Cover not available
Part of
Give Constructions across Languages
Edited by Myriam Bouveret
[Constructional Approaches to Language 29] 2021
► pp. 1–22

Introduction
Lexicalization, grammaticalization and constructionalization of the verb give across languages

A cognitive case study of language innovation

| University of Rouen | Lattice ENS-CNRS-Paris3
This cognitive contrastive study across ten languages (Chinese, Dalabon, English, French, Spanish, Romanian, Kurdish, Khmer, Polish, Tibetan) focuses on the verb give and its syntactic-semantic interface based on six main points, namely argument structure, lexical semantics and event structure, role marking in the three-argument construction and in other constructions, lexicalization, grammaticalization and constructionalization of the verb from a cognitive construction grammar point of view (the lexicon-grammar continuum). Transfer of possession is a basic concept in human experience; we hypothesize (a) that basic semantic features motivate the meaning and grammatical extensions of the verb give inside a single system and (b) that a similar set of core semantic dimensions represent the meaning of the form across languages, and motivate a variety of meaning extensions across time. We propose, following Brinton and Traugott 2005, Croft 2001, and Ruppenhofer and Michaelis 2001, that a continuum approach to grammar and lexicon is needed to describe the typological and historical facts. We argue that there is a concrete and abstract transfer, a ‘cluster model’ involving coverage of lexical and grammatical extension or bleaching phenomena and that the semantic extensions (metaphorical and otherwise) exploit various portions of this schema. This book proposes analyses of various phenomena illustrating and proving the grammar to lexicon continuum, in synchrony and diachrony: language innovations, grammaticalization chains, constructionalization analysis, and an invariant hypothesis of the verb give as a basic verb in human cognition. This introduction chapter illustrates the general hypothesis of the book and explains in particular the syntax-semantics interface of give constructions partly through a cognitive frame and constructions principle. The present book studies give across ten languages, looking at constructions through the concept of an image schema of TRANSFER (Source/Causation/Direction/Goal Location) which cognitively motivates the different give forms and functions across languages, in particular its polyfunctionality throughout language innovation processes (as 1. a full verb (in all the languages) as 2. a directional preposition (e.g. in Chinese) or as 3. a causative in “serial verbs”/complex predicates/verbal periphrases (e.g. Kurdish, French, Romanian) or as 4. a support/light verb (e.g. Khmer, Tibetan, Kurdish)) showing a universal grammaticalization path such as go or similarly to have as a commonly and frequently used verb. Each language throughout the volume, however, shows its own specifications in meaning, grammar and culture of the giving events: e,g. comitative in Dalabon for concrete/abstract transfer constructions or e.g. honorific gnang/humilific phul give verbs in Tibetan, alternations such as e.g. perfective/imperfective give forms in Polish dać/dawać or the learning of give transitive/intransitive constructions by children in English through the acquisition of giving-event scenarios.
Keywords: diachrony, grammaticalization, grammaticalization chain, image schema, lexicalization, constructionalization, language innovation, polysemy, polyfunctionality
Article outline
  • 1.Hypothesis and new findings of the book
  • 2.A study of give across languages from a cognitive frames and constructions point of view
    • 2.1A unified syntax-semantics approach
    • 2.2Give as a three-place predicate?
    • 2.3Give constructionalization across languages
  • 3. Frames and constructions of give : semantic dimensions and extensions
  • 4.The three parts of this volume
    • 4.1Part I: Frames and extensions
    • 4.2Part II: The transfer constructions
    • 4.3Part III: Grammaticalization, lexicalization and constructionalization
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.29.int
References (60)
References
Benveniste, E. (1951). Don et échange dans le vocabulaire indo-européen. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Boas, H. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Hoffman and Trousdale eds., London: Oxford University Press, 233–255. Google Scholar
Bodegraven, N. van and Bodegraven, E. van (2005). Phonology essentials. Gizrra language. In: Steve Parker (ed.), “Data Papers on Papua New Guinea Languages”, vol. 47: Phonological Descriptions of PNG Languages, 191–210.Google Scholar
Bouveret, M. (2012). Give frames and constructions. Constructions in French, Bouveret and Legallois eds., CAL, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 99–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. and E. C. Traugott (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization. M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 119–141.Google Scholar
(1998). A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution. Evolution of Communication 2(2). 249–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective, Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics, in Ole Nedergaard Thomsen, Competing models of Linguistic change: Evolution and Beyond , John Benjamins Publihing Company. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 279] 2006. 91–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language 31: 409–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. and Sweetser E. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. (2002). Functions of ‘give’ and ‘take’ in Lao complex predicates. Collected papers on Southeast Asianand Pacific languages, edited by Robert S. Bauer. Canberra, Pacific Linguistics. 13–36.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. (2009). The Myth of Language Universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 32(5):429–48. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul, Hanshin Publishing Co. 111–137.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. and Atkins, S. (1994). Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. Atkins, B. T. S. and A. Zampolli (Eds.) Computational Approaches to the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 349–393.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language. Vol. 64, No. 3. 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. and Boas, H. C. (eds) (2005). Grammatical Constructions. Back to the Roots. CAL collection. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. and Casenhiser, D. (2006). Learning Argument Structure Generalizations. E.V. Clark and B. F. Kelly (eds.) Constructions in Acquisition. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gougenheim, G. (1929). Étude sur les périphrases verbales de la langue française, Les Belles Lettres, Paris.Google Scholar
Guérin, F. (2008). La grammaticalisation : théorie ou épiphénomène ?. Contextos XXV–XXVI/49–52, 2007–2008. 211–232.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2015). “Ditransitive Constructions”. Annual Review of Linguistics, Vol.1. 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. and Kutova, T. (2002) World lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh Textbooks on the English Language
Hoffman and Trousdale eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., and Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Second edition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kronning, H. (1996). Modalité, cognition et polysémie : sémantique du verbe modal ‘devoir’. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Romanica Upsaliensia 54.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lord, C., Ha Yap, F. and Iwasaki, S. (2002) Grammaticalization of ‘give’: African and Asian perspectives. Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (2002). New reflections on grammaticalization. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Language Arts & Disciplines. 217–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A. and Comrie, B. (eds) (2015). Case Studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and Theoretical Outlook. Volume 2. Series: Comparative Handbooks in Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margetts, A. (2007). Three-participant events in oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics, vol 46/1. 71–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Transitivity in Saliba-Lagea », Studies in Language, vol 35/3, 650–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, S. and Yip, V. (2009) Assessing Language Dominance in Bilingual Acquisition: A Case for Mean Length Utterance Differential. Studies in Language 97–116.Google Scholar
Mauss, M. (1923). « Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaiïques ». L’année sociologique, seconde série, 1923–1924. Tome 1.
Michaelis, L. A. and Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond Alternations: A Constructional Account of the Applicative Pattern in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (1996). Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Cognitive Linguistics Research 7 Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Eating and drinking as sources of metaphor in English. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa (Special volume on Cognitive Linguistics) 6.2:213–231.Google Scholar
(ed.) (1998). The Linguistics of Giving. Studies in Typological Linguistics 36. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B., Rawoens, G. and Diedrichsen E. (2015). Causation, Permission, and Transfer. Argument realisation in GET, take, PUT, give and LET verbs. [Studies in Language Companion Series, 167] John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paris M.-C. (1982). Sens et don en Mandarin : une approche de gei en sémantique grammaticale. Modèles linguistiques IV(2). 69–88.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. (2006). On the Argument Structure of Complex Predicates in Kalam, a Language of the Trans New Guinea Family. 2. [URL]
Pawley, A., Bulmer J., Kias, P., Gi, I. and Majnep, S. (2011). A dictionary of Kalam with Ethnographic Notes (Pacific Linguistics, 630).Google Scholar
Pawley, A., and Hammarström, H. (2017). The Trans New Guinea family. B. Palmer (Ed.), Papuan Languages and Linguistics. 21–195. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peyraube, A. (2015). Grammatical change in Sinitic languages and its relation to typology. H. Chappell (ed.). Diversity in Sinitic Languages. Oxford University Press. 53–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Picoche, J. (1986). Structures sémantiques du lexique français. Nathan Université.Google Scholar
Ramat, A. G., Mauri, C. and Molinelli, P. (2013). Synchrony and Diachrony, a dynamic interface. Studies in Language Companion Series 133, John Benjamins. Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rastier, F. (1987). Sémantique interprétative. Paris, Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Reesink, G. P. (2013). Expressing the give event in Papuan languages: A preliminary survey. Linguistic Typology 17(2). 217–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 28–49.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usaged-based theory of language acquisition. Harward University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Brooks, E. and Stern, P. J. (1998). Learning to produce passive utterances through discourse. First Language, 18. 223–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change. Language, 65. 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R.B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2013). Synchrony and Diachrony: A dynamic interface. Ramat, A. G., Mauri, C. & Molinelli, P. (eds.). Studies in Language Companion Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, vol. 133. 27–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Waldenfels, R. (2012). The grammaticalization of ‘give’ + infinitive. A comparative study of Russian, Polish and Czech. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (2002). New reflections on grammaticalization. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Language Arts & Disciplines. DOI logoGoogle Scholar