"This cognitive contrastive study in ten languages (Chinese, Dalabon, English, French, Spanish, Romanian, Kurdish, Khmer, Polish, Tibetan) focuses on the verb give and its syntactic-semantic interface based on six main points, namely argument structure, lexical semantics and event structure, role marking in the three argument construction and in other constructions, lexicalization, grammaticalization and constructionalization of the verb from a cognitive construction grammar point of view (lexicon-grammar continuum), central and extended meanings. We propose that a continuum approach to grammar and lexicon is needed to describe the typological and historical facts. We argue that there is a concrete and abstract transfer 'cluster model' involving coverage of lexical and grammatical extension or bleaching phenomena and that the semantic extensions (metaphorical and otherwise) exploit various portions of this schema. This book, deeply anchored into the Cognitive Construction Grammar theoretical movement, proposes analyses of constructional phenomena which illustrate a grammar to lexicon continuum, in synchrony and diachrony: language change, grammaticalization chains, constructionalization analysis, and an invariant hypothesis of the verb give as a basic verb in human cognition"--.

• Give Constructions across Languages
• Editorial page
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Table of contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction. Lexicalization, grammaticalization and constructionalization of the verb give across languages: A cognitive case study of language innovation
  • 1. Hypothesis and new findings of the book
  • 2. A study of give across languages from a cognitive frames and constructions point of view
    • 2.1 A unified syntax-semantic approach
    • 2.2 Give as a three-place predicate?
    • 2.3 Give constructionalization across languages
  • 3. Frames and constructions of give: semantic dimensions and extensions
  • 4. The three parts of this volume
    • 4.1 Part I: Frames and extensions
    • 4.2 Part II: The transfer constructions
    • 4.3 Part III: Grammaticalization, lexicalization and constructionalization
  • Conclusion
  • References
• Part 1. Frames and extensions
• Chapter 1. Metaphor meets grammar in a radial network of give verbs in Romance
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Prototype and extensions
  • 3. Metaphoric constructions expressing physical scenes
    • 3.1 Metaphoric duality in the grammar of causation
  • 4. Metaphoric senses in cognition, emotion, communication, and self domains
  • 5. Extending CEMs to LEMs
  • 6. Conclusion
  • References
• Chapter 2. Talking about giving: From experience to language in child language
  • Introduction
  • 1. Setting the stage: The development of give
    • 1.1 Events in cognition and language
    • 1.2 Event-centered methodology
    • 1.3 Current goals
  • 2. Data, representations and methods
    • 2.1 Data
    • 2.2 The giving scene
  • 3. Detailed analyses
    • 3.1 From context to language: Contextual uptake of linguistic structure
    • 3.2 From language to concept
  • 4. Joint action and interaction
  • Conclusion
  • References
• Part 2. The transfer constructions
• Chapter 3. The role of verb polysemy in constructional profiling: A cross-linguistic study of give in the dative alternation
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Background
    • 2.1 Dative alternation: Prior findings
    • 2.2 Polysemy of give
  • 3. Study goals and hypotheses
  • 4. Method, data, and analysis
  • 5. Results and discussion
  • 6. Conclusion
  • References
• Chapter 4. The French ditransitive transfer construction and the complementarity between the meta-predicates give, take, keep, leave: The hypothesis of a grammatical enantiosemy
  • 1. The problem
  • 2. Lexical dative and non lexical dative
    • 2.1 Datives of equivalence
    • 2.2 Lexical attributive datives
    • 2.3 Non-lexical attributive datives
    • 2.4 Lexical partitive datives or epistemic datives
    • 2.5 Non-lexical partitive dative
    • 2.6 Distinction between lexical dative and non-lexical dative
  • 3. Constructional approach and meta-predicates
    • 3.1 Scenario 1: give
    • 3.2 Scenario 2: take
    • 3.3 Scenario 3: keep
    • 3.4 Scenario 4: leave
    • 3.5 Discussion
  • 4. The enantiosemic hypothesis
    • 4.1 Lexical enantiosemy: Very brief historical overview
    • 4.2 Lexcial enantiosemy: Some examples
    • 4.3 Undifferentiated meaning
    • 4.5 Consequences
  • Conclusion
  • References
• Chapter 5. Transfer and applicative constructions in Gunwinyguan languages (non-Pama-Nyungan, Australia)
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. The languages in this study
  • 3. The dalabon verb complex
  • 4. Benefactive applicative constructions
  • 5. Comitative applicative constructions
    • 5.1 Syntax and semantics
    • 5.2 Distribution of labor between the comitative and benefactive applicative markers
    • 5.3 Malefactive transfer constructions
    • 5.4 Communication transfer constructions: Transfer of content of speech
  • 6. Conclusions
  • Gloss abbreviations not listed in the Leipzig Glossing Rules
  • Data type abbreviations
  • References
• Part 3. Grammaticalization, lexicalization and constructionalization issues
• Chapter 6. Aoj ‘give’ in Khmer: Meaning extensions and construction types
  • Introduction
  • 1. Main uses and problems of categorization
    • 1.1 Ditransitive and benefactive
    • 1.2 Causative, permissive
    • 1.3 Purposive
    • 1.4 Causative resultative
    • 1.5 Other uses
  • 2. A case of grammaticalization?
    • 2.1 Grammaticalization and polyfunctionality
    • 2.2 “Chesherization”
  • 3. Method and discussion
    • 3.1 Monosemy
    • 3.2 Transfer as a sanctioning sense
    • 3.3 Meaning extension to causation and purpose
    • 3.4 Causative-resultative meaning extensions
  • Conclusion
  • References
• Chapter 7. The semantics of the verb give in Tibetan: The development of the transfer construction and the honorific domain
  • 1. The polyfunctionality of give
  • 2. The various lexical items corresponding to give in Tibetan
    • 2.1 The polysemy of give
    • 2.2 ‘Tibetan’ and the tibetic language family
    • 2.3 Give in Old and Classical Tibetan
    • 2.4 Give in standard spoken Tibetan
    • 2.5 Give as a light verb
  • 3. The distribution of sprad, gnang and phul in standard spoken Tibetan
    • 3.1 The Tibetan verb sprad
    • 3.2 The Tibetan verb gnang
    • 3.3 The Tibetan verb phul
  • 4. Give and the honorific domain
    • 4.1 The honorific domain in Tibetan
    • 4.2 The functioning of give in the Tibetan honorific system
    • 4.3 The emergence of gnang and phul as light verbs of the honorific domain
  • 5. Conclusion
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
    • Dictionaries
    • The Tibetan and Himalayan Library
    • Corpora
    • Books and articles
• Chapter 8. Gei: Towards a unified account
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Data and categories
    • 2.1 Gei as full lexical verb
    • 2.2 Post-verbal gei
    • 2.3 Two gei in one sentence
    • 2.4 Preverbal gei
    • 2.6 Gei in passive constructions
    • 2.7 Interim conclusions
  • 3. Orientation
    • 3.1 Agent-oriented preverbal gěi
    • 3.2 Recipient-oriented post-verbal gěi
  • 4. Grammaticalization
  • 5. Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
• Chapter 9. Grammar in usage and grammaticalization of dan ‘give’ constructions in Kurmanji Kurdish
  • 1. Introduction
    • 1.1 Object of the paper
    • 1.2 Traditional grammars
    • 1.3 Salient linguistic characteristics of Kurmanji Kurdish
    • 1.4 The corpora
  • 2. Analysis
    • 2.1 Results
    • 2.2 Polysemy and productivity of dan in synchrony
  • 3. Verbal constructions
    • 3.1 Light verb constructions (LVC)
    • 3.2 Light verbs and reflexive forms
    • 3.3 Various causative constructions with dan
  • Conclusion
  • List of abbreviations
  • References