Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Semantic Roles
Edited by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog
[Typological Studies in Language 106] 2014
► pp. 99–150

Plotting diachronic semantic maps

The role of metaphors

ORCID logo | University of Pavia
The paper discusses patterns of polysemy among semantic roles in cross-linguistic perspective, and the possible way in which such polysemies come into being through meaning extension of morphemes (cases and adposition) that encode semantic roles. Semantic extension is described based on commonly assumed metaphors, which are thought to account for frequent polysemies, such as the Companion Metaphor in the case of the Comitative-Instrument polysemy. Taking space as a basic domain, metaphors are shown to provide links among different cognitive domains, which account for the position of semantic roles relative to one another in the ensuing semantic map. Such map incorporates diachronic information, assuming that metaphorical extension reflects diachronic developments. Although the specific focus of the paper concerns the contribution of metaphors to semantic extension, it is also shown that other processes are involved, such as analogy and various kinds of metonymy, which can account for some specific patterns of polysemy among semantic roles. Keywords: Metaphor; semantic maps; polysemy; meaning extension
Published online: 19 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.106.04lur
References (109)
References
Amritavalli R. 2004. Experiencer datives in Kannada. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao (eds), 1–24.
Anderson, John M. 1971. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bennett, David C. 1989. Ablative-locative transfers: Evidence from Slovene and Serbo-Croat. Oxford Slavonic Papers 22: 133–154.Google Scholar
Bentley, John R. 2001. A Descriptive Grammar of Early Old Japanese Prose. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao (eds), 77–112.
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata (eds). 2004. Non-nomitative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages [Linguistic Series 23]. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Blansitt Jr., Edward L. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Studies in Syntactic Typology, Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds), 173–191. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York NY: Holt.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & van den Berg, Helma. 2006. Experiencer constructions in Daghestanian languages. In Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds), 127–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1970. Einführung in die Strukturelle Betrachtung des Wortschatzes. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Creissel, Denis & Mounole, Céline. 2011. Animacy and spatial cases: Typological tendencies and the case of Basque. In Kittilä, Västi & Ylikoski (eds), 155–182.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Rene Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds), 161–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael A. & Ganenkov, Dmitri S. 2008. Case marking in Daghestanian. In Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1867. Ablativ localis instrumentalis im Altindischen. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, 2 Vols., 2nd edn, Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2002. Australian Languages: Their Nature and Development. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckhoff, Hanne Martine, Thomason, Olga A. & de Swart, Peter. 2013. Mapping out the source domain. Studies in Language 37(2): 302–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erelt, Mati & Metslang, Helle. 2006. Estonian clause patterns – from Finno-Ugric to standard average European. Linguistica Uralica 42(4): 254–266.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2004. The Structure of Time. Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry S. 2006. Experiencer coding in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 179–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds). 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive. Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic Adpositions and Cases in Change. Helsinki: Societé Finno-ougrienne.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar account. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. From Space to Time. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
. 1999. External possession in a European areal perspective. In External Possession [Typological Studies in Language 39], Doris Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds), 109–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Heine Bernd. 1997a. Auxiliaries. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997b. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1990. Der Agens in passivischen Sätzen altindogermanischer Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1935/37. La catégorie des cas. Acta Jutlandica 7(1): xii–184 & 9(2): viii–78.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 1996. Domain shifts and the grammaticalization of case: A case study of the Finnish adessive. Folia Linguistica Historica 17: 73–95.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Erkki, Joki, Aulis J. & Peltola, Reino. 1978. Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja, Vol. 6. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István, Vago, Robert M. & Fenyvesi, Anna. 1997. Hungarian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2010. Beneficiary coding in Finnish. In Kittilä & Zúñiga (eds), 245–270.
. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9(2): 269–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2010. Introduction: Benefaction and malefaction form a cross-linguistic perspective. In Zúñiga & Kittilä (eds),1–28.
Kittilä, Seppo, Västi, Katja & Ylikoski, Jussi (eds). 2011. Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 99]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. In Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , 236–287. Chicago IL: CLS.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we Live By. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, Espenson, Jane & Schwartz, Alan. 1991. The Master Metaphor List. <[URL]>
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 22002. Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 2nd, revised edn. [Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9]. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian & Yong-Min Shin. 2005. The functional domain of concomitance. A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. In Typological Studies in Participation, Christian Lehmann (ed.), 9–104. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu, Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Szantyr, Anton. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Silistik. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1989. Cause and instrument expressions in Classical Greek. Mnemosyne 43: 294–308.Google Scholar
. 1995. Prototypicality and agenthood in Indo-European. In Historical Linguistics 1993 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 124], Henning Andersen (ed.), 259–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Spatial metaphors and agenthood in Ancient Greek. In 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz, Christian Zinko & Michaela Offisch (eds), 283–298. Graz: Leykam.Google Scholar
. 2001a. Syncretism and the classification of semantic roles. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(1): 35–51.Google Scholar
. 2001b. Some remarks on instrument, comitative, and agent in Indo-European. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(4): 385–401.Google Scholar
. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. A Study of the Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series 67]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005a. Prepositions in cause expressions. Papers on Grammar 12(2): 609–619.Google Scholar
. 2005b. Paths of semantic extension. From cause to beneficiary and purpose. In Historical Linguistics 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 257], Michael Fortescue, Eva Skafte Jensen, Jens Erik Mogensen & Lene Schøsler (eds), 141–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005c. The history of the Greek preposition metá: From polysemy to the creation of homonyms. Glotta 81: 130–159.Google Scholar
. 2009. The evolution of local cases and their grammatical equivalent in Greek and Latin. In The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case [Studies in Language Companion Series 108], Johanna Barðdal & Shobhann L. Chelliah (eds), 283–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Adverbial phrases. In A New Historical Syntax of Latin, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 19–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ex Anatolia Lux, Ronald I. Kim, Elizabeth Rieken, Norbert Oettinger & Michael J. Weiss (eds), 249–264. Ann Arbor MI: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
. 2010c. Where do beneficiaries come from and how do they come about? In Historical Cognitive Linguistics, Margaret Winters, Heli Tissari & Kathryn Allan (eds), 93–131. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2011. Human landmarks in spatial expressions: From Latin to Romance. In Kittilä, Västi & Ylikoski (eds), 207–234.
. 2013a. The mapping of space onto the domain of benefaction: Beneficiaries that are not Recipients and their sources. Paper read at the 10th International Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology (Leipzig, 15–18 August 2013).
. 2013b. The dative of agent in Indo-European languages. Paper read at the Workshop historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (Salzburg, 22–24 November 2013).
. Forthcoming. External possessor constructions in Indo-European. In Reconstructing Syntax. Jóhanna Barðdal, Eugenio Lujan & Spike Gildea (eds). Leiden: Brill
Luraghi, Silvia & Sausa, Eleonora. Forthcoming. Hate and anger, love and desire: The construal of emotions in Homeric Greek. In Historical Linguistics 2013, Dag T. Haug (ed). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vols I & II. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 1978. Ablative-locative transfers and their relevance for the theory of case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics 14: 129–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1986. Heans and minds in South-East Asian languages and Engüsh: An essay in the comparative lexical semantics of psycho-collocations. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie-orientale 15: 5–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2010a. Author’s reply to ‘The Best of Two Maps’ by Sander Lestrade. Linguistic Discovery 8(1): 257–258.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Voice and non-canonical marking in the expression of event-oriented modality. A cross-linguistic study. Linguistic Typology 14(1): 71–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 1991. The meaning of the genitive. Cognitive Linguistics 2(2): 149–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana & Spano, Marianna. Forthcoming. ‘Behind’ and ‘in front’ in Ancient Greek: A case study in orientation asymmetry. In Ort und Bewegung: Linguistischen Arbeiten zu Sprachen der Antike, Silvia Kutscher & Daniel Werning (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Noonan, Michael. 2009. Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages. In The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case [Studies in Language Companion Series 108], Johanna Barðdal & Shobhanna Chelliah (eds), 261–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2010. The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguistics 48(5): 1043–1081. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda L. 2007. Metonymy. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens (eds), 236–263.
Pennacchietti, Fabrizio. 1974. Appunti per una storia comparata dei sistemi preposizionali semitici. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 34(2): 161–183.Google Scholar
Pompeo, Flavia & Carmela Benvenuto, Maria. 2011. Il genitivo in persiano antico. Un caso esemplare di categoria polisemica. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 49: 75–123.Google Scholar
Pütz, Martin. 1996. Introduction: Language and the cognitive construal of space. In The Construal of Language and Thought [Cognitive Linguistics Research 8], Martin Pütz & Rene Dirven (eds), xi–xxiii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter. 1989. Semantic roles. In A User’s Grammar of English, Rene Dirven & Richard A. Geiger (eds), 421–471. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael. 1979. The conduit metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11: 451–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sands, Kristina & Lyle Campbell. 2001. Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In A. Aikenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, and M. Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, 251–305. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2010. The role of benefactives and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses. In Zúñiga & Kittlä (eds), 121–146.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik, Band 2: Syntax. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 1992. Lokalkasussysteme. Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2001a. Comitatives vs. instrumentals vs. agents. In Aspects of Typology and Universals, Walter Bisang (ed.), 153–174. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2001b. To be with X is to have X: Comitatives, instrumentals, locative and predicative possession. Linguistics 39(2): 321–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina. 2006. On comitatives and Related Categories. A Typological Study with Special Focus on the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1989a. Possessive genitives in English. Linguistics 27(4–6): 663–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989b. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Toyota, Junichi. 2011. The Grammatical Voice in Japanese: A Typological Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 2007. Schematicity. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens (eds), 82–116.
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Sciences, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1994. Methodology and analysis of the preposition. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2): 157–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2008. Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya [Studies in Language Companion Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 2005. A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese. Folkestone: Global Oriental.Google Scholar
Wenzel, Heinrich. 1879. Ueber den instrumentalis im Rigveda, Tübingen: Laupp.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2007. Spatial semantics. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens (eds), 318–350.
Zúñiga, Fernando & Kittilä, Seppo (eds). 2010. Benefactives and Malefactives. Case Studies and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 92]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Rasekh-Mahand, Mohammad & Mehdi Parizadeh
2024. Different functions of ‘rā’ in New Persian. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Giomi, Riccardo
2022. Similatives are Manners, comparatives are Quantities (except when they aren’t). Open Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 650 ff. DOI logo
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
2021. Lexical diachronic semantic maps. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:3 ► pp. 367 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo & Simone Mattiola
2020. Pluractionality in Hittite. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:2 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
Kalyuga, Marika
2020. Prepositional Phrases of Proximity. In Russian Prepositional Phrases, ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Kalyuga, Marika
2020. Introduction. In Russian Prepositional Phrases, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Luraghi, Silvia, Chiara Naccarato & Erica Pinelli
2020. The u+gen construction in Modern Standard Russian. Cognitive Linguistics 31:1 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, DOI logo
Vázquez-González, Juan G. & Jóhanna Barðdal
2019. Reconstructing the ditransitive construction for Proto-Germanic: Gothic, Old English and Old Norse-Icelandic. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2 ► pp. 555 ff. DOI logo
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Petros Karatsareas
2017. A diachronic take on the Source–Goal asymmetry. In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188], ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Lewis, Diana M.
2017. Source-Location ambiguity and incipient decline in the recent evolution of the English directional particle away. In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188], ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo
Stolz, Thomas, Nataliya Levkovych & Aina Urdze
2017. Spatial interrogatives. In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188], ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Zanchi, Chiara
2017. New evidence for the Source–Goal asymmetry. In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188], ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Brucale, Luisa & Egle Mocciaro
2016. The embodied sources of purpose expressions in Latin. In Embodiment in Latin Semantics [Studies in Language Companion Series, 174], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Fedriani, Chiara & Michele Prandi
2016. Exploring a diachronic (re)cycle of roles. In Advances in Research on Semantic Roles [Benjamins Current Topics, 88], ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Luraghi, Silvia
2016. The dative of agent in Indo-European languages. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 69:1 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 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.