Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 241–275

Chapter 8
Motivation behind the extended senses of the Polish ditransitive construction

| Pedagogical University of Cracow
This chapter, drawing on Goldberg’s (1992/2006, 1995, 2002) and Croft’s (2003) analyses of the English ditransitive construction, employs Geeraerts’ (1998/2006) multidimensional model of constructional polysemy. Its main aim is to characterize the family of ditransitive expressions in Polish and to identify the cognitive mechanisms that motivate them. Relying on the groundwork laid by Rudzka-Ostyn’s (1996), Dąbrowska’s (1997), and Fried’s (1999, 2004, 2011) studies of the Polish and Czech dative case, the chapter underscores the semantic contribution of overt case marking on the first object as the key factor licensing the wider semantic range of the Polish pattern compared to the English construction, notably its application to the expression of events of ‘pure’ benefaction, malefaction, and reversed transfer.
Keywords: constructional polysemy, dative case, multidimensional model
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The notion of ‘construction’
    • 1.2The ditransitive construction
    • 1.3The aims and structure of the present analysis
  • 2.The English ditransitive construction in the radial set model and the multidimensional model of constructional semantics
    • 2.1Adele Goldberg’s radial network
    • 2.2Competing monosemous constructional analyses of the English ditransitive
    • 2.3The missing links in the radial set and monosemous accounts of the English ditransitive construction
    • 2.4The multidimensional approach to constructional polysemy
  • 3.The anatomy of the Polish family of ditransitive constructions
    • 3.1The prototype
    • 3.2Extensions by metonymy: The ‘causality’ dimension
      • 3.2.1Extension from causation of transfer to causation of object motion resulting in possessional transfer
      • 3.2.2Extension to action rendering the direct object referent available for transfer or use
        • 3.2.2.1Action or communicative act leading to future transfer
        • 3.2.2.2Enablement of transfer or use
        • 3.2.2.3Creation, preparation or obtainment with a view to subsequent transfer
      • 3.2.3Extension to attitude towards existing possessional relationship and/or envisaged transfer
        • 3.2.3.1Negative attitude
        • 3.2.3.2Positive attitude
    • 3.3Extensions by metaphor: The nature of the transferred entity
      • 3.3.1Extensions from a material to an abstract entity of transfer (expressed as the second object argument of the ditransitive syntactic frame)
        • 3.3.1.1The transferred entity is a message in communication
        • 3.3.1.2The transferred entity is a sensory perception
        • 3.3.1.3The transferred entity is an effect of action intentionally directed at the dative referent
        • 3.3.1.4The transferred entity is a mental state caused for the dative referent
      • 3.3.2The transferred entity is an effect of the Agent’s action on the direct object referent (not overtly expressed in the construction’s syntactic frame)
    • 3.4Extensions by perspectival switching: Shifts in the direction and/or polarity of transfer
      • 3.4.1Change in the direction of transfer
        • 3.4.1.1Actual reversed transfer (removal of possessum from the dative’s sphere of control)
        • 3.4.1.2Envisaged reversed transfer
        • 3.4.1.3Bidirectional transfer
      • 3.4.2Shift in polarity: Prevented transfer
  • 4.The network of dative variants occurring in the Polish ditransitive construction
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.09pas
References (57)
References
Baicchi, A. 2011. Metaphoric motivation in grammatical structure: The caused-motion construction from the perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (149–170). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2013. Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield & Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar
Boas, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2008. Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (11–36). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boryś, W. 2005. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [An Etymological Dictionary of Polish]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.Google Scholar
Brückner, A. 1996/1927. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [An etymological dictionary of Polish]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.Google Scholar
Colleman, T. 2006. De Nederlandse datiefalternantie. Een constructioneel en corpusgebaseerd onderzoek. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Ghent University. [URL]
2010. The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’ constructions: A case study of English, German, French and Dutch. In F. Zúniga, & S. Kittila (Eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies [Typological Studies in Language 92] (219–243). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B. 2008. Accounting for Ditransitive constructions with envy and forgive . Functions of Language, 15(2), 187–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Caused motion? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 1994. Some English equivalents of Polish dative constructions. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 29, 105–121.Google Scholar
1997. Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative [Cognitive Linguistics Research 9]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 1998. Blending as a central process of grammar. Expanded web version. [URL]
Fried, M. 1999a. From interest to ownership: a constructional view of external possessors. In D. L. Payne, & I. Barshi (Eds.), External possession constructions (473–504). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999b. The ‘free’ datives in Czech as a linking problem. In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats, & C. Vakareliyska (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, 7, 145–166. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
2004. Predicate semantics and event construal in Czech case marking. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective (87–119). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The notion of affectedness in expressing interpersonal functions. In M. Grygiel, & L. A. Janda (Eds.), Slavic linguistics in a cognitive framework (121–143). Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (11–86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 1998/2006. The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van Langendonck & W. Van Belle (Eds.), The dative, II (185–210). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Reprinted in D. Geeraerts. 2006. Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics (175–197). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1992/2006. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English Ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74. Reprinted in D. Geeraerts (Ed.). 2006. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (401–437). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65(2), 203–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Clancy, S. J. 2006. The case book for Czech. Bloomington IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Townsend, C. E. 2002. Czech. Slavic and Eurasian Language Resource Centre (SEELRC). [URL]
Kay, P. 2005. Argument structure construction and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried, & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (71–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempf, Z. 1978. Próba teorii przypadków. Część I. [An attempt at a theory of cases. Part I] Opole: Opolskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk.Google Scholar
2007. Próba teorii przypadków. Część II. [An attempt at a theory of cases. Part II] Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.Google Scholar
Kittilä, S., & Zúňiga, F. 2010. Introduction: benefaction and malefaction from a cross-linguistic perspective. In F. Zúňiga, & S. Kittilä (Eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies [Typological Studies in Language 92] (1–28). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to the Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 2011. Verb sensitivity and argument realization in three-participant constructions: A crosslinguistic perspective. Handout. Conference on referential hierarchies in three-participant constructions, Lancaster University, May 20–22, 2011. [URL]
Malchukov, A. 2010. Analyzing semantic maps: A multifactorial approach. Linguistic Discovery, 81(1), 176–198.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B. 2007. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. First draft available at: [URL]
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paszenda, J. 2014. English and Polish ditransitive constructions in contrast: A construction grammar approach. In M. Kuźniak, A. Libura, & M. Szawerna (Eds.), From conceptual metaphor theory to cognitive ethnolinguistics: Patterns of imagery in language [Studies in Language, Culture and Society 3] (141–162). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. 2004. Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (1–46). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167.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 (284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. 1996. The Polish dative. In W. Van Belle, & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative. Vol. I: Descriptive studies (341–394). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2013. Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in RRG grammars [Studies in Language Series]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. 2001. High-level metonymy and linguistic structure. [URL]
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. 2011. Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. 2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (33–51). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. 2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and symbol, 26, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1994. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20(1), 461–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. 2013. Local pronouns in ditransitive scenarios: Corpus perspectives from English and Polish. Linguistics, 51, 25–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. S. 2007. Grammar in metaphor: A construction grammar account of metaphoric language. Ph. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. [URL]
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. 1999. A mechanism of creativity. Poetics Today, 20(3), 397–418.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr., & LaPolla, R. J. 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning and function [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The semantics of grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Guerrero Medina, Pilar
2020. Meaning construction and motivation in the English benefactive double object construction. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 94 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Конструкции с опорным глаголом в русском и итальянском языках / Support Verb Constructions. A Russian-Italian Contrastive Analysis [Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici, 49], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.