Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Semantic Roles
Edited by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog
[Typological Studies in Language 106] 2014
► pp. 181–204

The Morphosyntax of the Experiencer in Early Vedic

ORCID logo | University of Tromsø
This paper examines the encoding of Experiencer arguments in Early Vedic, the earliest attested stage of Indo-Aryan. Although Experiential predicates show a broad variety of case-marking patterns in this language, the Experiencer is primarily expressed by the nominative, the accusative or the dative. In this respect, this semantic role differs from other roles like Agent, Patient, Recipient or Benefactive which show a more restricted range of case-marking options. Examining the distribution of the three Experiencer constructions, I demonstrate that there is a strong tendency in Early Vedic for the Experiencer to be construed as subject with Experiential verbs, although some experiential verbs show an inverted argument realization construction, where the Stimulus is expressed as subject and the Experiencer as object. Keywords: Vedic Sanskrit; Experiencer; Proto-Roles; Argument realization; Case-marking
Published online: 19 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.106.06dah
References (23)
References
Bickel, Baltasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Non-nominative Subjects [Typological Studies in Language 60–61], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 77–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage de l’experient dans les langues de l’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–2], Jack Feuillet (ed.), 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein. 2010. Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Exploring Inflectional Semantics in the Rigveda. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. ‘Aspects of the morphosyntax and semantics of the Early Vedic -tá participle and its prehistory’. In Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Selected papers from the workshop on Ergativity in Indo-Aryan at the SLE 43rd annual meeting [Typological Studies in Language], Eystein Dahl and Krzysztof Stroński (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dahl, Eystein & Fedriani, Chiara. 2012. The argument structure of experience: Experiential constructions in Early Vedic, Homeric Greek and Early Latin. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Miriam. 2005. A frame-based approach to case alternations: The swarm-class verbs in Czech. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3): 475–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Scott. 2005. The Lattice of Case and Agentivity. MSc Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2009. Non-canonical subjects and alignment change – where’s the connection? Handout from the Workshop ‘Reconstructing Alignment Systems’ May 14–15, 2009.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 53–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H. 1991. Oblique Subjects in Sanskrit? In Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages, Manindra K. Verma & Karuvannur Puthanveettil Mohanan (eds), 119–139. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Klein, Jared. 1985. Toward a Discourse Grammar of the Rigveda, Vol. 1: Coordinate Conjunctions, Part 1. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2012. The Vedic -ya-presents. Passives and Intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1991. Predicate classes and PARTICIPATION. In Partizipation: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, Hansjakob Seiler & Waldfried Premper (eds), 183–239. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Primus Beatrice. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles: Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 1993. Cases as conceptual categories: Evidence from German. In Conceptualizations and Mental Processes in Language [Cognitive Linguistic Research 3], Richard A. Geiger & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds), 531–566. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1993. A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In Advances in Role and Reference Grammar [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 82], Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (ed), 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, E. 2007. Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya [Studies in Language Companion Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fedriani, Chiara
2021. Review of Alfieri, Benvenuto, Ciancaglini, Milizia & Pompeo (2018): Linguistica, filologia e storia culturale. In ricordo di Palmira Cipriano. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 348 ff. DOI logo
TOYOTA, JUNICHI
2017. <i>Perspectives on Semantic Roles</i>. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 33:2 ► pp. 567 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 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.