In:Give Constructions across Languages
Edited by Myriam Bouveret
[Constructional Approaches to Language 29] 2021
► pp. 1–22
Introduction
Lexicalization, grammaticalization and constructionalization of the verb
give across languages
A cognitive case study of language innovation
Published online: 10 March 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.29.int
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.29.int
This cognitive contrastive study across ten languages (Chinese, Dalabon,
English, French, Spanish, Romanian, Kurdish, Khmer, Polish, Tibetan) focuses
on the verb give and its syntactic-semantic interface based
on six main points, namely argument structure, lexical semantics and event
structure, role marking in the three-argument construction and in other
constructions, lexicalization, grammaticalization and constructionalization
of the verb from a cognitive construction grammar point of view (the
lexicon-grammar continuum). Transfer of possession is a basic concept in
human experience; we hypothesize (a) that basic semantic features motivate
the meaning and grammatical extensions of the verb give
inside a single system and (b) that a similar set of core semantic
dimensions represent the meaning of the form across languages, and motivate
a variety of meaning extensions across time. We propose, following Brinton and Traugott 2005, Croft 2001, and Ruppenhofer and Michaelis 2001,
that a continuum approach to grammar and lexicon is needed to describe the
typological and historical facts. We argue that there is a concrete and
abstract transfer, a ‘cluster model’ involving coverage of lexical and
grammatical extension or bleaching phenomena and that the semantic
extensions (metaphorical and otherwise) exploit various portions of this
schema. This book proposes analyses of various phenomena illustrating and
proving the grammar to lexicon continuum, in synchrony and diachrony:
language innovations, grammaticalization chains, constructionalization
analysis, and an invariant hypothesis of the verb give as a
basic verb in human cognition. This introduction chapter illustrates the
general hypothesis of the book and explains in particular the
syntax-semantics interface of give constructions partly
through a cognitive frame and constructions principle. The present book
studies give across ten languages, looking at constructions
through the concept of an image schema of TRANSFER
(Source/Causation/Direction/Goal Location) which cognitively motivates the
different give forms and functions across languages, in
particular its polyfunctionality throughout language innovation processes
(as 1. a full verb (in all the languages) as 2. a directional preposition
(e.g. in Chinese) or as 3. a causative in “serial verbs”/complex
predicates/verbal periphrases (e.g. Kurdish, French, Romanian) or as 4. a
support/light verb (e.g. Khmer, Tibetan, Kurdish)) showing a universal
grammaticalization path such as go or similarly to
have as a commonly and frequently used verb. Each
language throughout the volume, however, shows its own specifications in
meaning, grammar and culture of the giving events: e,g. comitative in
Dalabon for concrete/abstract transfer constructions or e.g.
honorific gnang/humilific phul
give verbs in Tibetan, alternations such as e.g.
perfective/imperfective give forms in Polish
dać/dawać or the learning of
give transitive/intransitive constructions by children
in English through the acquisition of giving-event scenarios.
Article outline
- 1.Hypothesis and new findings of the book
- 2.A study of give across languages from a cognitive frames
and constructions point of view
- 2.1A unified syntax-semantics approach
- 2.2Give as a three-place predicate?
- 2.3Give constructionalization across languages
- 3. Frames and constructions of give : semantic dimensions and extensions
- 4.The three parts of this volume
- 4.1Part I: Frames and extensions
- 4.2Part II: The transfer constructions
- 4.3Part III: Grammaticalization, lexicalization and constructionalization
- Conclusion
References
References (60)
Benveniste, E. (1951). Don et échange dans le vocabulaire indo-européen. Presses Universitaires de France.
Boas, H. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. The Oxford Handbook
of Construction Grammar, Hoffman and Trousdale eds., London: Oxford University Press, 233–255.
Bodegraven, N. van and Bodegraven, E. van (2005). Phonology essentials. Gizrra language. In: Steve Parker (ed.), “Data Papers on Papua New Guinea Languages”, vol. 47: Phonological Descriptions of PNG Languages, 191–210.
Bouveret, M. (2012). Give frames and constructions. Constructions in French, Bouveret and Legallois eds., CAL, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 99–124.
Brinton, L. J. and E. C. Traugott (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J.L. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization. M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 119–141.
(1998). A functionalist approach to grammar and its
evolution. Evolution of Communication 2(2). 249–278.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological
Perspective, Oxford University Press.
(2006). The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical
linguistics, in Ole Nedergaard Thomsen, Competing models of
Linguistic change: Evolution and Beyond
, John Benjamins Publihing Company. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 279] 2006. 91–132.
(2007). Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to
Aarts. Studies in Language 31: 409–430.
Enfield, N. (2002). Functions of ‘give’ and ‘take’ in Lao complex
predicates. Collected papers on Southeast Asianand Pacific
languages, edited by Robert S. Bauer. Canberra, Pacific Linguistics. 13–36.
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. (2009). The Myth of Language Universals: Language diversity and
its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 32(5):429–48. Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul, Hanshin Publishing Co. 111–137.
Fillmore, C. J. and Atkins, S. (1994). Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for
computational lexicography. Atkins, B. T. S. and A. Zampolli (Eds.) Computational Approaches to the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 349–393.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions:
The Case of Let Alone. Language. Vol. 64, No. 3. 501–538.
Fried, M. and Boas, H. C. (eds) (2005). Grammatical Constructions. Back to the Roots. CAL collection. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in
Language. Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. and Casenhiser, D. (2006). Learning Argument Structure
Generalizations. E.V. Clark and B. F. Kelly (eds.) Constructions in Acquisition. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Gougenheim, G. (1929). Étude sur les périphrases verbales de la langue
française, Les Belles Lettres, Paris.
Guérin, F. (2008). La grammaticalisation : théorie ou épiphénomène
?. Contextos XXV–XXVI/49–52, 2007–2008. 211–232.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh Textbooks on the English Language
Hoffman and Trousdale eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Hopper, P. J., and Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Second edition. Cambridge University Press.
Kronning, H. (1996). Modalité, cognition et polysémie : sémantique du verbe modal
‘devoir’. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Romanica Upsaliensia
54.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About
the Mind. University of Chicago Press.
Lord, C., Ha Yap, F. and Iwasaki, S. (2002) Grammaticalization of ‘give’: African and Asian
perspectives. Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (2002). New reflections on grammaticalization. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Language Arts & Disciplines. 217–237.
Malchukov, A. and Comrie, B. (eds) (2015). Case Studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and
Theoretical Outlook. Volume 2. Series: Comparative Handbooks in Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter.
Margetts, A. (2007). Three-participant events in oceanic
languages. Oceanic Linguistics, vol 46/1. 71–127.
(2011). Transitivity in Saliba-Lagea », Studies in Language, vol 35/3, 650–675.
Matthews, S. and Yip, V. (2009) Assessing Language Dominance in Bilingual Acquisition: A
Case for Mean Length Utterance Differential. Studies in Language 97–116.
Mauss, M. (1923). « Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les
sociétés archaiïques ». L’année sociologique, seconde série, 1923–1924. Tome 1.
Michaelis, L. A. and Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond Alternations: A Constructional Account of the Applicative
Pattern in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Newman, J. (1996). Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Cognitive Linguistics Research 7 Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(1997). Eating and drinking as sources of metaphor in
English. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa (Special volume on Cognitive Linguistics) 6.2:213–231.
(ed.) (1998). The Linguistics of Giving. Studies in Typological Linguistics 36. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nolan, B., Rawoens, G. and Diedrichsen E. (2015). Causation, Permission, and Transfer. Argument realisation in
GET, take, PUT, give and LET verbs. [Studies in Language Companion Series, 167] John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Paris M.-C. (1982). Sens et don en Mandarin : une approche de
gei en sémantique grammaticale. Modèles linguistiques IV(2). 69–88.
Pawley, A. (2006). On the Argument Structure of Complex Predicates in Kalam, a
Language of the Trans New Guinea Family. 2. [URL]
Pawley, A., Bulmer J., Kias, P., Gi, I. and Majnep, S. (2011). A dictionary of Kalam with Ethnographic Notes (Pacific Linguistics, 630).
Pawley, A., and Hammarström, H. (2017). The Trans New Guinea family. B. Palmer (Ed.), Papuan Languages and Linguistics. 21–195. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Peyraube, A. (2015). Grammatical change in Sinitic languages and its relation
to typology. H. Chappell (ed.). Diversity in Sinitic Languages. Oxford University Press. 53–78.
Ramat, A. G., Mauri, C. and Molinelli, P. (2013). Synchrony and Diachrony, a dynamic interface. Studies in Language Companion Series 133, John Benjamins. Publishing Company.
Reesink, G. P. (2013). Expressing the give event in Papuan languages: A
preliminary survey. Linguistic Typology 17(2). 217–266.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 28–49.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects
of semantic structure. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usaged-based theory of language
acquisition. Harward University Press.
Tomasello, M., Brooks, E. and Stern, P. J. (1998). Learning to produce passive utterances through
discourse. First Language, 18. 223–237.
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example
of Subjectification in Semantic Change. Language, 65. 31–55.
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional changes. Oxford University Press.
Trousdale, G. (2013). Synchrony and Diachrony: A dynamic interface. Ramat, A. G., Mauri, C. & Molinelli, P. (eds.). Studies in Language Companion Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, vol. 133. 27–42.
Von Waldenfels, R. (2012). The grammaticalization of ‘give’ + infinitive. A comparative
study of Russian, Polish and Czech. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (2002). New reflections on grammaticalization. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Language Arts & Disciplines.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2025. 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.