1887
Volume 44, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a constructional analysis of the meanings of two generic motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic (Sahidic dialect), the verbs and , respectively, both of which are glossed as ‘go’ and are characterized by extensive polysemy. We argue that an adequate analysis of these meanings can only be achieved in a framework that recognizes lexical constructions at the level of the verb sense, showing that each meaning correlates with encoding features (ranging from morpho-syntactic to semantic, discursive, and lexical ones) that are not predictable, or at best are only partially motivated. Through extensive corpus analysis, we identify such significant, frequency-based patterns of correlation, each of which represents a lexical construction. Our data thus argue strongly for an approach to polysemy in which individual meanings are represented as enriched lexical constructions, which include morphological and discursive specifications (in addition to standard valence information).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18047.geo
2020-05-06
2020-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdulrahim, Dana
    2019 GO constructions in Modern Standard Arabic: A corpus-based study. Constructions and Frames11. 1–42. 10.1075/cf.00022.abd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00022.abd [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, James P.
    2013The Ancient Egyptian language: An historical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139506090
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139506090 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aranda Pérez, Gonzalo
    1984El Evangelio de San Mateo en copto sahídico: Texto de M 569, estudio preliminar y aparato critic (Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros 35). Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ariel, Mira
    2008Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511777912
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2019Or constructions: Code, inference and cue too. Constructions and Frames11. 193–219. 10.1075/cf.00028.ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00028.ari [Google Scholar]
  7. Askeland, Christian
    2013 The Coptic versions of the New Testament. InBart D. Ehrman & Michael W. Holmes (eds.), The text of the New Testament in contemporary research: Essays on the status quaestionis, 201–229. Leiden & Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004236554_009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004236554_009 [Google Scholar]
  8. Atkins, Beryl T. S.
    1987 Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. The 3rd Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, 17–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bachmann, Ingo
    2013 Has go-V ousted go-and-V? A study of the diachronic development of both constructions in American English. InHilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe O. Ebeling (eds.), Corpus perspectives on patterns in lexis (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 57): 91–112. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.57.09bac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.57.09bac [Google Scholar]
  10. Bartolotta, Annamaria
    2017 On deictic motion verbs in Homeric Greek. InFelicia Logozzo & Paolo Poccetti (eds.), Ancient Greek linguistics: New approaches, insights, perspectives, 277–291. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110551754‑289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110551754-289 [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker, Collin F., Charles J. Fillmore & Beau Cronin
    2003 The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography16. 281–96. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.281
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.281 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
    2009Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Berez, Andrea L. & Stefan Th. Gries
    2009 In defense of corpus-based methods: A behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English. InSteven Moran, Darren S. Tanner & Michael Scanlon (eds.), The 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference (University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics), vol.27, 157–166. Seattle, WA: Department of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Boas, Hans
    2003A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2005 From theory to practice: Frame semantics and the design of FrameNet. InStefan Langer & Daniel Schnorbusch (eds.), Semantik im lexikon, 129–160. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2008 Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6. 113–144. doi: 10.1075/arcl.6.06boas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.06boas [Google Scholar]
  17. 2013 Cognitive Construction Grammar. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bod, Rens
    2006 Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples?The Linguistic Review: Special issue on exemplar-based models of language23. 291–320. 10.1515/TLR.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. Boogaart, Ronny
    2009 Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. InAlexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 213–241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.09boo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.09boo [Google Scholar]
  20. Bybee, Joan
    2002 Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. InTalmy Givón & Bertram F. Malle (eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language, 109–134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.53.07byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.53.07byb [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  22. Croft, William
    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]
  23. 2012Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Crum, Walter E.
    1939A Coptic dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cuyckens, Hubert, René Dirven & John Taylor
    (eds.) 2003Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074 [Google Scholar]
  26. Depuydt, Leo
    1986 The semantic structure of jw-ei ‘come’ and šm-bōk ‘go’. InJames P. Allen, Leo Depuydt, Hans J. Polotsky & David P. Silverman (eds.), Essays on Egyptian grammar (Yale Egyptological Studies 1), 22–30. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Engsheden, Åke
    2008 Differential object marking in Sahidic Coptic. InFolke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses (Studies in Language Companion Series 103), 323–344. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.103.16eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.103.16eng [Google Scholar]
  28. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1972 How to know whether you’re coming or going. Studies in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics: Bulletin of the Summer Institute in Linguistics5. 3–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1977 The case for case reopened. InPeter Cole & Jerry Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations, 59–82. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368866_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368866_005 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1982 Frame Semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1997Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fillmore, Charles J. & Beryl T. S. Atkins
    1992 Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. InAdrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantics and lexical organization, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher R. Johnson & Miriam R. L. Petruck
    2003 Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography16(3). 235–250. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  34. Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer & Abby Wright
    2003 Framenet in action: The case of attaching. International Journal of Lexicography16. 297–332. doi:  10.1093/ijl/16.3.297
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.297 [Google Scholar]
  35. Flach, Susanne
    2015 Let’s go look at usage. InYearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association3(1). 231–252. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0013 [Google Scholar]
  36. François, Alexandre
    2009 Verbal aspect and personal pronouns: The history of aorist markers in North Vanuatu. InAndrew Pawley & Alexander Adelaar (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Bob Blust (Pacific Linguistics 601), 179–195. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Fried, Mirjam
    2015 Construction Grammar, 2nd edn. InArtemis Alexiadou & Tibor Kiss (eds.), Handbook of Syntax, vol.4, 974–1003. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Funk, Christine
    1995Fortbewegungsverben in Luthers übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. (Europäische Hochschulschriften 1517). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Funk, Wolf-Peter
    2013 The translation of the Bible into Coptic. InJames Carleton Paget & Joachim Schaper (eds.), The new Cambridge history of the Bible, vol.1 (From the Beginnings to 600), 536–546. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139033671.029
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139033671.029 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2017 “Don’t stop – Please go on…”: On verbs of phase specification in Coptic. InNathalie Bosson, Anne Boud’hors & Syndey H. Aufrère (eds.), Labor omnia uicit improbus: miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 256), 193–252. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Georgakopoulos, Thanasis
    2018 A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry: Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek. Constructions and Frames. 10(1). 61–97. doi:  10.1075/cf.00011.geo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00011.geo [Google Scholar]
  42. George, H. Coulter
    2004Expression of agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Glynn, Dylan
    2014 The many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. InDylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 117–144. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.05gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.05gly [Google Scholar]
  44. Goldberg, Adele
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2013 Constructionist approaches. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 29–40 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gries, Stefan Th
    2006 Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run. InStefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197709.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.57 [Google Scholar]
  48. Grossman, Eitan
    2015 No case before the verb, obligatory case after the verb in Coptic. InEitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 203–225. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Grossman, Eitan & Martin Haspelmath
    2015 The Leipzig-Jerusalem transliteration of Coptic. InEitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 145–153. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Grossman, Eitan, Guillaume Lescuyer & Stéphane Polis
    2014 Contexts and inferences. The grammaticalization of the Later Egyptian allative future. InEitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, Andreas Stauder & Jean Winand (eds.), On forms and functions: Studies in Ancient Egyptian grammar (Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 15), 87–136. Hamburg: Widmaier.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Grossman, Eitan & Stéphane Polis
    2014 On the pragmatics of subjectification: The grammaticalization of verbless allative futures (with a case study in Ancient Egyptian). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia46(1). 25–63. 10.1080/03740463.2014.956007
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2014.956007 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hanks, Patrick
    1996 Contextual dependency and lexical sets. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics1(1). 75–98. 10.1075/ijcl.1.1.06han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.1.1.06han [Google Scholar]
  53. Haspelmath, Martin
    2015 A grammatical overview of Egyptian and Coptic. InEitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 103–143. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Haug, Dag
    2011 Tmesis in the epic tradition. InØvind Andersen & Dag Haug (eds.), Relative chronology in early Greek epic poetry, 96–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511921728.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921728.007 [Google Scholar]
  55. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer
    1991Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik
    2006From case to adposition. The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.280
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.280 [Google Scholar]
  57. Hilpert, Martin
    2008Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2016 Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames8(1). 66–85. 10.1075/cf.8.1.05hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.05hil [Google Scholar]
  59. Hopper, Paul J.
    2002 Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. InJoan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse. Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 145–173. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.110.09hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.110.09hop [Google Scholar]
  60. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    1993Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Horrocks, Geoffrey C.
    1981Space and time in Homer. Prepositional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York: Arno Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2004 Aspect and verbs of movement in the history of Greek: Why Pericles could ‘walk into town’ but Karamanlis could not. InJohn H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European perspectives: Studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, 182–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Horrocks, Geoffrey C. & Melita Stavrou
    2007 Grammaticalized aspect and spatio-temporal culmination. Lingua117. 605–644. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  64. Ioannou, Georgios
    2017 A corpus-based analysis of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek: The diachronic relevance of the container image-schema in its evolution. Review of Cognitive Linguistics15(1). 253–287. doi:  10.1075/rcl.15.1.10ioa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.10ioa [Google Scholar]
  65. Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th. Gries
    2017 Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1–43 [online first] doi:  10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0080
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0080 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kay, Paul
    2013 The limits of Construction Grammar. InGraeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Layton, Bentley
    2011A Coptic grammar with chrestomathy and glossary. Sahidic dialect, 3rd edn., (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 20). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Liddell, Henry G. & Robert Scott
    1996A Greek-English lexicon [revised and complemented throughout byHenry Stuart Jones]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Loprieno, Antonio
    1995Ancient Egyptian. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611865
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611865 [Google Scholar]
  70. Loprieno, Antonio & Matthias Müller
    2012 Ancient Egyptian and Coptic. InZygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay (eds.), The Afroasiatic languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 102–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Loprieno, Antonio, Matthias Müller & Sami Uljas
    2017Non-verbal predication in Ancient Egyptian (The Mouton Companions to Ancient Egyptian 2). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110409895
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110409895 [Google Scholar]
  72. Luraghi, Silvia
    2003On the meaning of prepositions and cases: 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]
  73. 2006 Greek prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and semantic bleaching. InEmilio Crespo, Jesús de la Villa & Antonio R. Revuelta (eds.), Word classes and related topics in Ancient Greek, 482–499. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Matsumoto, Noriko
    2015 Multi-verb sequences in English: Their classification and functions. Kobe: Kobe University dissertation.
  75. Meillet, Antoine
    1912 [1958] L’ evolution des formes grammaticales. InAntoine Meillet (ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 130–148. Paris: Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Montanari, Franco
    2015The Brill dictionary of Ancient Greek. https://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&id=35729 (12January 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Moser, Amalia
    2008 The changing relationship of tense and aspect in the history of Greek. STUF61. 5–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Napoli, Maria
    2006Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek: A contrastive analysis. Milan: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Nemoto, Noriko
    2005 Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in Construction Grammar. InMirjam Fried & Hans Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 118–136. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4.08nem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.08nem [Google Scholar]
  80. Newman, John
    2004 Motivating the uses of basic verbs: Linguistic and extralinguistic considerations. InGünter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 193–218. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Newman, John & Jingxia Lin
    2007 The purposefulness of going: A corpus-linguistic study. InJacek Waliński, Krzysztof Kredens & Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds.), Corpora and ICT in language studies (Łódź Studies in Language 13), 293–308. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Newman, John & Sally Rice
    2006 Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. InStefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 225–260. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 2008 Asymmetry in English multi-verb sequences: A corpus-based approach. InBarbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), Asymmetric events, 3–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.11.03new
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.11.03new [Google Scholar]
  84. Nicolle, Steve
    2009 Go-and-V, come-and-V, go-V and come-V. A corpus-based account of deictic movement verb constructions. English Text Construction2(2). 185–208. 10.1075/etc.2.2.03nic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.2.2.03nic [Google Scholar]
  85. Nikitina, Tatiana & Boris Maslov
    2013 Redefining constructio praegnans: On the variation between allative and locative expressions in Ancient Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics. 13(1). 105–42. doi:  10.1163/15699846‑13130107
    https://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-13130107 [Google Scholar]
  86. Nikitina, Tatiana
    2013 Lexical splits in the encoding of motion events from Archaic to Classical Greek. In: Juliana Goschler & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Variation and Change in the Encoding of Motion Events, 185–202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.41.08nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.41.08nik [Google Scholar]
  87. Pantazidis, Ioannis
    1888Homeric lexicon [in Greek]. Athens: Anestis Konstantinidis.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Quecke, Hans
    1972Das Markusevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 182 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana 4). Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 1977Das Lukasevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 181 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana 6). Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 1984Das Johannesevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 183 mit den Varianten der Handschriften 813 und 814 der Chester Beatty Library und der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana 11). Rome/Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Radden, Günter
    1996 Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. InEugene H. Casad (ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, 423–458. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110811421.423
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110811421.423 [Google Scholar]
  92. Reintges, Chris
    2015 The Old and Early Middle Egyptian Stative: Morphosyntax – Semantics – Typology. InEitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 387–454. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Sankoff, David
    1988Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. InFrederick J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, 140–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620577.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620577.009 [Google Scholar]
  94. Skopeteas, Stavros
    2002 Lokale konstruktionen im Griechischen: Sprachwandel in funktionaler Sicht. Erfurt: University of Erfurt dissertation.
  95. 2008a Grammaticalization and sets of form-function pairs: Encoding spatial concepts in Greek. InElisabeth Verhoeven, Stavros Skopeteas, Yong-Min Shin, Yoko Nishina & Johannes Helmbrecht (eds.), Studies on grammaticalization, 25–56. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110211764.1.25
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211764.1.25 [Google Scholar]
  96. 2008b Encoding spatial relations: Language typology and diachronic change in Greek. Language Typology and Universals61(1). 54–66. doi:  10.1524/stuf.2008.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2008.0006 [Google Scholar]
  97. Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    2000 The English GO-(PRT)-AND-VERB construction. InLisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good (eds.), The 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 259–270. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Thomas Herbst
    2011 Argument structure – Valency and/or constructions?Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik59(4). 315–316. 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0403
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0403 [Google Scholar]
  99. Thompson, Sandra A.
    2002 Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language26(1). 125–164. 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
  100. Vries, Lourens de
    2007 Some remarks on the use of Bible translations as parallel texts in linguistic research. Language Typology and Universals2. 148–157. 10.1524/stuf.2007.60.2.148
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2007.60.2.148 [Google Scholar]
  101. Westendorf, Wolfhart
    2008Koptisches Handwörterbuch, 2nd edn.Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Wilkins, David P. & Deborah Hill
    1995 When ‘go’ means ‘come’: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics6(2–3). 209–260. 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.2‑3.209
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.2-3.209 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wilmet, Michel
    1957Concordance du Nouveau Testament sahidique II. Les mots autochthones 1. ⲁ-ⲛ (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 173. Subsidia 11). Louvain: Sécretariat du Corpus SCO.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Wulff, Stefanie
    2006 Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy?. InStefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 101–125. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Yates, Anthony D.
    2011 Homeric BH Δ’IENAI: A diachronic and comparative approach. Georgia: University of Georgia MA thesis.
  106. 2014a Homeric ΒΗ Δ’ΙΕΝΑΙ: A serial verb construction in Greek?. The 145th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association, www.pies.ucla.edu/resources/ady/talks/YATES-BEDIENAI-F.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 2014b On the PIE ‘Quasi-serial verb’ construction: Origin and development. InStephanie W. Jamison, Harold C. Melchert (eds.), The 25th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 237–255. Bremen: Hempen.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Zalizniak, Anna, Maria Bulakh, Dimitrij Ganenkov, Ilya Gruntov, Timur Maisak & Maxim Russo
    2012 The catalogue of semantic shifts as a database for lexical semantic typology. Linguistics50(3). 633–670. 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0020 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18047.geo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18047.geo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Ancient Greek , Coptic (Sahidic dialect) , lexical constructions , motion verbs and polysemy
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