Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 36:4 (2019) ► pp.463–508

Argument structure, conceptual metaphor and semantic change

How to succeed in Indo-European without really trying

 | Ghent University
 | Ghent University | Leiden University
 | Ghent University
 | Ghent University | Aberystwyth University
 | Ghent University
In contrast to grammaticalization studies of lexical verbs changing into auxiliaries, the realm of semantic changes associated with lexical verbs is an understudied area of historical semantics. We concentrate on the emergence of verbs of success from more semantically concrete verbs, uncovering six conceptual metaphors which all co-occur with non-canonical encoding of subjects in Indo-European. Careful scrutiny of the relevant data reveals a semantic development most certainly inherited from Indo-European; hence, we reconstruct a dat-‘succeeds’ construction at different levels of schematicity for Proto-Indo-European, including a novel reconstruction of a conceptual metaphor, success is motion forward, and the mapping between this metaphor and the verb-class-specific argument structure construction. Hence, this article offers a systematic analysis of regularity in semantic change, highlighting the importance of predicate and argument structure for lexical semantic developments.
Keywords: verbal semantics, success verbs, semantic change, conceptual metaphors, argument structure, oblique subject construction, syntactic reconstruction, Germanic, Indo-European
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The dative subject construction
  • 3.Success in Germanic
    • 3.1(Preverb +) Motion (+ Adverb)
    • 3.2Other types of motion conceptualized as success
  • 4.Success in Indo-European
  • 5.Metaphors for success
  • 6.Reconstruction
    • 6.1Proto-Germanic
    • 6.2Proto-Indo-European
  • 7.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 18 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.00014.bar
References (135)
References
Allen, Cynthia L. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like . Journal of Linguistics 221. 375–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
ASD = An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. 1966. Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth, edited and enlarged by T. Northcote Toller. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1999. Case and argument structure of some loan verbs in 15th century Icelandic. In Inger Haskå & Carin Sandqvist (eds.), Alla tiders språk. En Vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson november 1999, 9–23. (Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 55). Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk [Department of Scandinavian Languages].Google Scholar
. 2000. Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 371. 25–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. The role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic inchoative. In Arthur Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson & Åke Viberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian conference of linguistics 2000, 127–137. Lund: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2001b. Case in Icelandic – A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. (Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 57). Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology, 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua 121(1). 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 321 (2006). 467–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Carlee Arnett, Stephen Mark Carey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Gard B. Jenset, Guus Kroonen & Adam Oberlin. 2016. Dative subjects in Germanic: A computational analysis of lexical semantic verb classes across time and space. STUF: Language Typology and Universals 69(1). 49–84.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The story of ‘Woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4). 321–377.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39(3). 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. How to identify cognates in syntax: Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Lujan (eds.), Reconstructing syntax. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea. 2015. Diachronic construction grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Leonid Kulikov, Roland A. Pooth & Peter Alexander Kerkhof. Forthcoming. Oblique anticausatives: A morphosyntactic isogloss in Indo-European. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics.
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1): 28–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara McGillivray. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3). 511–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður. 2014. Oblique anticausative in Lithuanian: A comparative approach. Baltistica XLIX(1). 15–39.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bréal, Michel. 1900. Semantics. Studies in the science of meaning. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed. 2011. The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology 21 (3–4). 545–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 2000. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society 231. 65–85.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calude, Andreea S. & Mark Pagel. 2011. How do we use language? Shared patterns in the frequency of word use across 17 world languages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 3661. 1101–1107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd. 2017. The syntax of Tocharian. In Jared Klein, Brian Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, Vol. 31 1352–1364. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca & William S. Y. Wang. 1986. Spatial distance and lexical replacement. Language 62(1). 38–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, Bethany J. & Brian D. Joseph. 2016. On the relationship between argument structure change and semantic change. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 1(26). 1–11.Google Scholar
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Linguistic diversity in the Caucasus. Annual Review of Anthropology 371. 131–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conti, Luz. 2008. Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt, Historische Sprachforschung 1211. 94–113.Google Scholar
. 2009. Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung 1221. 182–207.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2008. On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-)auxiliaries in Spanish. In Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 77–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, Willam. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena. 2014a. Subjecthood and non-canonical case marking: A case study on modal verbs in Ancient Greek. Paper presented at the EVALISA/ContraGram Workshop on Non-Canonical Subjects, Ghent, March 2014.
. 2014b. Accusative subjects in Avestan: ‘Errors’ or noncanonically marked arguments. Indo-Iranian Journal 57(3). 223–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2017. Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language: An alternative approach to the gerundive + “dative of agent” construction in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 1221. 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Where does the modality of Ancient Greek modal verbs come from? The relation between modality and oblique case marking. Journal of Greek Linguistics 18(1). 45–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
David, Oana Alexandra. 2016. Metaphor in the grammar of argument realization. University of California, Berkeley, Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2006. Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81(4). 339–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derksen, Rick. 2015. Etymological dictionary of the Baltic inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 13). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Ilse Wischer. 2013. Markers of futurity in Old High German and Old English: A comparative corpus-based study. In Gabriele Diewald, Leena Kahlas-Tarkka & Ilse Wischer (eds.), Comparative studies in Early Germanic languages: With a focus on verbal categories, 195–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EWA = 2014. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Bd. 51, ed. by Lloyd, Albert L. & Rosemarie Lühr. Göttingen, Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2000. Dative vs. Nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 81. 27–44.Google Scholar
. 2002. Changes in subject case marking in Icelandic. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 196–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4). 824–881. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 1997. Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Old Swedish experiencer verbs]. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara. 2014. Experiential constructions in Latin. Brill: Leiden. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 641. 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1935. The Technique of semantics. Transactions of the Philological Society 34(1). 36–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susann. 2010. Word order change as a source of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1983. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2003. An approach to semantic change. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 648–666. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2011. Social ecology and language history in the Northern Vanuatu Linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(2). 175–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2015. Irregular morphology in regular syntactic patterns: A case of constructional re-alignment. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 141–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2005. Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2018. The diachrony of verb meaning: Aspect and argument structure. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Metaphors as resource for the conceptualization and expression of emotion. In Khurshid Ahmad (ed.), Affective computing and sentiment analysis: Emotion, metaphor and terminology, 13–25. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions:A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm. 1854–1971. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2007. Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic SEEM-verbs. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1): 129–150.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, John Richard Clark. 1916. A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary for the use of students. 2nd edn. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H. 1990. Oblique subjects in Sanskrit? In M. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 119–139. Stanford: CSLI Publication.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihrig, Roscoe Myrl. 1916. The semantic development of words for “walk, run” in the Germanic languages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 731. 534–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2005. Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2). 223–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 7–23. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard. 2014. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. 6th edn. Available at [URL]
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2011. Auxiliaries and grammaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 547–558. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2009. Evolution of case systems. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 439–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. The Vedic -ya-presents: Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 19). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Le Mair, Esther, Cynthia A. Johnson, Michael Frotscher, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2017. Position as a behavioral property of subjects: The case of Old Irish. Indogermanische Forschungen 1221. 111–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LIV = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. 2001. Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, und Brigitte Schirmer. 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya. 2015. Epistemic/evidential markers of the type verb + complementizer: Some parallels from English and Romance. In Andrew Smith, Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken & Michael J. Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia lux: Anatolian and Indo European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 249–264. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Martín Arista, Javier. 2012. The Old English prefix ge-: A panchronic reappraisal. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32(4). 411–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986–1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Bd. I–II1. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2009. Sign-based construction grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 155–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013. Sign-based construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2001. Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mottausch, Karl-Heinz. 1998. “Gehen” und “Stehen” im Germanischen: Versuch einer Synthese. Historische Sprachforschung 1111, bd. I1. 134–162.Google Scholar
Nicholls, Diane. 2004. What we talk about when we talk about success and failure. MED magazine: The monthly webzine of the Macmillan English dictionaries 161 (Feb). URL: [URL]
OED = Oxford English dictionary. Available at [URL]
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2011. Sur l’histoire des cas en tokharien. In Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer & Dennis Pardee (eds.), Grammatical case in the languages of the Middle East and Europe, 383–398. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bd. 11. Bern, Munich: Francke.Google Scholar
Pooth, Roland, Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Leonid Kulikov & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2019. The origin of non-canonical case marking of subjects in Proto-Indo-European: Accusative, ergative, or semantic alignment. Indogermanische Forschungen 1241: 245–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Purtscher, Fridolin. 1902. Die untrennbaren Partikeln im althochdeutschen Tatian. Chur: J. Casanova.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter. 1996. Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In Eugene H. Casad (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reznikova, Tatiana, Ekaterina Rakhilina & Anastasia A. Bonch-Osmolovskaya. 2012. Towards a typology of pain predicates. Linguistics 50(3). 421–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1995. Old Icelandic: A non-configurational language? NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 261. 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sanders, Willy. 1965. Glück: Zur Herkunft und Bedeutungsentwicklung eines mittelalterlichen Schicksalsbegriffs (Niederdeutsche Studien 13). Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
Schubert, Thomas W., Sven Waldzus & Steffen R. Giessner. 2009. Control over the association of power and size. Social Cognition 27(1). 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schützeichel, Rudolf. 2012. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smitherman, Thomas. 2012. Metaphors expressed by argument marking patterns: An historical and typological view. Paper presented at Hitches in Historical Linguistics , Bergen, February 22–23, 2012.
Sturtevant, Edgar Howard. 1917. Linguistic change: An introduction to the historical study of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2001. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsepeleva, Valentina. 2015. Tracing changes in argument structures of dative subject predicates in Old Russian and Modern Russian. University of Bergen M.A. Thesis.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen. 1951. The principles of semantics. Glasgow: Jackson.Google Scholar
. 1962. Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1983. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21(1). 123–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2016. The morphosyntax of experience predicates in Tocharian. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie Orientale (CLAO) 451. 26–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waite, Maurice. 2009. Oxford thesaurus of English. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica 30(1). 95–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction in Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 2001. Verbs of affect from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. In Nicole Dehé & Anja Wanner (eds.), Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs, 219–248. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse & Mechthild Habermann. 2004. Der Gebrauch von Präfixverben zum Ausdruck von Aspekt/Aktionsart im Altenglischen und Althochdeutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 32(2). 262–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
WNT = Woordenboek der nederlandsche taal. 1882–2001. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Wundt, Wilhelm Max. 1904. Völkerpsychologie: eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Band 1. Die Sprache. 2nd edn. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad A. 2006. A new vision for Israeli Hebrew: Theoretical and practical implications of analyzing Israel’s main language as a semi-engineered Semito-European hybrid language. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 5(1). 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Hybridity versus revivability: Multiple causation, forms and patterns. Journal of Language Contact 2(2). 40–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Gildea, Spike & Jóhanna Barðdal
2023. From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar. Studies in Language 47:4 ► pp. 743 ff. DOI logo
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Daniels, Don
2021. The issue of arbitrariness in syntactic reconstruction. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s2 ► pp. 393 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 september 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.