Cover not available

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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Embodied constructions

The encoding of emotions in Ancient Greek

 | University of Pavia
Published online: 15 November 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00205.lur
Abstract
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.
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
  • References
References (73)
References
Aldai, G., & Wichmann, S. (2018). Statistical observations on hierarchies of transitivity. Folia Linguistica, 52(2), 249–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andreasen, N. J., & Powers, P. S. (1975). Creativity and psychosis: An examination of conceptual style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32(1), 70–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, A., & Tabakowska, E. (Eds.). (1998). Speaking of emotions conceptualisation and expression. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beekes, R., & van Beek, L. (2010). Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blume, K. (1998). A contrastive analysis of interaction verbs with dative complements. Linguistics, 36(2), 253–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cairns, D. L. (1993). Aidôs: The psychology and ethics of honour and shame in ancient Greek literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chantraine, P. (1973). Morphologie historique du Grec. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1977). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). Grammaire Homérique II: Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Sousa, R. (1987). The rationality of emotion. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Why think? Evolution and the rational mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delbrück, B. (1911). Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Teubner.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faucher, L., & Tappolet, C. (2002). Fear and the focus of attention. Consciousness and Emotion, 3(2), 105–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, N. (1992). Hybris: a study in the values of honour and shame in ancient Greece. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In E. Ashby Plant & P. G. Devine (Eds.), Advances on Experimental Social Psychology, 471, 1–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 111, 330–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harkins, J., & Wierzbicka, A. (Eds). (2001). Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). Ditransitive constructions (January 2015). Annual Review of Linguistics, 1(1), 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Havers, W. (1911). Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Humbert, J. (1986). Syntaxe Grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittilä, S. (2002). Transitivity: Towards a comprehensive typology. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). The anomaly of the verb “give” explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics, 44(3), 569–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Emotion concepts. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Ten lectures on figurative meaning-making: The role of body and context. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lavidas, N. (2009). Transitivity alternations in diachrony. Changes in argument structure and voice morphology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The history of the Greek preposition metá: From polysemy to the creation of homonyms. Glotta, 811, 130–159.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Experiential verbs in Homeric Greek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(forthcoming). Voice and transitivity with perception verbs in Ancient Greek. Forthcoming in Indogermanische Forschungen 1301 (2025).Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mette, H. J. (1961). ‘Schauen’ und ‘Staunen’. Glotta, 391, 49–71.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Næss, Å. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napoli, M. (2010). The case for the partitive case: The contribution of Ancient Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108(1), 15–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niemeyer, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (1997). The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noonan, M. (2007). Complementation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 52–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stolz, Th. (1997). Some instruments are really good companions — some are not: On syncretism and the typology of comitatives and instrumentals. Theoretical Linguistics, 231, 113–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Comitatives vs. instrumentals vs. agents. In W. Bisang (Ed.), Aspects of typology and universals (pp. 153–174). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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, 531, 53–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stolz, Th., Stroh, C., & Urdze, A. (2013). Comitatives and Instrumentals. In M. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2024-03-17.)
Tsunoda, T. (1981). Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics, 191, 389–438.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Remarks on transitivity. Journal of linguistic, 211, 385–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhoeven, E. (2007). Experiential constructions in Yucatec Maya. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture, and cognition. Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue