Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Semantic Roles
Edited by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog
[Typological Studies in Language 106] 2014
► pp. 205–240

Against the addressee of speech – Recipient metaphor

Evidence from East Caucasian

 | Higher School of Economics
In Standard Average European (SAE), addressees of speech verbs are marked with dative or, in languages lacking cases, with dative-like prepositions. This merger is commonly explained through a metaphor: the information transferred in a speech act is said to be construed as the object being transferred, or Theme, and the addressee as its Recipient. This status of the addressee as a derived concept, a metaphor of the Recipient, and its dative marking in many languages rather than in SAE alone, is the reason why the addressee is usually not considered to be a separate semantic role. Based on data from East Caucasian languages that use different marking for Recipients and addressees of speech, I argue that speech addressees constitute a separate semantic role, also an animate Goal, but not a metaphor of the Recipient. Focusing on case marking assigned by the main speech verb, speech acts are shown to be construed in East Caucasian as spatial configurations: the crucial component is their directedness towards the addressee. In the conclusion, I come back to SAE and question the status of the dative addressees. Taking into account that the dative often develops from lative markers, it is suggested that, in the languages with dative addressees, one should also consider an alternative to the conventional explanation: merging the Recipient and the addressee in one marking may result not from a metaphorical extension but from formal under-specification of two different animate Goals. Keywords: semantic roles; speech verbs; case functions; metaphor; dative; allative; Recipient; Goal; East Caucasian languages
Published online: 19 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.106.07dan
References (53)
References
Arkhipov, Alexandre, Daniel, Michael, Kibrik, Aleksandr & Sandro, Kodzasov. Unpublished. Archi Electronic Corpus. An electronic collection of glossed texts. Partly available at <[URL]>.
. Unpublished. Khinalug Electronic Corpus. Partly available at <[URL]>.
Authier, Gilles. 2009. Grammaire Kryz, langue caucasique d’Azerbaïdjan, dialecte d’Alik. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
van den Berg, Helma. 1995. A Grammar of Hunzib. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Bokarev, Anatolij. 1949. Očerki grammatiki čamalinskogo jazyka. Moscow – Leningrad: AN SSSR.Google Scholar
. 1949. Sintaksis avarskogo jazyka. Moscow – Leningrad: AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Charachidze, Georges. 1981. Grammaire de la langue avar. Langue du Caucase Nord-Est. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell & Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. A Grammar of Akhvakh. Ms.
. In preparation. Functive phrases in typological and diachronic perspective.
Cysouw, Michael & Diana, Forker. 2009. Reconstruction of morphosyntactic function: Nonspatial usage of spatial case marking in Tsezic. Language 85(3): 588–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Michael & Yuri, Lander. 2011. The Caucasian languages. In Bernd Kortmann & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide, 125–158. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Michael & Dmitri, Ganenkov. 2009. Case marking in Daghestanian. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), Handbook of Case, 668–685. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael, Khalilova, Zaira & Zarina, Molochieva. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in East Caucasian. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comprehensive Handbook, 277–315. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808–845. <[URL]> DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2013. A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitri, Lander, Yuri & Timur, Maisak. Unpublished. Udi Electronic Corpus. An electronic collection of glossed texts.
Ganenkov, Dmitri, Maisak, Timur & Solmaz, Merdanova. Unpublished. Agul Electronic Corpus. An electronic collection of glossed texts.
Ganenkov, Dmitry. 2010. Topological relations in Daghestanian languages: An overview. Linguistics 48(5): 1011–1041. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: UCP.Google Scholar
Gudava, Togo E. 1967. Botlixskij jazyk. In Jazyki narodov SSSR, Vol. 4: Iberijsko-kavkazskije jazyki, 293–306. Moscow: AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania, Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A Grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr & Jakov, Testelets (eds). 1999. Elementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr (ed.). 1996. Godoberi [Lincom Studies in Caucasian Linguistics 02] Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr, Kazenin, Konstantin, Ljutikova, Ekaterina & Sergej, Tatevosov (eds). 2001. Bagvalinskij jazyk: Grammatika, teksty, slovari. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr, Kodzasov, Sandro & Irina, Olovjannikova. 1972. Fragmenty grammatiki xinalugskogo jazyka. Moscow: Moscow State University.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka. Vol. 2. Moscow: Moscow State University.Google Scholar
. 2003a. Konstanty i peremennyje jazyka. St. Petersburg: Aleteia.Google Scholar
. 2003b. Nominal inflection galore: Daghestanian, with side glances at Europe and the world. In Frans Plank (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, 37–112. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka, Rappoport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magomedova, Patimat T. 2003. Tindinkso-russkij slovarj. Maxačkala: Institute of Language and Literature(Russian Academy of Sciences).Google Scholar
Magometov, Aleksandr. 1965. Tabasaranskij jazyk. (Issledovanija i teksty). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
. 1982. Megebskij dialect darginskogo jazyka. (Issledovanija i teksty). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Makhmudova, Svetlana. 2001. Morfologija rutul’skogo jazyka. Moscow: IJa RAN.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, Comrie, Bernard & Søren, Wichmann (eds.). In preparation. Valency Classes in the World’s Languages.
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin & Bernard, Comrie. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie, Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: Comparative Handbook, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Molochieva, Zarina, Witzlack-Makrevich, Alena, Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna, Nichols. Unpublished. Chechen Pears Stories Collection. Electronic Corpus. University of Leipzig & University of Berkeley.
Musaev, Magomed-Salam. 1999. Darginskij jazyk. In Jazyki mira: Kavkazskije jazyki. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush Grammar [UC Publications in Linguistics]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pasquereau, Jérémy. 2010. Formes spatiales des noms en karata: Emplois spatiaux et non-spatiaux. Lyon: University of Lyon dissertation(Memoire de master 1).Google Scholar
Salimov, Hangerej S. 2010. Gagatlinskij govor andijskogo jazyka. Maxačkala: Institute of Language and Literature(Russian Academy of Sciences).Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina & Rasul, Mutalov. 2003. A Grammar of Icari Dargwa [Languages of the World, Materials 92]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Talibov, Bukar. 2007. Buduxskij jazyk. Moscow: Academia.Google Scholar
Testelets, Jakov. 1980. Imennyje lokativnyje formy v dagestanskix jazykax. Moscow: Moscow State University.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantic Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Žirkov, Lev. 1955. Lakskij jazyk: Fonetika i morfologija. Moscow: AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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.