Reconstructing constructional semantics: the dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian

As the historical linguistic community is well aware, reconstructing semantics is a notoriously difficult undertaking. Such reconstruction has so far mostly been carried out on lexical items, like words and morphemes, and has not been conducted for larger and more complex linguistic units, which intuitively seems to be a more intricate task, especially given the lack of methodological criteria and guidelines within the field. This follows directly from the fact that most current theoretical frameworks are not construction-based, that is, they do not assume that constructions are form-meaning correspondences. In order to meet this challenge, we present an attempt at reconstructing constructional semantics, and more precisely the semantics of the Dative Subject Construction for an earlier stage of Indo-European. For this purpose we employ lexical semantic verb classes in combination with the semantic map model (Barðdal 2007, Barðdal, Kristoffersen & Sveen 2011), showing how incredibly stable semantic fields may remain across long time spans, and how reconstructing such semantic fields may be accomplished.

[1]  J. Barddal Argument Structure, Syntactic Structure and Morphological Case of the Impersonal Construction in the History of Scandinavian , 1998 .

[2]  W. Bruce Croft Radical Construction Grammar , 2001 .

[3]  Benjamin W. Fortson,et al.  An Approach to Semantic Change , 2008 .

[4]  Jóhanna Barðdal The rise of Dative Substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account , 2011 .

[5]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. , 2001 .

[6]  Jóhanna Barðdal Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German , 2006 .

[7]  J. Barddal The role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic Inchoative , 2001 .

[8]  Mirjam Fried,et al.  A frame-based approach to case alternations: The swarm-class verbs in Czech , 2005 .

[9]  Stefanie Wulff,et al.  Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-based Approach , 2009 .

[10]  Jóhanna Barðdal The development of case in Germanic , 2009 .

[11]  A. Majid,et al.  The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking , 2008, Cognition.

[12]  R. Zorc Semantic reconstruction in Austronesian linguistics , 2004 .

[13]  Elizabeth Closs Traugott From Polysemy to Internal Semantic Reconstruction , 1986 .

[14]  Masayuki Onishi,et al.  Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and Properties , 2001 .

[15]  A. Malchukov Split intransitives, experiencer objects and 'transimpersonal' constructions: (re-) establishing the connection , 2005 .

[16]  Barbara McGillivray,et al.  Multivariate analyses of affix productivity in translated English , 2012 .

[17]  Jóhanna Barðdal,et al.  The Quest for Cognates: A Reconstruction of Oblique Subject Constructions in Proto-Indo-European , 2013 .

[18]  Mark Donohue,et al.  Semantic alignment systems: what's what, and what's not , 2008 .

[19]  K. A. Smith The Development of the English Progressive , 2007, Journal of Germanic Linguistics.

[20]  K. E. Kristoffersen,et al.  West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian “V-REFL-NP'Construction” , 2011 .

[21]  Jóhanna Barðdal,et al.  Construction- Based Historical-Comparative Reconstruction , 2013 .

[22]  J. Barddal The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese : beyond thematic roles , 2004 .

[23]  S. Luraghi Patterns of case syncretism in Indo-European languages , 1987 .

[24]  A. Goldberg Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[25]  R. Blust Lexical Reconstruction and Semantic Reconstruction: The Case of Austronesian "House" Words , 1987 .

[26]  Anthony Fox,et al.  Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method , 1995 .

[27]  Alexandre François,et al.  Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages , 2008 .

[28]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy , 2003 .

[29]  Joseph B. Nichols Why are stative‐active languages rare in Eurasia? A typological perspective on split‐subject marking , 2008 .

[30]  Jóhanna Barðdal,et al.  Case in Decline , 2008 .

[31]  Matthias Urban,et al.  Asymmetries in overt marking and directionality in semantic change , 2011 .

[32]  A. Andrews Non-canonical A/S Marking in icelandic , 2001 .