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. 227–252

GIVE an its arguments in Bohairic Coptic

| University of Amsterdam
The subject of this chapter is the competition between two prepositional markers of the Recipient, n- (the dedicated ‘dative’ marker) and e- (basically a marker of the allative), as used with the verb ti ‘give’ and some of its derivates, especially performative verbs, in Bohairic Coptic. The preposition n-/na= appears to be appropriate when the Agent obtains control over the Recipient’s personal sphere (potency, volition, awareness or face) by a transfer of material or symbolic goods or by communicative acts. The preposition e-/ero= can appear when the Recipient’s personal sphere is not accessible for the Agent’s control or when the Agent provokes externally observable reactions of the Recipient without necessarily controlling his or her personal sphere.
Published online: 14 January 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.167.08zak
References (55)
References
Aristar, Anthony Rodriguez. 1997. Marking and hierarchy: Types and grammaticalization of case markers. Studies in Language 21(2): 313–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca & Kádár, Dániel Z. (eds). 2011. Politeness across Cultures. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmilian.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977 [1972]. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: CUP. Originally published as Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précédé de trois études d’ethnologie kabyle. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1972. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power, edited and introduced by John B. Thompson. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Peter. 1992. Power and persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. 
Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Caner, Daniel E. 2013. Alms, blessings, offerings: the repertoire of Christian gifts in early Byzantium. In The gift in Antiquity [Ancient world: comparative histories], Michael L. Satlow (ed), 25–44. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Company Company, Conceptión. 2001. Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in Language 25(1): 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 2013. Human Themes in Spanish ditransitive constructions. In Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 37–52. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole. 2002. A construction grammar approach to transitivity in Spanish. In The Nominative & Accusative and their Counterparts [Case and Grammatial Relations across Languages 4], Kristin Davidse & Béatrice Lamiroy (eds), 81–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole & Cornillie, Bert (eds). 2007. On Interpreting Constructions Schemas: from Action and Motion to Transitivity and Causality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Kees Hengeveld, Vols. 1–2. Berlin: 
Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halevy, Rivka. 2007. Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in Hebrew: Cross-language comparison with English, German and Spanish. In Delbecque & Cornillie (eds), 61–101.
Heine, Bernd. 2009. Grammaticalization of cases. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 458–469.
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14(1): 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyvernat, Henri. 1977 [1886]. Les Actes des martyrs de l’Égypte. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1977.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. The woman showed the baby to her sister: On resolving humanness-driven ambiguity in ditransitives. In Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 291–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. On the encoding of transitivity-related features on the indirect objects. Functions of Language 14: 149–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Animacy effects on differential goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2): 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Ylikoski, Jussi. 2011. Remarks on the coding of goal, recipient and vicinal goal in European Uralic. In Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 99], Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds), 27–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Layton, Bentley. 2004. A Coptic Grammar: With Chrestomathy and Glossary; Sahidic Dialect, 2nd edn, revised and expanded. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio. 2001. From ancient Egyptian to Coptic. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20], Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1742–1761. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2004. Egyptian and Coptic. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, Roger D. Woodard (ed.), 160–217. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio & Müller, Matthias. 2012. Ancient Egyptian and Coptic. In The Afroasiatic Languages, Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay (eds), 102–144. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Sylvia. 2011. The coding of spatial relations with human landmarks: From Latin to Romance. In Kittilä, Västi & Ylikoski (eds), 209–234.
Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
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: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mallon, Alexis. 1956. Grammaire copte: Bibliographie, chrestomathie et vocabulaire, 4me éd., revue par Michel Malinine. Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique.Google Scholar
Mauss, Marcel. 1960 [1923/1924]. Essai sur le don: Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. In Sociologie et Anthropologie, 145–249. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Originally published in 1923/1924, English translations: The gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies, London: Routledge Classics, 2002; and The gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies, Charleston, SC: Nabu Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Varieties of dative. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 572–580.
Narasimhan, Bhuvana, Kopecka, Anetta, Bowerman, Melissa F., Gullberg, Marianne & Majid, Asifa. 2012. Putting and taking events: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Events of Putting and Taking: A Crosslinguistic Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 100], Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Recipients and ‘give’ constructions. In The Dative, Vol. 2: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies [Case and Grammatical Relations across Languages 3], Willy Van 
Langendonck & William Van Belle (eds), 1–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Figurative giving. In Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: 1993 Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Leon de Stadler & Christoph Eyrich (eds), 115–140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, Jim. 2011. Some issues with the concept of face: When, what, how and how much? In Bargiela-Chiappini & Kádár (eds), 17–41.
Péristiany, John George (ed.). 1966. Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reintges, Chris H. 2004. Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic Dialect): A Learner’s Grammar. Köln: Köppe.Google Scholar
Rice, Susan & Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the ALLATIVE. Linguistic Typology 11(3): 451–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roegiest, Eugeen. 2007. Transitivity and referentiality in Spanish and Rumanian. In Delbecque & Cornillie (eds), 39–59.
Romagno, Domenica. 2007. Canonical and non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages: A typological approach. In Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas: Convergencies from a Historical and Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 88], Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds), 289–313. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1996. The Polish dative. In The Dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive Studies [Case and Grammatical Relations across Languages 2], Willy Van Langendonck & William Van Belle (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Hollmann, Willem (eds). 2007. Ditransitivity. Special issues of Functions of Language 14(1).Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 2011. On the concept of face and politeness. In Bargiela-Chiappini & Kádár (eds), 42–58.
Stern, Ludwig. 1971 [1880]. Koptische Grammatik. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel. Reprint Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1971.Google Scholar
van Lier, Eva. 2012. Referential effects on the expression of three-participant events across languages: An introduction in memory of Anna Siewierska. Linguistic Discovery 10(3): 1–16. <[URL]> (21 May 2014). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zakrzewska, Ewa D. 2006. The hero, the villain and the mob: Topicality and focality in Bohairic narrative discourse. Lingua Aegyptia 14: 325–346.Google Scholar
. 2011. Masterplots and martyrs: narrative techniques in Bohairic hagiography. In Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East: Literary and Linguistic Approaches [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 189], Fredrik Norland Hagen et al. (eds), 499–523. 
Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Hidden voices: Narrative vs. non-narrative verb forms in Bohairic Coptic. Paper submitted for the proceedings of the workshop Aspect and discourse in African languages, organized by Shahar Shirtz and Doris L. Payne during the meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea, Split, 18–21 September 2013.