Cover not available
Part of
Embodiment in Latin Semantics
Edited by William Michael Short
[Studies in Language Companion Series 174] 2016
► pp. 85–114

The embodied sources of purpose expressions in Latin

| University of Palermo
| University of Palermo

This chapter examines the phrasal means of encoding the semantic role of purpose in Latin. After discussing the notion of semantic role and its use in cognitive linguistics, we illustrate the conceptual relation between the notional domains of space and causation. On this basis, we analyze the source of purpose expressions in Latin, which are mainly based on direction (bare dative and the allative markers, i.e. ad/in + accusative), but also include prepositional phrases metaphorically derived from location (e.g. per + accusative, prō + ablative, propter + accusative), or metonymically spreading from reason to purpose (as in the case of causal markers such as genitive + causā and gratiā).

Keywords: causation, direction, location, metaphor, metonymy, phrasal constructions, prepositional phrases, purpose, reason, space
Published online: 11 May 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.174.04bru
References
Baños Baños, José Miguel
(ed) 2009 Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid: Liceus.Google Scholar
Bennet, Charles
1914 Syntax of Early Latin, Vol. II. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Brucale, Luisa & Mocciaro, Egle
2011 Continuity and discontinuity in the semantics of the Latin preposition per: A cognitive hypothesis. Language Typology and Universals 64(2): 148‒169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Samuel
1823 A Praxis on the Latin Prepositions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cabrillana, Concepción
2011 Purpose and result clauses. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax IV, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 19‒92. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Calboli, Gualtiero
2009 Latin syntax and Greek. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax 1, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 65-193. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1991 Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, René
1993 Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In The Semantics of Prepositions, Cornelia Zelinski-Wibelt (ed.), 73-98. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Meillet, Antoine
1959 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: Histoire de mots. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Thomas, Francois
1964 Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2003 The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 211-42. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Haudry, Jean
1968 Les emplois double du datif et la fonction du datif indo-européen. Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 63: 141-59.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2002 World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike, Claudi & Hünnemeyer, Friederike
1991 Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
van Hoecke, Willy
1996 The Latin dative. In The Dative, Vol.1: Descriptive Studies [Case and Grammatical Relations Across Languages 2], William Van Belle & Willy Van Langendonck (eds), 3-38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, Johann & Szantyr, Anton
1965 Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Stegmann, Carl
1912 Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Hannover: Hahn.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), 202-251. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark
1999 Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, Espenson, Jane, and Schwartz, Alan
1991 Master Metaphor List (second edition). Cognitive Linguistics Group, University of California at Berkeley. [URL].Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
León Araúz, Pilar, Faber, Pamela & Montero Martínez, Silvia
2012 Specialized language semantics. In A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, Pamela Faber (ed.), 95-175. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Einar
1911 Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache. Uppsala: Almqvist und Wiksell.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2001 Syncretism and the classification of semantic roles. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(1): 35-51.Google Scholar
2005a Paths of semantic extension. From cause to beneficiary and purpose. In Historical Linguistics 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 257], Michael Fortescue, Eva Skafte Jensen, Jens Erik Mogensen & Lene Schøsler (eds), 141‒57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b Prepositions in cause expressions. In Papers on Grammar, Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 609‒619. Rome: Herder.Google Scholar
2008 Case in Cognitive Linguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 136‒150. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2010 Adverbial phrases. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 19‒108. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2014 Plotting diachronic semantic maps: The role of metaphor. In Perspectives on Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 106], Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds), 101-152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1990 Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius
1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Pottier, Bernard
1962 Systématique des éléments de relation: Étude de morphosyntaxe structurale romane. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Prandi, Michele, Gross, Gaston & De Santis, Cristiana
2005 La Finalità. Strutture concettuali e forme d’espressione in italiano. Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Dirven, René
2007 Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, Gunther
2003 The metaphor time as space across languages. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 8(2-3): 226-239.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter
1985 Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality. In The Ubiquity of Metaphor [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 23], Wolf Paprotté & René Dirven (eds), 177-207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard
1969 Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida
1995 Case and semantic roles. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds), 1-32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 The Polish dative. In The Dative, Vol.1: Descriptive Studies [Case and Grammatical Relations Across Languages 2], William Van Belle & Willy Van Langendonck (eds), 341-394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brigida
2003 Word Power: Phrasal Verbs and Compounds. A Cognitive ApproachBerlin. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten
2009 A Typology of Purpose Clauses [Typological Studies in Language 88]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 The role of benefactives and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses. In Benefactives and Malefactives [Typological Studies in Language 92], Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds), 121‒146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serbat, Guy
1996 Grammaire fondamentale du latin. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R
1993 Prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation. In The Semantics of Prepositions, Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), 151-175. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego, Maria Esperanza
1989 Caracterización funcional de los sintagmas preposicionales en latín: “pro - Abl., contra, aduersus, in + Ac”. In Actas del VII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, Vol. 1, 609-616. Madrid: Universidad Complutense.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, V
2003 The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De la Villa, Jesus
1995 Le contexte dans l’interprétation syntaxique de pro+ablatif. In De Usu: Etudes de syntaxe latine offertes en hommage a Maurius Lavency, Dominique Longreé (ed.), 329-344. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
de Vaan, Michiel
2008 Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar