Article In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Embodied constructions

The encoding of emotions in Ancient Greek

| University of Pavia
In Ancient Greek two-place verbs can take three different argument structure constructions, with nominative first arguments and either accusative or genitive or dative second arguments. While the accusative is the default case across all verb classes, the genitive indicates low agentivity of the first participant and low affectedness of the second, and the dative is especially frequent with social interaction verbs. The paper focuses on constructional patterns and construction variation with experiential verbs. Referring to data from experimental psychology, I argue that the distribution of constructions with either accusative or genitive second arguments reflects physical embodiment based on narrow vs. broad attention focus, as also indicated by constructional patterns of perception verbs. Emotion verbs that take the dative indicate potentially interactive situations, including those that involve social judgment, thus conforming to the pattern of interaction verbs and reflecting social embodiment.
Keywords: Ancient Greek, argument structure constructions, emotions, narrow vs. broad attention focus, physical and social embodiment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Emotions in cognitive linguistics
  • 3.Some background: Argument structure constructions in Ancient Greek
    • 3.1Costruction types and frequency
    • 3.2Distribution of constructions across verb classes: Experiential verbs
    • 3.3From agentivity and control to sight and attentiveness
  • 4.Physical embodiment: The NomAcc construction
    • 4.1Wonder
    • 4.2Fear
    • 4.3Between physical and social embodiment: Shame
  • 5.Physical embodiment and the NomGen contruction
    • 5.1Love and desire
    • 5.2Care and affection
  • 6.Social embodiment: The NomDat construction
    • 6.1Verbs of emotion with the NomDat construction and animate second arguments
    • 6.2Verbs with the NomDat construction and inanimate second arguments
  • 7.Between physical and social embodiment
    • 7.1The double nature of hate
    • 7.2The complex construal of care
  • 8.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (71)
References
Aldai, G., & Wichmann, S. (2018). Statistical observations on hierarchies of transitivity. Folia Linguistica, 52 (2), 249–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amberber, M. (2007). Introduction. The language of memory. In M. Amberber (Ed.), The language of memory in crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, N. J., & Powers, P. S. (1975). Creativity and psychosis: An examination of conceptual style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32 (1), 70–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Athanasiadou, A., & Tabakowska, E. (Eds.). (1998). Speaking of emotions conceptualisation and expression. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekes, R., & van Beek, L. (2010). Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Blume, K. (1998). A contrastive analysis of interaction verbs with dative complements. Linguistics, 36 (2), 253–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cairns, D. L. (1993). Aidôs: The psychology and ethics of honour and shame in ancient Greek literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chantraine, P. (1973). Morphologie historique du Grec. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
(1977). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
(1981). Grammaire Homérique II: Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Conti, L., & Luraghi, S. (2014). The Ancient Greek partitive genitive in typological perspective. In S. Luraghi & T. Huumo (Eds.), Partitive case and related categories (pp. 443–476). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the lexicon (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sousa, R. (1987). The rationality of emotion. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Why think? Evolution and the rational mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Delbrück, B. (1911). Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Teubner.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1987). Cognitive wheels: The frame problem in AI. In Z. Pylyshyn (Ed.), The robot’s dilemma: The frame problem and other problems of holism in artificial intelligence (pp. 129–151). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Derryberry, D., & D. M. Tucker. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In P. M. Niedenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), The heart’s eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp.167–196). London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Los altos (CA): Malor Books.Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the Mind’s Ear: the Semantic Extension of Perception verbs in Australian Languages. Language, 76(3), 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faucher, L., & Tappolet, C. (2002). Fear and the focus of attention. Consciousness and Emotion, 3 (2), 105–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2 (3), 300–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In E. Ashby Plant & P. G. Devine (Eds.), Advances on Experimental Social Psychology, 47 1, 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J., Culver, J. L., Johnson, S. L., Nam, J. Y., Keller, K. L., & Ketter, T. A. (2009). Do positive emotions predict symptomatic change in bipolar disorder? Bipolar Disorders, 11 1, 330–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harkins, J., & Wierzbicka, A. (Eds). (2001). Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2015a. Transitivity prominence. In A. Malchukov & B. Comrie, (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook (Vol. 11, pp. 131–147). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). Ditransitive constructions (January 2015). Annual Review of Linguistics, 1 (1), 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Havers, W. (1911). Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 (2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Humbert, J. (1986). Syntaxe Grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Kittilä, S. (2002). Transitivity: Towards a comprehensive typology. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
(2006). The anomaly of the verb “give” explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics, 44 (3), 569–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990). Emotion concepts. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
(2020). Ten lectures on figurative meaning-making: The role of body and context. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lavidas, N. (2009). Transitivity alternations in diachrony. Changes in argument structure and voice morphology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Ch., & Shin, Y. M. (2005). The functional domain of concomitance. A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. In Ch Lehmann (Ed.), Typological studies in participation. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S. (1995). The function of verb initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European languages. In M. Noonan & P. Downing (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 355–386). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The history of the Greek preposition metá: From polysemy to the creation of homonyms. Glotta, 81 1, 130–159.Google Scholar
(2014). Plotting diachronic semantic maps: the role of metaphors. In S. Luraghi & H. Narrog (Eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles (pp. 99–150). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Experiential verbs in Homeric Greek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
(2023). Beyond affectedness — partitive objects and degrees of agenthood in Ancient Greek. Linguistic Variation, 23 (1), 95–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S., & Zanchi, Ch. (2018). Double accusative constructions and ditransitives in Ancient Greek. In A. Korn & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Ditransitive constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 13–35). Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A. (2005). Case Pattern Splits, Verb Types and Construction Competition. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case (pp. 73–117). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Split intransitives, experiencer objects and transimpersonal constructions: (re-) establishing the connection. In M. Donohue & S. Wichmann (Eds.), The typology of semantic alignment (pp. 76–101). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Exploring the domain of ditransitive constructions: Ditransitive splits and ditransitive alternations across languages. In L. Hellan, A. Malchukov & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Contrastive studies in verbal valency (pp. 177–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B. (2010). Ditransitive construction: a typological overview. In A. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath & B. Comrie (Eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: a comparative handbook (pp. 1–64). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mette, H. J. (1961). ‘Schauen’ und ‘Staunen’. Glotta, 39 1, 49–71.Google Scholar
Murphy, A. J., & Dubinsky, S. (2023). Classical Greek object cases: A corpus-driven analysis of their distribution. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 23 (1), 97–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Å. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napoli, M. (2010). The case for the partitive case: The contribution of Ancient Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108 (1), 15–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niemeyer, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (1997). The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M. (2007). Complementation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 52–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, T. (2007). the body in space: Embodiment, experientialism and linguistic conceptualization. In J. Zlatev, T. Ziemke, R. Frank & R. Dirven (Eds.), Body, language and mind (vol. 21, pp. 339–378). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., & Majid, A. (2018). Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 29 (3), pp. 371–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sausa, E. (2015). Argument structure construction in Homeric Greek. A study on bivalent verbs. PhD thesis, University of Pavia.
Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2015). Language and emotion: The cognitive linguistic perspective. In U. M. Lüdtke (Ed.), Emotion in language: Theory — research — application (pp. 157–173). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Th. (1997). Some instruments are really good companions — some are not: On syncretism and the typology of comitatives and instrumentals. Theoretical Linguistics, 23 1, 113–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Comitatives vs. instrumentals vs. agents. In W. Bisang (Ed.), Aspects of typology and universals (pp. 153–174). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Th., & Gugeler, T. (2000). Comitative typology: nothing about the ape, but something about king-size samples, the European community, and the little prince. Language Typology and Universals — STUF, 53 1, 53–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Th., Stroh, C., & Urdze, A. (2013). Comitatives and Instrumentals. In M. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. DOI logo (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2024-03-17.)
Tsunoda, T. (1981). Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics, 19 1, 389–438.Google Scholar
(1985). Remarks on transitivity. Journal of linguistic, 21 1, 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The hierarchy of two-place predicates: Its limitations. In A. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages (pp. 1575–1603). Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, E. (2007). Experiential constructions in Yucatec Maya. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture, and cognition. Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar