Article published in:
Diachronica
Vol. 36:4 (2019) ► pp. 463–508

Argument structure, conceptual metaphor and semantic change

How to succeed in Indo-European without really trying

| Ghent University image/svg+xml
| Ghent University image/svg+xml | Leiden University image/svg+xml
| Ghent University image/svg+xml
| Ghent University image/svg+xml | Aberystwyth University image/svg+xml
| Ghent University image/svg+xml
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.
Keywords: verbal semantics, success verbs, semantic change, conceptual metaphors, argument structure, oblique subject construction, syntactic reconstruction, Germanic, Indo-European
Published online: 18 December 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.00014.bar
References

References

Allen, Cynthia L.
1986 Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22. 375–409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
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
[ p. 500 ]
2000 Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 37. 25–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
2001b Case in Icelandic – A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. (Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 57). Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
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
2008 Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua 121(1). 60–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32 (2006) 467–478. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson
2003 The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39(3). 439–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea
2015 Diachronic construction grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Leonid Kulikov, Roland A. Pooth & Peter Alexander Kerkhof
. Forthcoming. Oblique anticausatives: A morphosyntactic isogloss in Indo-European. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics.
[ p. 501 ]
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara McGillivray
2012 Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3). 511–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður
2014 Oblique anticausative in Lithuanian: A comparative approach. Baltistica XLIX(1). 15–39.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
2003 A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bréal, Michel
1900 Semantics. Studies in the science of meaning. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed
2011 The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology 21 (3–4). 545–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson
2000 Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society 23. 65–85.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora
1977 Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 366. 1101–1107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd
2017 The syntax of Tocharian. In Jared Klein, Brian Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, Vol. 3 1352–1364. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca & William S. Y. Wang
1986 Spatial distance and lexical replacement. Language 62(1). 38–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Clackson, James
2007 Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
2008 Linguistic diversity in the Caucasus. Annual Review of Anthropology 37. 131–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conti, Luz
2008 Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt, Historische Sprachforschung 121. 94–113.Google Scholar
2009 Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung 122. 182–207.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert
2008 On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-)auxiliaries in Spanish. In Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 77–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, Willam
2001 Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 502 ]
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.
2014b Accusative subjects in Avestan: ‘Errors’ or noncanonically marked arguments. Indo-Iranian Journal 57(3). 223–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 122. 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
David, Oana Alexandra
2016 Metaphor in the grammar of argument realization. University of California, Berkeley, Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra
2006 Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81(4). 339–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, Rick
2015 Etymological dictionary of the Baltic inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 13). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
1999 Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova
2010 Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Ilse Wischer
2013 Markers of futurity in Old High German and Old English: A comparative corpus-based study. In Gabriele Diewald, Leena Kahlas-Tarkka & Ilse Wischer (eds.), Comparative studies in Early Germanic languages: With a focus on verbal categories, 195–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
EWA
= 2014 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Bd. 5, ed. by Lloyd, Albert L. & Rosemarie Lühr. Göttingen, Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur
2000 Dative vs. Nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 27–44.Google Scholar
2002 Changes in subject case marking in Icelandic. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 196–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal
2005 Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4). 824–881. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Cecilia
1997 Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Old Swedish experiencer verbs]. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara
2014 Experiential constructions in Latin. Brill: Leiden. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R.
1935 The Technique of semantics. Transactions of the Philological Society 34(1). 36–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 503 ]
Fischer, Susann
2010 Word order change as a source of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne
1983 The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre
2011 Social ecology and language history in the Northern Vanuatu Linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(2). 175–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2015 Irregular morphology in regular syntactic patterns: A case of constructional re-alignment. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 141–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
2005 Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1752–1778. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van
2018 The diachrony of verb meaning: Aspect and argument structure. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goatly, Andrew
1997 The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions:A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm
1854–1971 Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand
2007 Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic SEEM-verbs. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1): 129–150.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey
2008 Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall, John Richard Clark
1916 A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary for the use of students. 2nd edn. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1993 Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2008 Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Christian Koops
2008 A quantitative approach to the development of complex predicates: The case of Swedish pseudo-coordination with sitta ‘sit’. Diachronica 25(2). 242–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Hock, Hans Henrich
1991 Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 504 ]
Ihrig, Roscoe Myrl
1916 The semantic development of words for “walk, run” in the Germanic languages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1997 Twistin’ the night away. Language 73. 534–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Thórhallur Eythórsson
2005 Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2). 223–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Köbler, Gerhard
2014 Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. 6th edn. Available at http://​www​.koeblergerhard​.de​/ahdwbhin​.html
Kövecses, Zoltán
2002 Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroonen, Guus
2013 Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
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
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
2012 The Vedic -ya-presents: Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 19). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1964 The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 Contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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 122. 111–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
[ p. 505 ]
Martín Arista, Javier
2012 The Old English prefix ge-: A panchronic reappraisal. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32(4). 411–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986–1996 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Bd. I–II. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
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
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
Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer
2001 Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mottausch, Karl-Heinz
1998 “Gehen” und “Stehen” im Germanischen: Versuch einer Synthese. Historische Sprachforschung 111, bd. I. 134–162.Google Scholar
Nicholls, Diane
2004 What we talk about when we talk about success and failure. MED magazine: The monthly webzine of the Macmillan English dictionaries 16 (Feb). URL: http://​www​.macmillandictionaries​.com​/MED​-Magazine​/February2004​/16​-metaphor​-success​-failure​.htm
OED = Oxford English dictionary
. Available at http://​www​.oed​.com
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
Pokorny, Julius
1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bd. 1. Bern, Munich: Francke.Google Scholar
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 124: 245–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Purtscher, Fridolin
1902 Die untrennbaren Partikeln im althochdeutschen Tatian. Chur: J. Casanova.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reznikova, Tatiana, Ekaterina Rakhilina & Anastasia A. Bonch-Osmolovskaya
2012 Towards a typology of pain predicates. Linguistics 50(3). 421–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don
2006 From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur
1995 Old Icelandic: A non-configurational language? NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 26. 3–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Sanders, Willy
1965 Glück: Zur Herkunft und Bedeutungsentwicklung eines mittelalterlichen Schicksalsbegriffs (Niederdeutsche Studien 13). Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
Schubert, Thomas W., Sven Waldzus & Steffen R. Giessner
2009 Control over the association of power and size. Social Cognition 27(1). 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 506 ]
Schützeichel, Rudolf
2012 Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L.
1996 Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
2007 The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
2001 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Ullmann, Stephen
1951 The principles of semantics. Glasgow: Jackson.Google Scholar
1962 Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke
1983 The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21(1). 123–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viti, Carlotta
2016 The morphosyntax of experience predicates in Tocharian. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie Orientale (CLAO) 45. 26–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waite, Maurice
2009 Oxford thesaurus of English. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walkden, George
2013 The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica 30(1). 95–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Syntactic reconstruction in Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
WNT = Woordenboek der nederlandsche taal
1882–2001 The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Wundt, Wilhelm Max
1904 Völkerpsychologie: eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Band 1. Die Sprache. 2nd edn. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Hybridity versus revivability: Multiple causation, forms and patterns. Journal of Language Contact 2(2). 40–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 507 ][ p. 508 ]