Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:40:00.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Cognitive Approach to the Old Saxon Processual Passive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Carlee Arnett
Carlee Arnett
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis1608 Olympic DriveDavis, CA 95616 [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hopper and Thompson's (1980) seminal article on transitivity has brought forth renewed interest in the passive and other correlates of transitivity. Langacker (1982) and others working within the Cognitive Grammar framework argue that the passive voice is an independent construction and that it is not a reorganization of the active voice. This paper builds on this view of the passive and presents an analysis of the processual passive in Old Saxon, using the theory of Cognitive Grammar. This semantic analysis focuses on the retention of the dative case in the passive and the similarity in event structure in events encoded by the active or passive voice.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Spring 2000 , pp. 81 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Henning. 1970. The dative of subordination in Baltic and Slavic. Baltic linguistics, ed. by Magner, Thomas F. and Schmalstieg, William R., 1–9. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Arnett, Carlee. 1995. The passive in German: The view from Cognitive Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1966. Syntax des Heliands. Wiesbaden: Dr. Martin O. Sändig oHG. [Rpt. of the 1897 edn.]Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto (ed.). 1984. Heliand und Genesis. 9th edn. by Taeger, Burkhard. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Coleman, Linda, and Kay, Paul. 1981. Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language 57.26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska., Ewa. 1997. Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkeley Linguistics Society 1.123–131.Google Scholar
Foley, William A., and Van Valin, Robert D.. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gallée, Johan Hendrik. 1891. Altsächsische Grammatik. Erste Hälfte: Laut- und Flexionslehre. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gordon, E. V. 1988. An introduction to Old Norse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günter. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Holthausen, F. 1899. Altsächsisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Walter, and Kummer, Werner. 1974. Transformationelle Syntax des Deutschen I. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. (Current studies in linguistics, 8.) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura. 1993. A geography of case semantics. The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1972. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistics Society 8.183–228.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1982. Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language 58.22–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rauch, Irmengard. 1992. The Old Saxon language. Grammar, epic, narrative, linguistic interference. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally. 1987. Toward a cognitive model of transitivity. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1992. Case relations in Cognitive Grammar: Some reflexive uses of the Polish dative. Leuvense Bijdragen 81.327–373.Google Scholar
Sehrt, Edward. 1925. Vollständiges Wörterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsächsischen Genesis. (Hesperia, 14.) Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W., 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1985. Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language 61.821–848.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael. 1992. The role of image schemas in German grammar. Leuvense Bijdragen 81.385–410.Google Scholar
van Oosten, J. 1986. Sitting, standing, and lying in Dutch: A cognitive approach to the distribution of the verbs zitten, staan and liggen. Dutch Linguistics at Berkeley, ed. by van Oosten, Jeanne and Johan, Snapper, 137–159. Berkeley: Dutch Studies Program, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar