Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language
The “dative of agent” construction in the Indo-European languages is most likely inherited from Proto-Indo-European (Hettrich 1990). Two recent proposals (Danesi 2013; Luraghi 2016), however, claim that the construction contains no agent at all. Luraghi argues that it is a secondary development from...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Indogermanische Forschungen 2017-09, Vol.122 (1), p.143-188 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 188 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 143 |
container_title | Indogermanische Forschungen |
container_volume | 122 |
creator | Danesi, Serena Johnson, Cynthia A. Barðdal, Jóhanna |
description | The “dative of agent” construction in the Indo-European languages is most likely inherited from Proto-Indo-European (Hettrich 1990). Two recent proposals (Danesi 2013; Luraghi 2016), however, claim that the construction contains no agent at all. Luraghi argues that it is a secondary development from an original beneficiary function, while Danesi maintains that the construction is indeed reconstructable. Following Danesi, we analyze the relevant data in six different Indo-European languages: Sanskrit, Avestan, Ancient Greek, Latin, Tocharian, and Lithuanian, revealing similarities at a morphosyntactic level, a semantic level, and to some extent at an etymological level. An analysis involving a modal reading of the predicate, with a dative subject and a nominative object, is better equipped to account for the particulars of the construction than the traditional agentive/passive analysis. The proposal is couched within Construction Grammar, where the basic unit of language is the construction, i. e. a form-function correspondence. As constructions are by definition units of comparanda, they can be successfully utilized in the reconstruction of a proto-construction for Proto-Indo-European. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1515/if-2017-0007 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1950526574</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1950526574</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1983-27d5aaaa311bd58709920dfd730a094389fd9dd41fa9b6d4dec8a97fd9ee7bff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkE9LxDAQxYMouK7e_AAFr1ZnkqZp8CC6-A8WvOg5pM1kt0tt16Rl2W9v1xXx4FxmmPebN_AYO0e4QonyuvYpB1QpAKgDNsEcRQoZyEM2AUCdKp7zY3YS4wpAKJ3BhN3eU78hapN-Scmyjn0X6so2SWPbxWAXFBPbum8xUNW1sQ9D1ZP71U_ZkbdNpLOfPmXvjw9vs-d0_vr0MrubpxXqQqRcOWnHEoilk4UCrTk475QACzoThfZOO5eht7rMXeaoKqxW45JIld6LKbvY-65D9zlQ7M2qG0I7vjSoJUieS5WN1OWeqkIXYyBv1qH-sGFrEMwuIlN7s4vI7CIa8Zs9vrFNT8HRIgzbcfjj_c8Zco6YCfEFtnZsuQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1950526574</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language</title><source>De Gruyter journals</source><creator>Danesi, Serena ; Johnson, Cynthia A. ; Barðdal, Jóhanna</creator><creatorcontrib>Danesi, Serena ; Johnson, Cynthia A. ; Barðdal, Jóhanna</creatorcontrib><description>The “dative of agent” construction in the Indo-European languages is most likely inherited from Proto-Indo-European (Hettrich 1990). Two recent proposals (Danesi 2013; Luraghi 2016), however, claim that the construction contains no agent at all. Luraghi argues that it is a secondary development from an original beneficiary function, while Danesi maintains that the construction is indeed reconstructable. Following Danesi, we analyze the relevant data in six different Indo-European languages: Sanskrit, Avestan, Ancient Greek, Latin, Tocharian, and Lithuanian, revealing similarities at a morphosyntactic level, a semantic level, and to some extent at an etymological level. An analysis involving a modal reading of the predicate, with a dative subject and a nominative object, is better equipped to account for the particulars of the construction than the traditional agentive/passive analysis. The proposal is couched within Construction Grammar, where the basic unit of language is the construction, i. e. a form-function correspondence. As constructions are by definition units of comparanda, they can be successfully utilized in the reconstruction of a proto-construction for Proto-Indo-European.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0019-7262</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1613-0405</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1515/if-2017-0007</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin: De Gruyter</publisher><subject>Ancient Greek ; Construction grammar ; Etymology ; Grammatical subject ; Greek language ; Iranian languages ; Language history ; Language reconstruction ; Latin language ; Lithuanian language ; Paleolinguistics ; Predicate ; Proto-Indo-European ; Sanskrit ; Syntactic structures ; Tocharian languages</subject><ispartof>Indogermanische Forschungen, 2017-09, Vol.122 (1), p.143-188</ispartof><rights>Copyright Walter de Gruyter GmbH Sep 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1983-27d5aaaa311bd58709920dfd730a094389fd9dd41fa9b6d4dec8a97fd9ee7bff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1983-27d5aaaa311bd58709920dfd730a094389fd9dd41fa9b6d4dec8a97fd9ee7bff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/if-2017-0007/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwalterdegruyter$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/if-2017-0007/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwalterdegruyter$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,66754,68538</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Danesi, Serena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Cynthia A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barðdal, Jóhanna</creatorcontrib><title>Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language</title><title>Indogermanische Forschungen</title><description>The “dative of agent” construction in the Indo-European languages is most likely inherited from Proto-Indo-European (Hettrich 1990). Two recent proposals (Danesi 2013; Luraghi 2016), however, claim that the construction contains no agent at all. Luraghi argues that it is a secondary development from an original beneficiary function, while Danesi maintains that the construction is indeed reconstructable. Following Danesi, we analyze the relevant data in six different Indo-European languages: Sanskrit, Avestan, Ancient Greek, Latin, Tocharian, and Lithuanian, revealing similarities at a morphosyntactic level, a semantic level, and to some extent at an etymological level. An analysis involving a modal reading of the predicate, with a dative subject and a nominative object, is better equipped to account for the particulars of the construction than the traditional agentive/passive analysis. The proposal is couched within Construction Grammar, where the basic unit of language is the construction, i. e. a form-function correspondence. As constructions are by definition units of comparanda, they can be successfully utilized in the reconstruction of a proto-construction for Proto-Indo-European.</description><subject>Ancient Greek</subject><subject>Construction grammar</subject><subject>Etymology</subject><subject>Grammatical subject</subject><subject>Greek language</subject><subject>Iranian languages</subject><subject>Language history</subject><subject>Language reconstruction</subject><subject>Latin language</subject><subject>Lithuanian language</subject><subject>Paleolinguistics</subject><subject>Predicate</subject><subject>Proto-Indo-European</subject><subject>Sanskrit</subject><subject>Syntactic structures</subject><subject>Tocharian languages</subject><issn>0019-7262</issn><issn>1613-0405</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkE9LxDAQxYMouK7e_AAFr1ZnkqZp8CC6-A8WvOg5pM1kt0tt16Rl2W9v1xXx4FxmmPebN_AYO0e4QonyuvYpB1QpAKgDNsEcRQoZyEM2AUCdKp7zY3YS4wpAKJ3BhN3eU78hapN-Scmyjn0X6so2SWPbxWAXFBPbum8xUNW1sQ9D1ZP71U_ZkbdNpLOfPmXvjw9vs-d0_vr0MrubpxXqQqRcOWnHEoilk4UCrTk475QACzoThfZOO5eht7rMXeaoKqxW45JIld6LKbvY-65D9zlQ7M2qG0I7vjSoJUieS5WN1OWeqkIXYyBv1qH-sGFrEMwuIlN7s4vI7CIa8Zs9vrFNT8HRIgzbcfjj_c8Zco6YCfEFtnZsuQ</recordid><startdate>20170926</startdate><enddate>20170926</enddate><creator>Danesi, Serena</creator><creator>Johnson, Cynthia A.</creator><creator>Barðdal, Jóhanna</creator><general>De Gruyter</general><general>Walter de Gruyter GmbH</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170926</creationdate><title>Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language</title><author>Danesi, Serena ; Johnson, Cynthia A. ; Barðdal, Jóhanna</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1983-27d5aaaa311bd58709920dfd730a094389fd9dd41fa9b6d4dec8a97fd9ee7bff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Ancient Greek</topic><topic>Construction grammar</topic><topic>Etymology</topic><topic>Grammatical subject</topic><topic>Greek language</topic><topic>Iranian languages</topic><topic>Language history</topic><topic>Language reconstruction</topic><topic>Latin language</topic><topic>Lithuanian language</topic><topic>Paleolinguistics</topic><topic>Predicate</topic><topic>Proto-Indo-European</topic><topic>Sanskrit</topic><topic>Syntactic structures</topic><topic>Tocharian languages</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Danesi, Serena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Cynthia A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barðdal, Jóhanna</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Indogermanische Forschungen</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Danesi, Serena</au><au>Johnson, Cynthia A.</au><au>Barðdal, Jóhanna</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language</atitle><jtitle>Indogermanische Forschungen</jtitle><date>2017-09-26</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>122</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>143</spage><epage>188</epage><pages>143-188</pages><issn>0019-7262</issn><eissn>1613-0405</eissn><abstract>The “dative of agent” construction in the Indo-European languages is most likely inherited from Proto-Indo-European (Hettrich 1990). Two recent proposals (Danesi 2013; Luraghi 2016), however, claim that the construction contains no agent at all. Luraghi argues that it is a secondary development from an original beneficiary function, while Danesi maintains that the construction is indeed reconstructable. Following Danesi, we analyze the relevant data in six different Indo-European languages: Sanskrit, Avestan, Ancient Greek, Latin, Tocharian, and Lithuanian, revealing similarities at a morphosyntactic level, a semantic level, and to some extent at an etymological level. An analysis involving a modal reading of the predicate, with a dative subject and a nominative object, is better equipped to account for the particulars of the construction than the traditional agentive/passive analysis. The proposal is couched within Construction Grammar, where the basic unit of language is the construction, i. e. a form-function correspondence. As constructions are by definition units of comparanda, they can be successfully utilized in the reconstruction of a proto-construction for Proto-Indo-European.</abstract><cop>Berlin</cop><pub>De Gruyter</pub><doi>10.1515/if-2017-0007</doi><tpages>46</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0019-7262 |
ispartof | Indogermanische Forschungen, 2017-09, Vol.122 (1), p.143-188 |
issn | 0019-7262 1613-0405 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1950526574 |
source | De Gruyter journals |
subjects | Ancient Greek Construction grammar Etymology Grammatical subject Greek language Iranian languages Language history Language reconstruction Latin language Lithuanian language Paleolinguistics Predicate Proto-Indo-European Sanskrit Syntactic structures Tocharian languages |
title | Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T09%3A10%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Between%20the%20historical%20languages%20and%20the%20reconstructed%20language&rft.jtitle=Indogermanische%20Forschungen&rft.au=Danesi,%20Serena&rft.date=2017-09-26&rft.volume=122&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=143&rft.epage=188&rft.pages=143-188&rft.issn=0019-7262&rft.eissn=1613-0405&rft_id=info:doi/10.1515/if-2017-0007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1950526574%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1950526574&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |