Cover not available
Part of
Give Constructions across Languages
Edited by Myriam Bouveret
[Constructional Approaches to Language 29] 2021
► pp. 25–54

Chapter 1
Metaphor meets grammar in a radial network of give verbs in Romance

| University of California, Merced
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.
Keywords: diachrony, grammaticalization chain, lexicalization, constructionalization, language innovation, polysemy, polyfunctionality
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
Published online: 10 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.29.01dav
References (36)
References
Bossong, G. (1991). Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Kibbee & D. Wanner (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics (pp. 143–170). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (1998). give, HAVE, and take in Slavic. Typological Studies in Language, 36, 249–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1965). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI, Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. (Ed.). (1997). The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Rangkupan, S. (2007). The syntax and semantics of Serial Verb Constructions in Thai. Language and Linguistics, 8(1), 193–234.Google Scholar
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
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
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
Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in frammar and usage. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. S. (2007). Grammar in metaphor: A Construction Grammar account of metaphoric language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
(2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics volume I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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

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.