Cover not available
Part of
Causation, Permission, and Transfer: Argument realisation in GET, TAKE, PUT, GIVE and LET verbs
Edited by Brian Nolan, Gudrun Rawoens and Elke Diedrichsen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 167] 2015
► pp. 147–175

How Europeans GIVE

A two-layered semantic typology based on two parallel corpora

| F.R.S.-FNRS – Université catholique de Louvain
This study investigates how ten European languages from the Germanic, Romance and Slavic groups divide the semantic space of giving. The study is based on exemplars of events of giving extracted from two very different parallel corpora: Bible translations and film subtitles. This probabilistic exemplar-based approach allows for integration of the postclassical categorization models and semantic typology. The analyses show that there was more cross-linguistic variation in verbalization of GIVE in the subtitles than in the Bible translations, and also more cross-linguistic variation at the level of specific verbs than at the level of more abstract constructions. Moreover, there were significant associations between the constructional and lexical ways of expressing GIVE in all languages in the sample. Finally, the way these ten languages cut the semantic space of GIVE conforms to the genetic relationships between them only at the level of specific verbs, but not at the more abstract and iconic constructional level of categorization.
Published online: 14 January 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.167.05lev
References (33)
References
Berlin, Brent & Kay, Paul. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Gerlof Bouma, Irene Kramer & Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2009. The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames 1: 190–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael & Forker, Diana. 2009. Reconstruction of morphosyntactic function: Non-spatial usage of spatial case marking in Tsezic. Language 85(3): 588–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1973. The semantics of giving. In The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages, Maurice Gross, Morris Halle & Marcel-P. Schützenberger (eds), 205–223. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick & Ferreira-Junior, Fernando G. 2009. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 188–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Semantic typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 504–533. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Falissard, Bruno. 2012. psy: Various procedures used in psychometry. R package version 1.1. <[URL]> (28 April 2014).
Furrer, Reinhard, Nychka, Douglas & Sain, Stephan. 2013. fields: Tools for spatial data. R package version 6.8. <[URL]> (28 April 2014)
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1988. Where does prototypicality come from? In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50], Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), 207–229. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, Jan-Ola Östman & Miriam Fried (eds), 17–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhiser, Devin & Sethuraman, Nitya. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 14(3): 289–316.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. Ditransitive constructions: The verb “Give.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. <[URL]> (7 November 2013).Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo A.J.M. 1998. Giving in Dutch: An intra-lexematical and inter-lexematical description. In The Linguistics of Giving [Typological Studies in Language 36], John Newman (ed.), 267–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, Jan & Mair, Patrick. 2009. Multidimensional Scaling Using Majorization: SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software 31(3): 1–30. <[URL]> (28 April 2014).Google Scholar
Maechler, Martin, Rousseeuw, Peter, Struyf, Anja, Hubert, Mia & Hornik, Kurt. 2013. cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 1.14.4.
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions. A Comparative Handbook, Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds), 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mayer, Thomas & Cysouw, Michael. 2014. Creating a massively parallel Bible corpus. Proceedings of LREC 2014, Reykjavik , 26–31 May 2014.
Meyer, David, Zeileis, Achim & Hornik, Kurt. 2012. vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data. R package version 1.2–13. <[URL]> (28 April 2014)
Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nerlove, Sarah & Romney, Kimball. 1967. Sibling terminology and cross-sex behaviour. American Anthropologist 69: 179–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 1998a. The Linguistics of Giving [Typlogical Studies in Language 36]. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998b. The origin of the German es gibt construction. In Newman (ed.), 307–325.Google Scholar
Och, Franz J. & Ney, Hermann. 2003. A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Computational Linguistics 29(1): 19–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <[URL]> (28 April 2014).
Roberts, John R. 1998. GIVE in Amele. In Newman (ed.), 1–33.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan T. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, Schalley, Ewa & Nuyts, Jan. 2005. Epistemic possibility in a Slavonic parallel corpus: A pilot study. In Modality in Slavonic Languages. New Perspectives, Björn Hansen & Petr Karlik (eds), 201–217. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
de Vries, Lourens. 2009. Some remarks on the use of Bible translations as parallel texts in linguistic research. STUF – Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(2): 148–157.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2010. Similarity semantics and building probabilistic semantic maps from parallel texts. Linguistic Discovery 8(1): 331–371.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Cysouw, Michael. 2012. Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50(3): 671–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Waldenfels, Ruprecht. 2012. The Grammaticalization of “give” + Infinitive: A Comparative Study of Russian, Polish and Czech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

David, Oana
2021. Chapter 1. Metaphor meets grammar in a radial network of give verbs in Romance. In GiveConstructions across Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 29], ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Levshina, Natalia
2016. Verbs of letting in Germanic and Romance languages. Languages in Contrast 16:1 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.