Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

STUF - Language Typology and Universals

Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung

Editor-in-Chief: Stolz, Thomas


CiteScore 2018: 0.42

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.231
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.343

Online
ISSN
2196-7148
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 69, Issue 1

Issues

The dative of agent in Indo-European languages

Silvia Luraghi
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Humanities, Section of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Pavia, Strada Nuova 65, 27100 Pavia, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-03-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0002

Abstract

The paper discusses various constructions of ancient Indo-European languages that have been described as featuring a dative of agent. The occurrence of the dative can be explained either through its beneficiary meaning, or as indicating an experiencer. In fact, a number of passages that have been taken as evidence for the reconstruction of a dative of agent do not contain agent phrases at all. Thus, while different constructions have parallels in two or more ancient languages, it is impossible to reconstruct a dative of agent as a unified category for PIE, except in the case of nominal verb forms denoting obligation.

Keywords: dative of agent; beneficiary; experiencer; constructions; degrees of conventionalization

References

  • Bartholomae, Christian. 1904. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Straßburg: Trübner.Google Scholar

  • Bartholomae, Christian. 1915. Die Zendhandschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München. München: Palm in Komm.Google Scholar

  • Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European. The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bichlmeier, Harald. 2011. Ablativ, Lokativ und Instrumental im Jungavestischen. Hamburg: Baar.Google Scholar

  • Brugmann, Karl. 1911. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. II. Band: Wortbildungslehre. 2. Hälfte 2. (Schluss-)Lieferung: Verbale Stammbildung und Flexion (Conjugation). Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homérique.Tome 2: Syntaxe. Paris: Klinksiek.Google Scholar

  • Chantraine, Pierre. 1961. Morphologie historique du grec2. Paris: Klinksiek.Google Scholar

  • Danesi, Serena. forthcoming. Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language: The ‘verbal adjective + dative’ construction in Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Avestan, Tocharian, Lithuanian.

  • De la Villa, Jesús. 1998. La agentividad en la lengua homérica. In María Esperanza Torrego (ed.), Nombres y functiones: Estudios de sintaxis griega y latina, 147–180. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar

  • Duhoux, Yves. 2014. Gerundive (Verbal adjective). In Giorgios K. Giannakis, Vit Bubenik, Emilio Crespo, Chris Golston, Alexandra Lianeri, Silvia Luraghi & Stephanos Matthaios (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, vol. 2, 13–15. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Friedrich, Johannes. 1960. Hethitische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.

  • George, Coulter H. 2005. Expressions of agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Green, Alexander. 1913.The dative of agency: A chapter of Indo-European case-syntax. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.Google Scholar

  • Grillborzer, Christine. 2011. Dative subjects in Russian: The evolution of subject-like properties from Old to Modern Russian. Paper presented at the Workshop Changes in case and argument structure in the ancient and archaic Indo-European languages, Bergen 13 May 2011.

  • Grillborzer, Christine. 2014. Синтаксис Конструкций с Первым Дательным Актантом – Синхронный и Диахронный Анализ. Universität Regensburg: Ph.D. Thesis,

  • Hettrich, Heinrich. 1990. Der Agens in passivischen Sätzen altindogermanischer Sprachen. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 2. 57–108.Google Scholar

  • Hettrich, Heinrich. 2014. Zum Agens in passivischen Sätzen des Rigveda. In Cyril Brosch & Annick Payne (eds.), Na-wa/i-VIR.ZI/A MAGNUS.SCRIBA – Festschrift für Helmut Nowicki zum 70. Geburtstag, 107–112. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

  • Hoffner, Harry A. & H. Craig Melchert. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar

  • Humbach, Helmut & Pallan Ichaporia. 1994. The heritage of Zarathustra: A new translation of his Gathas. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar

  • Humbert, Jean. 1960. Syntaxe grecque3. Paris: Klinksiek.Google Scholar

  • Jankuhn, Harald. 1969. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,Google Scholar

  • Jasanoff, Jay. 2006. The origin of the Latin gerund and gerundive: A new proposal. In Harvey Goldblatt & Nancy Shields Kollman (eds.), Rus’ Writ Large: Languages, histories, cultures. Essays presented in honor of Michael S. Flier on his sixty-fifth birthday (= Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28(1-4)), 195–208.

  • Kellens, Jean & Eric Pirart. 1988. Les textes vieil-avestiques. Introduction, texte et traduction. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar

  • Kittilä, Seppo& FernandoZúñiga. 2010. Introduction: Benefaction and malefaction from a crosslinguistic perspective. In FernandoZúñiga& SeppoKittilä(eds.), Benefactives and malefactives. Case studies and typological perspectives, 1–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Krause, Wolfgang & Werner Thomas. 1960. Tocharisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

  • La Roche, Jacob. 1861. Beobachtungen Ueber Den Gebrauch Von Hypo Bei Homer. Zeitschrift für die Osterreichischen Gymnasien 12. 337–377.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian, Yong-Min Shin & Elisabeth Verhoeven. 2000. Direkte und indirekte Partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Repräsentation konzeptueller Relationen. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia. 1986. On the distribution of instrumental and agent markers for human and non-human agents of passive verbs in some Indo-European languages. Indogermanische Forschungen 91. 48–66.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia. 1991. Paradigm size, possible syncretism, and the use of cases with adpositions in inflectional languages. In Frans Plank (ed.), Paradigms: The economy of inflection, 57–74. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and cases: The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia. 2004. The evolution of the Greek nominal paradigms: Economy and case syncretism from Mycenean to Modern Greek. Classica et Mediaevalia 55. 361–379.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia. 2010a. The extension of the passive construction in Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(1). 60–74.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia. 2010b. Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ronald I. Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken & Michael J. Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia Lux. Anatolian and Indo-European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion on his sixty-fifth birthday, 249–264. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia. 2010c. Where do beneficiaries come from and how do they come about? In Margaret E. Winters,Heli Tissari & Kathryn Allan (eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics, 93–131. Berlin/New York: Mouton-De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia. 2010d. Adverbial phrases. In Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), A new historical syntax of Latin, 19–107. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia. 2014. Plotting diachronic semantic maps: The role of metaphors. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 99–150. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia, Anna Pompei & Stavros Skopeteas. 2005. Ancient Greek. München/New Castle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Luraghi, Silvia & Eleonora Sausa. 2015. Hate and anger, love and desire: The construal of emotions in Homeric Greek. In Dag T. T. Haug (ed.), Historical linguistics 2013, 233–256. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Madariaga, Nerea. 2015. Change in the syntax of non-finite structures and the dative of subordination in East Slavic. Journal of Historical Linguistics 5(1). 139–174.Google Scholar

  • Mariani, Manuela. 2002. The Latin and Greek ‘Dativus Agentis’: Inheritance, convergence or interference?Glotta 78(1–4). 116–135.Google Scholar

  • Macdonell, Arthur A. 1916. A Vedic grammar for students. Dehli: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar

  • Miller, Wsewolod. 1876. Ueber den letto-slavischen Infinitiv. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen 8, 156–174.Google Scholar

  • Risch, Ernst. 1984. Gerundivum und Gerundium. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Sausa, Eleonora. 2011. L’orientamento della valenza in greco omerico. MA Thesis, Pavia.

  • Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1963. Zum Agens beim Passiv. Indogermanische Forschungen 68. 1–12.Google Scholar

  • Schwyzer, Eduard. 1943. Zum persönlichen Agens beim Passiv.(Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Nr. 10). Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar

  • Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik, vols 2. München: Beck.Google Scholar

  • Senn, A. 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elisabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tronci, Liana. 2014. Verbal adjectives. In Giorgios K. Giannakis, Vit Bubenik, Emilio Crespo, Chris Golston, Alexandra Lianeri, Silvia Luraghi & Stephanos Matthaios (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, 471–477. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Experiential constructions in Yucatec Maya. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-03-01

Published in Print: 2016-04-01


Citation Information: STUF - Language Typology and Universals, Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages 15–47, ISSN (Online) 2196-7148, ISSN (Print) 1867-8319, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0002.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in