LEADER 05443nam 2200661 450 001 9910808643603321 005 20230803204256.0 010 $a90-272-6985-8 035 $a(CKB)3710000000218754 035 $a(EBL)1764993 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001289508 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12475647 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001289508 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11227405 035 $a(PQKB)11350264 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1764993 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10907614 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL636228 035 $a(OCoLC)887507704 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1764993 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000218754 100 $a20140826h20142014 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aPerspectives on semantic roles /$fedited by Silvia Luraghi, Heiko Narrog 210 1$aAmsterdam, Netherlands ;$aPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d2014. 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (342 p.) 225 1 $aTypological Studies in Language (TSL) ;$vVolume 106 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a1-322-04977-7 311 $a90-272-0687-2 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and indexes. 327 $aPerspectives on Semantic Roles; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of content; Perspectives on semantic roles; 1. Semantic roles; 2. Encoding semantic roles; 2.1 Case; 2.2 Semantic roles and structural case vs. lexical (inherent) case; 2.3 Adpositions; 2.4 Semantic roles and lexical meaning; 3. Semantic maps; 4. Contents of this volume; Acknowledgments; References; Inducing semantic roles; 1. Introduction; 2. Using cross-linguistic variation to approach semantics; 3. The data: Case-like marking in parallel texts; 4. Analysis of roles; 5. Comparison of languages; 6. Conclusion 327 $aAcknowledgementsReferences; Appendices; Appendix A: Sampled contexts; Appendix C: Wordforms; Appendix D: Contextual role distances; Appendix E: Clustering of contextual roles; Appendix F: Alternative flat clustering; Appendix G: Language specific structures; The grammaticalization chain of case functions ; 1. Introduction: Directionality of semantic/functional change in the domain of case; 2. Semantic and constructional change; 3. Directionalities that fit the chain; 3.1 From domain 1 (spatial functions) to domain 2 (human participants) 327 $a3.2 From domain 1 (spatial functions) to domain 3 (human activity)3.3 From domain 1 (spatial functions) to domains 4 to 6 (inanimate concepts); 3.4 From domain 2 (human participants) to domain 3 (participants in human activity); 3.5 From domain 2 (human participants) to domain 4,5,6 (inanimate concepts); 3.6 From domain 3 (participants in human activity) to domains 4, 5, 6 (inanimate concepts); 3.7 Summary; 4. Directionalities contra the claim; 4.1 From domain 3 (participants in human activity) to domain 2 (human participants); 4.1.1 Changes likely due to constructional change 327 $a4.1.2 Changes likely due to semantic extension4.2 From domains 4,5,6 (inanimate concepts) to domain 2 (human participants); 4.3 From domains 4,5,6 (inanimate concepts) to domain 3 (participants in human activity); 5. Directionalities within domain 2; 6. Result; 7. Discussion; 8. Conclusion; Acknowledgments; References; Plotting diachronic semantic maps; 1. Introduction; 2. Encoding semantic roles: Source and target domains; 2.1 Spatial relations; 2.1.1 Basic spatial relations and the position of path; 2.1.2 A merger without polysemy: Location and source; 2.1.3 Space and time 327 $a2.2 Human relations2.2.1 Two maximally distinct metaphors; 2.2.2 Possession: Direction or location?; 2.2.3 Comitative and the domain of spatial relations; 2.2.4 A spatial metaphor or an extension from other human roles?; 2.2.5 Competing metaphors: The case of possessor; 2.2.6 Recipient and beneficiary; 2.2.7 Beneficiaries that are not recipients; 2.2.8 Competing metaphors: Beneficiary; 2.2.9 A Balto-Finnic perspective on the Indo-European dative; 2.2.10 Path as a source for human relations: Intermediary; 2.2.11 Interim summary; 2.3 Non-human relations; 2.3.1 Source domains for instrument 327 $a2.3.2 Instrument as a source domain 330 $aThis paper targets the phenomenon of non valence-governed datives of affectedness linked to possession. By adopting a constructional approach based on Goldberg (1995) and a revision of Raineri and Evola (2008), I work out a grid that may be adopted for cross-linguistic purposes. By applying this model to German, French and Italian, I show that the latter language, contrary to the two former ones has thoroughly grammaticalized this function. I also propose a tentative account of the grammaticalization paths that may have led to the heterogeneous behavior of the languages under discussion with r 410 0$aTypological studies in language ;$vVolume 106. 606 $aSemantics 606 $aTypology (Linguistics) 615 0$aSemantics. 615 0$aTypology (Linguistics) 676 $a401/.43 702 $aLuraghi$b Silvia$f1958- 702 $aNarrog$b Heiko 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910808643603321 996 $aPerspectives on semantic roles$94022717 997 $aUNINA