Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 14:2 (2016) ► pp. 337–384

The polysemy of the Croatian verbal prefix od-

| University of Osijek, Croatia
| University of Osijek, Croatia
This paper explores the polysemy of the Croatian verbal prefix od- ‘(away) from’ from a Cognitive Grammar perspective (Langacker, 1987, 1991, etc.; Taylor, 2002). Despite the seemingly inordinate semantic heterogeneity of od-prefixed verbs, we argue that the different uses of od- are semantically motivated and that this has at least as much to do with the existence of a single abstract sanctioning schema as it does with the motivated extensions from the prototype, viz. spatial ablativity, or other category members. In this way we depart not only from the deep-rooted Croatian tradition, which tends to ignore any semantic motivation among different uses of a single prefix (e.g. Babić, 1986), but also from those cognitive linguistic approaches which rely on meaning chains, i.e. categorization by extension, to account for the polysemy of prefixes, prepositions and particles (e.g. Janda, 1985, 1986, 1988; Šarić, 2006a, 2006b, 2008, etc.).
Keywords: (super)schematic meaning, ablativity, verbal prefix od-, prototype, landmark, trajector, conceptual networks, meaning chains
Published online: 10 January 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2.04bel
References

References

Andrews, E.
(1984) A semantic analysis of the Russian prepositions/preverbs O(-) and OB(-). The Slavic and East European Journal, 28, 477−492. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anić, V.
(2004) Veliki rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Novi liber.Google Scholar
Babić, S.
(1986) Tvorba riječi u hrvatskom književnom jeziku. Zagreb: Globus.Google Scholar
Barić, E., Lončarić, M., Malić, D., Pavešić, S., Peti, M., Zečević, V., & Znika, M.
(1995) Hrvatska gramatika. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.Google Scholar
Belaj, B.
(2008) Jezik, prostor i konceptualizacija. Osijek: Grafika.Google Scholar
(2011) Schematic meaning of the Croatian verbal prefix iz-: Meaning chains and syntactic implications. In M. Brdar, S. Gries, & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Convergence and expansion (pp. 115–149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beltz, J.A.
(1997) Mind, metaphor, and prefix: Evidence for prototype category structure in NHG ver-. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bogusławski, A.
(1963) Prefiksacija czasownika we współczesnym jęziku rosyskim. Wroclaw/Warsaw/Krakow: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Brugman, C.M.
(1981) Story of OVER. Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., Bergen K.B., & Zinken, J.
(Eds.) (2007) The cognitive linguistics reader. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Flier, M.S.
(1975) Remarks on Russian verbal prefixation. Slavic and East European Journal, 19, 218–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984) Syntagmatic constraints on the Russian Prefix pere- . In M.S. Flier & R.D. Brecht (Eds.), Issues in Russian morphosyntax (pp. 138–154). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.Google Scholar
Gallant, J.
(1979) Russian verbal prefixation and semantic features: An analysis of the prefix VZ-. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(Ed.) (2006) Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L.
(1985) The meaning of Russian verbal prefixes: Semantics and grammar. In M.S. Flier & A. Timberlake (Eds.), The scope of Slavic aspect (pp. 26–40). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.Google Scholar
(1986) A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes ZA-, PERE-, DO-, and OT-. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
(1988) The mapping of elements of cognitive space onto grammatical relations: An example from Russian verbal prefixation. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 327–344). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindner, S.J.
(1981) A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with UP and OUT. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Luschützky, H.C., & Rainer, F.
(2013) Instrument and place nouns: A typological and diachronic perspective. Linguistics, 51(6), 1301–1359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F.
(2011) The agent-instrument-place “polysemy” of the suffix -TOR in Romance. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 64(1), 8–32.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
(1985) Metaphoric processes in word formation: The case of prefixed verbs. In W. Paprotte & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor (pp. 209–241). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (1988) Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silić, J., & Pranjković, I.
(2005) Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika za gimnazije i visoka učilišta. 
Zagreb: Školska knjiga.Google Scholar
Šarić, Lj
(2003) Prepositional categories and prototypes: Contrasting some Russian, Slovenian, Croatian, and Polish examples. Jezikoslovlje, 4, 187–204.Google Scholar
(2006a) A preliminary semantic analysis of the Croatian preposition u and its Slavic equivalents. Jezikoslovlje, 7, 1–43.Google Scholar
(2006b) On the meaning and prototype of the preposition pri and the locative case: A comparative study of Slavic usage with emphasis on Croatian. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 32, 225–248.Google Scholar
(2008) Spatial concepts in Slavic: A cognitive linguistic study of prepositions and cases. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
(2014) Prostor u jeziku i metafora. Zagreb: Jesenski i Turk.Google Scholar
Šarić, Lj., & Tchizmarova, I.
(2013) Space and metaphor in verbs prefixed with od-/ot- ‘from’ in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and Bulgarian. In Lj. Šarić (Ed.), Space in South Slavic. Oslo Studies in Language, 5(1), 7–33.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2001) Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.R.
(1995) Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Cognitive grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Schooneveld, C.H.
(1958) The so-called ‘préverbes vides’ and neutralization. In Dutch contributions to the fourth International Congress of Slavists (pp. 159–161). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1978) Semantic transmutations: Prolegomena to a calculus of meaning. Volume 1: The cardinal semantic structure of prepositions, cases, and paratactic conjunctions in contemporary standard Russian. Bloomington: Physsardt.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R.D., & LaPolla, R.J.
(1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
(1953) Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
The Croatian national corpus V3.0
available at http://​www​.hnk​.ffzg​.hr​/default​.htm