Cover not available

In:Similative and Equative Constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective
Edited by Yvonne Treis and Martine Vanhove
[Typological Studies in Language 117] 2017
► pp. 33–78

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

Chapter 2
Toward a cognitive typology of like-expressions

Published online: 31 May 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.117.03sch
Abstract
From a typological point of view, expressions of likeness are marked for a seemingly heterogeneous set of corresponding linguistic representations, ranging for instance from locative-based case marking strategies to lexical expressions and constructional patterns. I argue that like-concepts represent stative or processual/dynamic transitive relational units and hence entail strong ‘verbal’ features. This aspect links the question of the conceptual background of like-concepts to the domain of word classes. Accordingly, the semantics of like-expressions is conditioned both by the underlying conceptual source domain and the syntactic role the expression (lexeme or morpheme) takes up in a like-relation. In this sense, the paper distinguishes intraclausal verbal patterns (she equals/is like a queen) from clause combining patterns that relate to event images (she swims like a fish < *she swims like a fish swims). In addition, like-concepts can show up as relational concepts within NPs or as adverbial elements. Such syntactically and in parts pragmatically controlled features have a strong impact on the semantic instantiation of like-concepts that by themselves form a subtype of projection strategies. In fact, like-concepts can be scaled according to the degree to which the domain of the other is mapped onto the identity of the referent. Such a scale may start from the following model: similar to Y> alike/equal to Y > become/changed to Y > temporarily be Y > be Y. Contrary to identification concepts, like-concepts do not signal the inclusion of a referential unit into a specific set or the referential specification of given ‘properties’. Rather, like-concepts are projection strategies that relate a referential unit to properties of another referential unit in a way that ‘disguises’ or ‘masks’ the trajectory unit with the help of properties typical for the landmark unit. This relates them to become-concepts (temporary transfiguration), motion (‘X moves into the region of Y thus acquiring properties of Y’) and imaging/imitation (‘X is the picture of Y’, ‘X mirrors Y’ etc.). In addition, disguising processes can be directly expressed by referring to the domain of gestalt/shape. This model is probably related to cultural practices of temporary transfiguration.
The chapter elaborates these conceptual source domains from the point of view of diachronic lexical typology. Data used to illustrate these domains are mainly taken from Indo-European languages supplemented by data from non-Indo-European, mainly Semitic, languages. Additionally, the findings are evaluated with the help of data stemming from basically two East Caucasian languages, namely Udi and its earlier relative Caucasian Albanian. The results of the second part of the paper elaborate the proposed (diachronic) semantic map of like-concepts that may serve as a preliminary template when searching for features of both Universal Cognitive Semantics and Cultural Linguistics with respect to the typology of like-concepts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. like-constructions
    • 2.1Basic patterns
    • 2.2The pattern ‘be(+adj)+like Y’
    • 2.3 like-verbs
    • 2.4 like-adjectives
    • 2.5Summary
  • 3.The cognitive semantics of like-concepts
  • 4. like-concepts in Udi and Caucasian Albanian: A case study
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbrevations and symbols
  • References
References (45)
References
Bežanov, Semjon. 1902. Gospoda Nashego Iisusa Xrista Svjatoe evangelie ot Matfeja, Marka, Luki i Ioanna na russkom i udinskom jazykax (The holly Gospel of our lord Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Russian and Udin languages). Tiflis: Izdanie Kavkazskago Učebnago Okruga.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bilalov, A. B. & Tagirov, A. A. 1987. Lezgi č’al (The Lezgian language). Maxačkala: Dagučpediz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brachman, Ronald J. & Schmolze, James G. 1985. An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science 9: 171–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bravmann, Max. 1977. Studies in Semitic Philology. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel. 2009. When is a linguistic metaphor a conceptual metaphor? In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics [Human Cognitive Processing 24], Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds), 127–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Reuse, Willem Joseph. 1994. Siberian Yupik Eskimo. The Language and its Contacts with Chukchi. Salt Lake City UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirr, Adolf. 1928. Udische Texte. Caucasica 5: 60–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feuerbach, Ludwig. 1965 [1841]. Das Wesen des Christentums, Werner Schuffenhauser (ed.), 2 Vols. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2010. Similitude: A conceptual category. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42 (2): 11–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardiner, Alan. 1966 [1957]. Egyptian Grammar, 3rd edn. London: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics. A Contribution to Historical Diachrony. Oxord: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Prospects for the past: Perspectives for diachronic cognitive semantics. In Historical Cognitive Linguistics, Margaret E. Winters, Heli Tissari & Kathryn Allan (eds), 33–356. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J., Landsberger, Benno & Oppenheim, A. Leo (eds). 1962. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vol. 16. Chicago & Glückstadt: Oriental Institute & Augustin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gippert, Jost, Schulze, Wolfgang, Aleksidze, Zaza & Mahé, Jean-Pierre. 2009. The Caucasian Albanian Palimsests of Mt. Sinai, 2 Vols. Turnhout: Brépols.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 211–242. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Buchholz, Oda. 1998. Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera (ed.), 277–334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. Word Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thom[as]. 1657. Elementa philosophica de cive. Amsterdam: L. & D. Elzevirii.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübschmann, Heinrich. 1972 [1897]. Armenische Grammatik. Erster Teil: Armenische Etymologie . Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jagersma, Abraham Hendrik. 2010. A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. <[URL]>
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1991. The origin of the Celtic comparative type OIr tressa, MW trech ‘stronger’. Die Sprache 34: 171–189.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, John Morris. 1913. Welsh Grammar: Historical and Comparative. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jung, Carl Gustav. 1976 [1933]. Die Archetypen und das kollektiv Unterbewusste, Lilly Jung-Merker & Elisabeth Rüf (eds). Freiburg im Breisgau: Walter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kečaari, Georgi. 2001. Orayin. Azəbaycan Dövlət Nəşriyyatı.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelsey, D. M. 2004 [1898]. Life and Public Services of Honorable William E. Gladstone. Containing a Full Account of the Most Celebrated Orator and Statesman of Modern Times. Whitefish MT: Kessinger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society, Charles W. Morris (ed.). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oppenheim, A. Leo & Reiner, Erica (eds). 1977. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vol. 10. Chicago IL: Oriental Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Berlin: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastier, François. 1999. Cognitive Semantics and diachronic semantics. The values and evolution of classes. In Historical Semantics and Cognition, Andreas Blank & Peter Koch (eds), 109–144. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulze, Ilona. 2014. Sprache als Fait culturel. Studien zur Emergenz, Motiviertheit und Systematizität des Lexikons des Minderico (Portugal). Hamburg: Kovač.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 1998. Person, Klasse, Kongruenz, 2 Vols. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Prolegomenon zu einer Kognitiven Typologie der sprachlichen Symbolisierung von Ursache/Wirkung-Konzeptualisierungen. Slowakische Zeitschrift für Germanistik 3 (2): 7–23.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The emergence of diathesis markers from motion concepts. In Metaphor and Metonomy across Time and Cultures Perspectives on the Sociohistorical Linguistics of Figurative Language, Javier E. Díaz-Vera (ed.), 171–223. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang & Sallaberger, Walter. 2007. Grammatische Relationen im Sumerischen. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 2007 (2): 163–214.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2006. The Icelandic noun phrase: Central traits. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 121: 193–236. <[URL]> (7 May 2016).
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2): 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 2004. De la grammaticalisation de ‘comme’ (comparative) en arabe. In Approaches to Arabic Dialects. Collection of Articles Presented to Manfred Woidich on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Marine Haak, Rudolf de Jong & Kees Versteegh (eds), 309–328. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1972. Some features of basic comparative constructions. Working Papers on Language Universals (Stanford) 9: 117–162.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasmer, Max (Maks Fasmer). 1986. Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. (Etymological dictionary of the Russian language), Perevod c Nem. O. N. Trubačeva, Vol. 1. Moskva: Progress.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wehr, Hans. 1979. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, J. Milton Cowan (ed.), 4th edn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals: Primes and Universals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wright, William. 1996 [1862]. A Grammar of the Arabic Language: Translated from the German of Caspari and Edited with Numerous Additions and Corrections, Vol. 2, 3rd edn. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ǯeiranišvili, Evgeni. 1971. Udiuri ena. Gramat’ik’a, krestomat’ia, leksik’oni. Tbilisi: Tbilisi univ. gamomcemloba.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Olguin Martinez, Jesus & Stefan Th. Gries
2025. The similative-pretence alternating pair and filler-slot relations. Constructions and Frames 17:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Olguín Martínez, Jesús & Stefan Th. Gries
2025. Similative-pretence constructions in language contact situations. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 12:2 ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
Sanfelici, Emanuela & Sira Rodeghiero
2024. From comparative to causal relations: the case of siccome ‘because’ in the history of Italian. Linguistics Vanguard DOI logo
Fishman, Alon
2020. English similarity predicates construe particular dimensions of similarity. Cognitive Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 453 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 december 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue