1972‑6_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_5 [Google Scholar]
  13. De Sousa, R.
    (1987) The rationality of emotion. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5760.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5760.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2007) Why think? Evolution and the rational mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Delbrück, B.
    (1911) Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Teubner.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dennett, D. C.
    (1987) Cognitive wheels: The frame problem in AI. InZ. Pylyshyn (Ed.), The robot’s dilemma: The frame problem and other problems of holism in artificial intelligence (pp.–). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Derryberry, D., & D. M. Tucker
    (1994) Motivating the focus of attention. InP. M. Niedenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), The heart’s eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp.–). London: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑410560‑7.50014‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410560-7.50014-4 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V.
    (1975) Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Los altos (CA): Malor Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Evans, N., & Wilkins, D.
    (2000) In the Mind’s Ear: the Semantic Extension of Perception verbs in Australian Languages. Language, (), –. 10.2307/417135
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417135 [Google Scholar]
  20. Faucher, L., & Tappolet, C.
    (2002) Fear and the focus of attention. Consciousness and Emotion, (), –. 10.1075/ce.3.2.02fau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ce.3.2.02fau [Google Scholar]
  21. Fisher, N.
    (1992) Hybris: a study in the values of honour and shame in ancient Greece. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fredrickson, B. L.
    (1998) What good are positive emotions?Review of General Psychology, (), –. 10.1037/1089‑2680.2.3.300
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2013) Positive emotions broaden and build. InE. Ashby Plant & P. G. Devine (Eds.), Advances on Experimental Social Psychology, , –. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑407236‑7.00001‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001-2 [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gruber, J., Culver, J. L., Johnson, S. L., Nam, J. Y., Keller, K. L., & Ketter, T. A.
    (2009) Do positive emotions predict symptomatic change in bipolar disorder?Bipolar Disorders, , –. 10.1111/j.1399‑5618.2009.00679.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5618.2009.00679.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Harkins, J., & Wierzbicka, A.
    (Eds) (2001) Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110880168
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110880168 [Google Scholar]
  27. Haspelmath, M.
    (2015a) Transitivity prominence. InA. Malchukov & B. Comrie, (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook (Vol., pp.–). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110338812‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110338812-008 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2015b) Ditransitive constructions (January 2015). Annual Review of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑125204
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125204 [Google Scholar]
  29. Havers, W.
    (1911) Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. 10.1515/9783111384566
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111384566 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  31. Humbert, J.
    (1986) Syntaxe Grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kittilä, S.
    (2002) Transitivity: Towards a comprehensive typology. Turku: University of Turku.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (2006) The anomaly of the verb “give” explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/LING.2006.019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2006.019 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kövecses, Z.
    (1986) Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.vii.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.8 [Google Scholar]
  35. (1990) Emotion concepts. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑3312‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3312-1 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2000) Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (2020) Ten lectures on figurative meaning-making: The role of body and context. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, 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]
  39. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lavidas, N.
    (2009) Transitivity alternations in diachrony. Changes in argument structure and voice morphology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lehmann, Ch., & Shin, Y. M.
    (2005) The functional domain of concomitance. A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. InCh Lehmann (Ed.), Typological studies in participation. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050080536.9
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050080536.9 [Google Scholar]
  42. Luraghi, S.
    (1995) The function of verb initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European languages. InM. Noonan & P. Downing (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.30.13lur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.30.13lur [Google Scholar]
  43. (2003) On the meaning of prepositions and cases. A study of the expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.67
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.67 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2005) The history of the Greek preposition metá: From polysemy to the creation of homonyms. Glotta, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2014) Plotting diachronic semantic maps: the role of metaphors. InS. Luraghi & H. Narrog (Eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.106.04lur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.106.04lur [Google Scholar]
  46. (2020) Experiential verbs in Homeric Greek. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (2023) Beyond affectedness — partitive objects and degrees of agenthood in Ancient Greek. Linguistic Variation, (), –. 10.1075/lv.21002.lur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21002.lur [Google Scholar]
  48. (forthcoming). Voice and transitivity with perception verbs in Ancient Greek. Forthcoming in Indogermanische Forschungen (2025).
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Luraghi, S., & Zanchi, Ch.
    (2018) Double accusative constructions and ditransitives in Ancient Greek. InA. Korn & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Ditransitive constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective (pp.–). Wiesbaden: Reichert.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Malchukov, A.
    (2005) Case Pattern Splits, Verb Types and Construction Competition. InM. Amberber & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case (pp.–). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008044651‑6/50006‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50006-9 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2008) Split intransitives, experiencer objects and transimpersonal constructions: (re-) establishing the connection. InM. Donohue & S. Wichmann (Eds.), The typology of semantic alignment (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2017) Exploring the domain of ditransitive constructions: Ditransitive splits and ditransitive alternations across languages. InL. Hellan, A. Malchukov & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Contrastive studies in verbal valency (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.237.06mal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.06mal [Google Scholar]
  53. Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B.
    (2010) Ditransitive construction: a typological overview. InA. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath & B. Comrie (Eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: a comparative handbook (pp.–). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220377.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220377.1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mette, H. J.
    (1961) ‘Schauen’ und ‘Staunen’. Glotta, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Murphy, A. J., & Dubinsky, S.
    (2023) Classical Greek object cases: A corpus-driven analysis of their distribution. Journal of Greek Linguistics, (), –. 10.1163/15699846‑02301004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-02301004 [Google Scholar]
  56. Næss, Å.
    (2007) Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.72
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.72 [Google Scholar]
  57. Napoli, M.
    (2010) The case for the partitive case: The contribution of Ancient Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2009.01219.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2009.01219.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Niemeyer, S., & Dirven, R.
    (Eds.) (1997) The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.85
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.85 [Google Scholar]
  59. Noonan, M.
    (2007) Complementation. InT. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619434.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619434.002 [Google Scholar]
  60. Rohrer, T.
    (2007) the body in space: Embodiment, experientialism and linguistic conceptualization. InJ. Zlatev, T. Ziemke, R. Frank & R. Dirven (Eds.), Body, language and mind (vol., pp.–). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., & Majid, A.
    (2018) Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, (), pp.–. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0034 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sausa, E.
    (2015) Argument structure construction in Homeric Greek. A study on bivalent verbs. PhD thesis, University of Pavia.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Schwarz-Friesel, M.
    (2015) Language and emotion: The cognitive linguistic perspective. InU. M. Lüdtke (Ed.), Emotion in language: Theory — research — application (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ceb.10.08sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ceb.10.08sch [Google Scholar]
  64. Stolz, Th.
    (1997) Some instruments are really good companions — some are not: On syncretism and the typology of comitatives and instrumentals. Theoretical Linguistics, , –. 10.1515/thli.1997.23.1‑2.113
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1997.23.1-2.113 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2001) Comitatives vs. instrumentals vs. agents. InW. Bisang (Ed.), Aspects of typology and universals (pp.–). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 10.1524/9783050078892.153
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050078892.153 [Google Scholar]
  66. Stolz, Th., & Gugeler, T.
    (2000) Comitative typology: nothing about the ape, but something about king-size samples, the European community, and the little prince. Language Typology and Universals — STUF, , –. 10.1524/stuf.2000.53.1.53
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2000.53.1.53 [Google Scholar]
  67. Stolz, Th., Stroh, C., & Urdze, A.
    (2013) Comitatives and Instrumentals. InM. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.7385533 (Available online atwals.info/chapter/52, Accessed on2024-03-17.)
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 [Google Scholar]
  68. Tsunoda, T.
    (1981) Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. (1985) Remarks on transitivity. Journal of linguistic, , –. 10.1017/S0022226700010318
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010318 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2015) The hierarchy of two-place predicates: Its limitations. InA. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages (pp.–). Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Verhoeven, E.
    (2007) Experiential constructions in Yucatec Maya. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.87
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.87 [Google Scholar]
  72. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1992) Semantics, culture, and cognition. Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195073256.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195073256.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  73. (1999) Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511521256
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521256 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00205.lur
Loading
Embodied constructions
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00205.lur
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00205.lur
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00205.lur
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Ancient Greek ; emotions ; narrow vs. broad attention focus ; argument structure constructions ; physical and social embodiment

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