Cover not available
Part of
Space in Diachrony
Edited by Silvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina and Chiara Zanchi
[Studies in Language Companion Series 188] 2017
► pp. 41–66

Overlaps in spatial encodings

Evidence from the Indo-European translations of the New Testament

| | University of Georgia
| | UT, The Arctic University of Norway
This paper is a contrastive study of spatial encodings in the Greek manuscript of the New Testament and their parallels in Latin, Gothic, Classical Armenian and Old Church Slavic. Our data comes from the PROIEL corpus (University of Oslo). We take a strictly data-driven approach in this study and examine not only language-internal overlaps, but also cases where the five languages choose different strategies, e.g. where one or more languages select an ablative or perlative marker in a context where the rest of the languages use a locative marker. We find evidence for several types of overlaps among these counterparts: ablative-locative, locative-perlative and ablative-perlative (rare). The results show that these overlaps exist due to differences in perspectives from which a situation can be viewed. Prepositional phrases that deal with proximity or specify allative meanings, e.g. notions ‘behind/beyond’ and ‘in front of/before’ appear to be salient in these cases of overlap. Our contrastive approach to prepositional interactions reveals transitional zones between spatial notions which cannot be detected by a language-internal analysis. We see these zones as potential bridging contexts that may ease the semantic extension of spatial markers diachronically.
Keywords: spatial language, Source, Path, Goal, Location, Ancient Greek, Latin, Gothic, Classical Armenian, Old Church Slavic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus and method
  • 3.Interpreting the semantic map
  • 4.Ablative-locative interactions
    • 4.1The notion of proximity
    • 4.2Allative meanings
  • 5.Locative-perlative interactions
    • 5.1Notion of proximity
    • 5.2Allative meanings
  • 6.Ablative-perlative interactions
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.188.02tho
References (17)
References
Beekes, Robert S. P. & van Beek, Lucien. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 1995. The semantics of possessive and spatial constructions in Russian and Bulgarian: A comparative analysis in cognitive grammar. The Slavic and East European Journal 39(1): 73–114.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckhoff, Hanne M., Thomason, Olga A. & de Swart, Peter. 2013. Mapping out the source domain. Studies in Language 37(2): 302–355.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisk, Hjalmar. 1960. Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Band II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series 67]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Adverbial phrases. In A New Historical Syntax of Latin, Philip, Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 19–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2008. Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals. In Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 120], Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds), 175–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The many ways to find the "Right" and "Left": On dynamic projection models in the encoding of spatial relations. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 38: 338–354.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shay, Erin & Seibert, Uwe (eds). 2003. Motion, Direction and Location in Languages: In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier [Studies in Language Companion Series 56]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L.. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter, Eckhoff, Hanne M. & Thomason, Olga. 2012. A source of variation: A corpus-based study of the choice between APO and EK in the NT Greek Gospels. Journal of Greek Linguistics 12: 161–187.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Olga A.. 2006. Prepositional Systems in Biblical Greek, Gothic, Classical Armenian, and Old Church Slavic. PhD dissertation, University of Georgia. 〈[URL]〉 (28 April 2016).
von Tischendorf, Constantin. 1869. Novum Testamentum Graece [Editio Octava Critica Maior]. Leipzig: Gieseche & Devrient.Google Scholar
Zee, Emile van der & Slack, Jon (eds). 2003. Representing Direction in Language and Space. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2010. Similarity semantics and building probabilistic semantic maps from parallel texts. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 〈[URL]〉 (4 April 2016). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert (ed). 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots, 2nd edn. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar