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 (50)
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