Argument structure, conceptual metaphor and semantic change
How to succeed in Indo-European without really trying
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 dat-‘succeeds’ construction at different levels of schematicity for
Proto-Indo-European, including a novel reconstruction of a conceptual metaphor, success is motion forward, 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The dative subject construction
- 3.Success in Germanic
- 3.1(Preverb +) Motion (+ Adverb)
- 3.2Other types of motion conceptualized as success
- 4.Success in Indo-European
- 5.Metaphors for success
- 6.Reconstruction
- 6.1Proto-Germanic
- 6.2Proto-Indo-European
- 7.Summary and conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
References
References (135)
References
Allen, Cynthia L. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like
. Journal of Linguistics 221. 375–409. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
ASD = An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. 1966. Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth, edited and enlarged by T. Northcote Toller. London: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1999. Case and argument structure of some loan verbs in 15th century Icelandic. In Inger 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001a. The role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic inchoative. In Arthur Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson & Åke Viberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian conference of linguistics 2000, 127–137. Lund: Department of Linguistics.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001b. Case in Icelandic – A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. (Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 57). Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology, 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua 121(1). 60–79. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2012. Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 321 (2006). 467–478. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 Universals 69(1). 49–84.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The story of ‘Woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4). 321–377.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39(3). 439–472. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012. Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–393. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2020. How to identify cognates in syntax: Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Lujan (eds.), Reconstructing syntax. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Leonid Kulikov, Roland A. Pooth & Peter Alexander Kerkhof. Forthcoming. Oblique anticausatives: A morphosyntactic isogloss in Indo-European. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics.
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1): 28–67. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður. 2014. Oblique anticausative in Lithuanian: A comparative approach. Baltistica XLIX(1). 15–39.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bréal, Michel. 1900. Semantics. Studies in the science of meaning. London: Heinemann.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed. 2011. The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology 21 (3–4). 545–572. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 2000. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society 231. 65–85.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 B 3661. 1101–1107. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carling, Gerd. 2017. The syntax of Tocharian. In Jared Klein, Brian Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, Vol. 31 1352–1364. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca & William S. Y. Wang. 1986. Spatial distance and lexical replacement. Language 62(1). 38–55. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Christiansen, Bethany J. & Brian D. Joseph. 2016. On the relationship between argument structure change and semantic change. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 1(26). 1–11.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Linguistic diversity in the Caucasus. Annual Review of Anthropology 371. 131–143. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Conti, Luz. 2008. Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt, Historische Sprachforschung 1211. 94–113.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Conti, Luz. 2009. Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung 1221. 182–207.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, Willam. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Danesi, Serena. 2014a. Subjecthood and non-canonical case marking: A case study on modal verbs in Ancient Greek. Paper presented at the EVALISA/ContraGram Workshop on Non-Canonical Subjects, Ghent, March 2014.
Danesi, Serena. 2014b. Accusative subjects in Avestan: ‘Errors’ or noncanonically marked arguments. Indo-Iranian Journal 57(3). 223–260. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 Forschungen 1221. 143–188. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2018. Where does the modality of Ancient Greek modal verbs come from? The relation between modality and oblique case marking. Journal of Greek Linguistics 18(1). 45–92. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
David, Oana Alexandra. 2016. Metaphor in the grammar of argument realization. University of California, Berkeley, Doctoral dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2006. Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81(4). 339–357. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Derksen, Rick. 2015. Etymological dictionary of the Baltic inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 13). Leiden: Brill.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diewald, Gabriele. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
EWA = 2014. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Bd. 51, ed. by Lloyd, Albert L. & Rosemarie Lühr. Göttingen, Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2000. Dative vs. Nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 81. 27–44.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2002. Changes in subject case marking in Icelandic. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 196–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4). 824–881. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falk, Cecilia. 1997. Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Old Swedish experiencer verbs]. Lund: Lund University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fedriani, Chiara. 2014. Experiential constructions in Latin. Brill: Leiden. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 641. 501–538. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Firth, J. R. 1935. The Technique of semantics. Transactions of the Philological Society 34(1). 36–73. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1983. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2003. An approach to semantic change. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 648–666. Oxford: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2005. Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1752–1778. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gelderen, Elly van. 2018. The diachrony of verb meaning: Aspect and argument structure. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goatly, Andrew. 2011. Metaphors as resource for the conceptualization and expression of emotion. In Khurshid Ahmad (ed.), Affective computing and sentiment analysis: Emotion, metaphor and terminology, 13–25. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions:A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm. 1854–1971. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2007. Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic SEEM-verbs. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1): 129–150.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hall, John Richard Clark. 1916. A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary for the use of students. 2nd edn. New York: The Macmillan Company.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hock, Hans H. 1990. Oblique subjects in Sanskrit? In M. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 119–139. Stanford: CSLI Publication.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ihrig, Roscoe Myrl. 1916. The semantic development of words for “walk, run” in the Germanic languages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 731. 534–559. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2005. Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2). 223–245. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 7–23. Stanford: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Köbler, Gerhard. 2014. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. 6th edn. Available at [URL]
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krug, Manfred. 2011. Auxiliaries and grammaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 547–558. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kulikov, Leonid. 2009. Evolution of case systems. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 439–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kulikov, Leonid. 2012. The Vedic -ya-presents: Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 19). Amsterdam: Rodopi.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George. 1993. Contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 Forschungen 1221. 111–142. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya. 2015. Epistemic/evidential markers of the type verb + complementizer: Some parallels from English and Romance. In Andrew Smith, Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ronald 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martín Arista, Javier. 2012. The Old English prefix ge-: A panchronic reappraisal. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32(4). 411–433. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986–1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Bd. I–II1. Heidelberg: Winter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, Laura A. 2009. Sign-based construction grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 155–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, Laura A. 2013. Sign-based construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2001. Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mottausch, Karl-Heinz. 1998. “Gehen” und “Stehen” im Germanischen: Versuch einer Synthese. Historische Sprachforschung 1111, bd. I1. 134–162.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nicholls, Diane. 2004. What we talk about when we talk about success and failure. MED magazine: The monthly webzine of the Macmillan English dictionaries 161 (Feb). URL: [URL]
OED = Oxford English dictionary. Available at [URL]
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2011. Sur l’histoire des cas en tokharien. In Michèle 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bd. 11. Bern, Munich: Francke.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 Forschungen 1241: 245–263. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Purtscher, Fridolin. 1902. Die untrennbaren Partikeln im althochdeutschen Tatian. Chur: J. Casanova.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, Günter. 1996. Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In Eugene H. Casad (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reznikova, Tatiana, Ekaterina Rakhilina & Anastasia A. Bonch-Osmolovskaya. 2012. Towards a typology of pain predicates. Linguistics 50(3). 421–465. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ringe, Don. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sanders, Willy. 1965. Glück: Zur Herkunft und Bedeutungsentwicklung eines mittelalterlichen Schicksalsbegriffs (Niederdeutsche Studien 13). Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schubert, Thomas W., Sven Waldzus & Steffen R. Giessner. 2009. Control over the association of power and size. Social Cognition 27(1). 1–19. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schützeichel, Rudolf. 2012. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Smitherman, Thomas. 2012. Metaphors expressed by argument marking patterns: An historical and typological view. Paper presented at
Hitches in Historical Linguistics
, Bergen, February 22–23, 2012.
Sturtevant, Edgar Howard. 1917. Linguistic change: An introduction to the historical study of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2001. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tsepeleva, Valentina. 2015. Tracing changes in argument structures of dative subject predicates in Old Russian and Modern Russian. University of Bergen M.A. Thesis.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ullmann, Stephen. 1951. The principles of semantics. Glasgow: Jackson.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ullmann, Stephen. 1962. Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Blackwell: Oxford.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Viberg, Åke. 1983. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21(1). 123–162. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Viti, Carlotta. 2016. The morphosyntax of experience predicates in Tocharian. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie Orientale (CLAO) 451. 26–70. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Waite, Maurice. 2009. Oxford thesaurus of English. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction in Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wegener, Heide. 2001. Verbs of affect from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. In Nicole Dehé & Anja Wanner (eds.), Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs, 219–248. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wischer, Ilse & Mechthild Habermann. 2004. Der Gebrauch von Präfixverben zum Ausdruck von Aspekt/Aktionsart im Altenglischen und Althochdeutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 32(2). 262–385. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
WNT = Woordenboek der nederlandsche taal. 1882–2001. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wundt, Wilhelm Max. 1904. Völkerpsychologie: eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Band 1. Die Sprache. 2nd edn. Leipzig: Engelmann.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 Studies 5(1). 57–71. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad A. 2009. Hybridity versus revivability: Multiple causation, forms and patterns. Journal of Language Contact 2(2). 40–67. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Gildea, Spike & Jóhanna Barðdal
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023.
A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020).
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3
► pp. 227 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Daniels, Don
2021.
The issue of arbitrariness in syntactic reconstruction.
Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s2
► pp. 393 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.