Chapter 1
Metaphor meets grammar in a radial network of
give verbs in Romance
Verbs of giving exhibit similar semantics across languages, even when
used to express something other than the physical act of
transferring an object from a giver to a recipient. Existing studies
of various dimensions of give verbs in Germanic (Joseph 2000), Slavic
(Janda 1998, von
Waldenfels 2015) and other language families have identified some
commonalities across frame structures and grammatical patterns.
However, questions remain as to the delineation of different senses,
and the relationship among those senses, especially considering that
most uses of give verbs in common parlance do not refer to
concrete transfer scenarios.
I suggest that a radial polysemy network for senses of give in their
constructional contexts, complete with metaphoric extensions that
involve high-level universally-available primary metaphors, can
account for common yet often puzzling senses. (Consider the use of
Romanian give in a da de gol (to give
someone away, to betray), and Spanish dar in
dar de sí (to become loose)).
The semantics of verbs of giving depends in large part on the
semantics of the argument structure construction co-occurring with
the verb. In this paper, an account of give verbs
in Romance is offered, with a particular focus on a
da in Romanian, dar in Spanish, and
donner in French. I put forth a radial network
account, starting with a core sense grounded in the Object Transfer
scenario, and extending into metonymic and metaphoric senses. A
detailed analysis of constructionally-motivated metaphoric senses
reveals that metaphor is built into the argument structure
construction for many idiomatic uses of give.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Prototype and extensions
- 3.Metaphoric constructions expressing physical scenes
- 3.1Metaphoric duality in the grammar of causation
- 4.
Metaphoric senses in cognition, emotion,
communication, and self domains
- 5.
Extending CEMs to LEMs
- 6.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References (36)
References
Bouveret, M., & Sweetser, E. E. (2009). Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions, and
grammar. In I. Kwon, H. Pritchett, & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35, 49–59. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bruening, B. (2016). Light verbs are just regular
verbs. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Penn Linguistics
Conference, Vol. 22.1, (pp. 51–60). University of Pennsylvania.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brugman, C. M. (1988). The syntax and semantics of HAVE and its
complements. PhD dissertation, University of California Berkeley.
Brugman, C. M. (2001). Light verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences, 23(4–5), 551–578. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brugman, C. M., & Lakoff, G. (2006). Radial network: Cognitive topology and lexical
networks. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 109–139). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butt, M. (2010). The light verb jungle: Still hacking
away. In M. Amberber, B. Baker, & M. Harvey (Eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on
event structure (pp. 48–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deignan, A. (2006). The grammar of linguistic
metaphors. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and
metonymy (pp. 106–122). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dodge, E. K., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural
grounding. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive
linguistics (pp. 57–91). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of
language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Beitel, D. A., Harrington, M., & Sanders, P. E. (1994). Taking a stand on the meanings of stand: Bodily
experience as motivation for polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 11, 231–251. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to
argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jespersen, O. (1965). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part
VI, Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Joseph, B. D. (2000). What gives with es gibt?
Typological and comparative perspectives on existentials in
German, Germanic, and Indo-European. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 12(2), 187–200. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal
about the mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. (1993). The metaphor system and its role in
grammar. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society Vol. 29.2 (pp. 217–242).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levshina, N. (2015). How Europeans give: A two-layered
semantic typology based on two parallel
corpora. In B. Nolan, G. Rawoens, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Causation, permission, and transfer: Argument
realisation in GET, take, PUT, give, and
LET verbs (pp. 147–175). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Newman, J. (1996). Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Núñez, R., & Sweetser, E. E. (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence
from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic
comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 401–450. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rangkupan, S. (2007). The syntax and semantics of Serial Verb
Constructions in Thai. Language and Linguistics, 8(1), 193–234.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The Conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in
our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rychlý, P. (2008). A lexicographer-friendly association
score. In P. Sojka & A. Horák (Eds.), Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural
Language Processing (RASLAN 2008) (pp. 6–9). Brno: Masaryk University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English
and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and
meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford: Clarendon Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stein, G. (1991). The phrasal verb type “to have a look” in Modern
English. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 1, 1–30. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sullivan, K. S. (2007). Grammar in metaphor: A Construction Grammar account of
metaphoric language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics volume I: Concept
structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks:
The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724–765. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes,
embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wittenberg, E., Jackendoff, R., Kuperberg, G., Paczynski, M., Snedeker, J., Wiese, H., & Wittenberg, E. (2014a). The processing and representation of light verb
constructions. In A. Bachrach, I. Roy, & L. Stockall (Eds.), Structuring the Argument: Multidisciplinary research on
verb argument structure (p. 61–80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wittenberg, E., Paczynski, M., Wiese, H., Jackendoff, R., & Kuperberg, G. (2014b). The difference between “giving a rose” and
“giving a kiss”: Sustained neural activity to the light verb
construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 73(1), 31–42. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Guajardo, Gustavo
2021.
Co-occurrence Strength and Transitivity Effects on Spanish Clitic Case Variation With Reverse-Psychological Predicates.
Frontiers in Psychology 12
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.