1

ArgumentStructure,ConceptualMetaphorandSemanticChange:HowtoSucceedinIndo-European

withoutReallyTrying*

CynthiaA.Johnsona,PeterAlexanderKerkhofab,LeonidKulikova,EstherLeMairac&JóhannaBarðdala

GhentUniversitya,LeidenUniversityb&AberystwythUniversityc

…onesmallstepforaman,onegiantleapformankind!(NeilArmstrong’sfirstwordsonthemoon,July20,1969)

AbstractIn contrast to grammaticalization studies of lexical verbs changing into auxiliares,semanticchangesfoundwithlexicalverbsisanunderstudiedareaofhistoricalsemantics.One exception is Reznikova et al. (2012), who investigate the complex nature of thisprocess, emphasizing the role of metaphor and metonymy. We concentrate on theemergence of verbs of success frommore concrete verbs, uncovering six conceptualmetaphorswhichallco-occurwithnon-canonicalencodingofsubjectsinIndo-European.Carefulscrutinyof therelevantdatarevealsadevelopmentmostcertainlyofanIndo-Europeaninheritance;hence,wereconstructaDAT-‘succeeds’constructionatdifferentlevels of schematicity for Proto-Indo-European, including propounding a novelreconstruction of a conceptual metaphor, SUCCESS IS MOTION FORWARD, and themapping between this metaphor and the verb-class-specific argument structureconstruction.Thisarticleoffersasystematicanalysisofregularity insemanticchange,highlightingtheimportanceofpredicateandargumentstructureforsuchdevelopments.Keywords: verbal semantics, success verbs, semantic change, conceptualmetaphors,argument structure, oblique subject construction, syntactic reconstruction, Germanic,Indo-European

* We are indebted to Bethany Christiansen, Bill Croft, Spike Gildea, Martin Hilpert, Svetlana Kleyner,Eugenio Luján, Chantal Melis, Brian Joseph, Roland Pooth, Eve Sweetser, Elisabeth Traugott, threereviewersandtheeditorsofDiachronica,aswellastheaudiencesinLouvain-la-Neuve(2016),Reykjavík(2016),Vienna(2016),SanAntonio(2017),Zurich(2017),Paris(2018),Leuven(2018)andAthens(2019)forcommentsand/ordiscussions.WeareparticularlygratefultoSigríðurSæunnSigurðardóttirforhercontributiontoapartofthedataanalysisduringtheearlystagesofthiswork.Thisresearchwassupportedby a generous research grant awarded to Jóhanna Barðdal (PI) from the European Research Council(EVALISA,grantnr.313461)andagrantawarded toLeonidKulikov fromtheNationalScienceCentre(NCN),Poland(grantnr.UMO-2015/19/P/HS2/02028).Contributions:CAJinitiatedtheresearch,CAJandJBplannedthemanuscript,CAJ,JBandLKwrotethetext,JBandLKrevisedthetextforpublication,theSUCCESS data were extracted from the NonCanCase Database, all authors contributed equally to thediscussionandtheanalysisofthedata.

2

1 IntroductionHistoricalstudiesofchangesinverbalsemanticsarefoundinabundanceintheliterature.Mostofthese,however,focusonthechangefrommainverbstoTAMauxiliaries,foremostintheframeworkofgrammaticalizationtheory(see,forinstance,Sweetser1990,Heine1993, Bybee et al. 1994 and Krug 2011 for cross-linguistic investigations of TAMauxiliaries).Studiesofindividuallanguagesinclude,forinstance,Diewald’s(1999)andTraugott&Dasher’s(2001)workonmodalverbsinthehistoryofEnglishandGerman,and Fleischman’s (1983), Bybee & Thompson’s (2000), Barðdal’s (2001), Hilpert’s(2008), Diewald & Wischer’s (2013) studies of aspectual verbs denoting future in,English,German,SwedishandIcelandic.Also,Haan(2007),Cornillie(2008),Diewald&Smirnova (2010), López-Couso&Méndez-Naya (2015) investigate evidential verbs inSpanish,German,English,DutchandSwedish,interalia. However,littleresearchhasbeendevotedtothequestionofhowfullunderivedverbschangetheirmeaninganddevelopintoverbswithadifferentmeaning.Alongsidesomeearlyworkonsemanticchange,suchasBréal(1900),Wundt(1904),Sturtevant(1917:Ch.IV),andUllmann(1951,1962),whichcontainsomeimportantfindingsandobservations,onlyafewstudieshavedealtwiththistopicinageneralcross-linguisticperspective,suchasViberg(1982)andSweetser(1990).Viberg,inhistypologicalstudy,investigatesperceptionverbsfromtheconceptualdomainsofSIGHT,HEARING,TOUCH,TASTEandSMELL.Similarly,Sweetserdocumentsthat lexical itemsfromthephysicaldomain, in both ancient andmodern Indo-European languages, regularly change intolexical items denoting concepts in the psychological domain, thus reporting adirectionalityfromtheconcretetotheabstract.BothVibergandSweetserdemonstrateaclearpatternofpolysemyforperceptionverbs,explaininghowa fulllexicalverbmaydevelop new senses over time. See also Hock (1991: 280–284) on the relevance ofpolysemyandfuzzinessinmeaningasprerequisitesforsemanticchange.

InastudyonGerman,Wegener(2001)investigatesverbsofaffectednessfromadiachronicperspective,showinghowverbsofphysicalsensationshavedevelopedfromverbsofphysicalimpact.Inasimilarvein,Reznikova,Rakhilina&Bonch-Osmolovskaya(2012)documenthowverbsofphysicalimpactdevelopintopainpredicatesthroughacomplexprocessinvolvingbothmetaphorandmetonymy(cf.alsoFortson2003:658whoclaims that most changes in meaning represent basic metaphorical extensions).Reznikova,Rakhilina&Bonch-Osmolovskaya’s(2012)workshowsacleardirectionalityof semantic change, at least within the specialized conceptual domain of pain. Theycarefullyanalyzetheprocessthroughwhichlexicalverbsdevelopintonewlexicalverbs,asemanticshiftforwhichtheysuggesttheterm‘rebranding’.Weusethetermsemanticshifttorefertotheriseofnewlexicalmeanings,inadditiontoearlierexistingmeanings.Subsequently,weusetheterm“newverb”torefertolexicalverbsthathavedevelopedanewmeaning.1OneofReznikova,Rakhilina&Bonch-Osmolovskaya’s(2012:457)claimsis that this process is considerably more common than the usual cases ofgrammaticalizationinthehistoryoflanguages.Despitethis,workonsemanticshiftsinlexical verbs leading to the emergence of new verbs is minimal compared to theindustriousenterpriseofgrammaticalizationresearch.

The present article aims to fill in some lacunae in this understudied field ofhistoricalsemantics,i.e.semanticshiftsinlexicalverbsleadingtotheemergenceofnew 1 Inaccordancewiththeconstructionalapproachtakeninthisarticle,aunitmustconsistofbothformandmeaning,thesaussaureansign.Thisalsoappliestolexicalunitslikewords.Ifeitheranewformoranewmeaningdevelops,anewlexicalunithas,bydefinition,arisen(cf.Barðdal&Gildea2015:17–18).

3

verbs, thus contributing to a general theory of semantic change. We focus on oneparticular process of semantic change when full verbs develop new meanings, i.e.metaphoricalextension,inparticularwithverbsofsuccessthroughouttheGermanicand,moregenerally,Indo-Europeanlanguages.Webaseourinvestigationoftheetymologicalhistoryofsuccessverbsonthesemanticcategoriesthatconstitutetheearlierconcretemeanings,andonthepredicateandargumentstructurepatternsthatcoincidewiththenew abstractmeanings.We disinter a development involving six basicmetaphors, ofwhich four are found across several branches of Indo-European. The most notablemetaphor,SUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARD,iswelldocumentedintheliterature(Goatly1997,2007),thesameistruefortherelatedSUCCESSISREACHINGTHEENDOFAPATH(Lakoff1993,Radden1996),whiletheothersareunderstudied.

Whereastheseandsimilarmetaphoricalextensionsare frequentlydiscussed inthe literature, little attention has been paid to syntactic phenomena eventuallyaccompanyingthesesemanticchanges,forinstancechangesinpredicateandargumentstructure (see however, Danesi, Johnson & Barðdal 2018, van Gelderen 2018). Thegeneralconsensusinhistoricallinguisticshasbeenthatchangeinmeaningandchangeinargumentstructuregohandinhand(cf.Kemmer&Barlow2000,Hilpert&Koops2008).However,recentlyChristiansen&Joseph(2016:10)haveexaminedtherelationbetweenargument structure andmeaning and found that change in one does not necessitatechangeintheother(cf.alsoTsepeleva2015).

One of our major findings is that verbs of success share three independentfeatures:(i)notonlyhavetheydevelopedthroughmetaphoricalextensionsofverbswithlessabstractsemantics,(ii)theyalsoselectsubjectsthatarenotmarkedinthecanonicalnominativecase,butaremarkedinthedativecase,and(iii)theysharethesameorsimilarpredicate structure, involving directionally-specified prefixes or modifying adverbs.Whilewecannotdefinitivelyanswerwhenandhowsuchmetaphorsarise,theubiquityof the metaphorical extension, and its co-occurrence with the same predicate andargumentstructureacrossthelanguagesthatweinvestigatebelow,clearlysuggestthatsuchaconceptualmetaphormusthaveexistedat least inProto-Germanic, ifnotevenfartherbackinthehistoryoftheIndo-Europeanlanguagesmorebroadly.

Below,twoexamplesconveying‘success’,orthelackthereofwhenthepropositionisnegated,arepresented,(1)forAncientGreekwithaverbderivedfromaverbofmotionand(2)forOldEnglishwithaverbderivedfromaverbofgrowth.Inbothexamples,thesyntacticsubjectoftheverb,i.e.theonewhosucceeds,isinthedativecase,despitetheselanguages’accusativealignmentsystem, inwhichnominative is theunmarkedsubjectcase.

(1) ClassicalGreek

hos hoi dóloi ou proekhoree sincehe.DAT craft.DAT not succeed [<motion] ‘sincehecouldnotsucceedbycraft’(Hdt.1.205)(2) OldEnglish

him wihtne speow he.DAT at.allnot succeed [<grow] ‘hedidnotsucceedatall’(Beo.2852)For our purposes, it is the co-occurrence of these three phenomena, metaphoricalextension, non-canonical subjectmarking, and the predicate structure, expressing the

4

sameconceptacrosstheIndo-Europeanlanguagesthatdemandsattention.Thisinvolvesmorebroadlythesyntax–semanticsinterfaceandmorespecificallytheroleofsyntacticpatternsforsemanticchangeandviceversa,e.g.howpredicateandargumentstructurecontributestomeaning.Moreover,therecurrenceofthesesharedsemanticandsyntacticstructuresacrossavarietyofgeneticallyrelatedlanguagesalsoraisesthequestion,asinanystudywithinthefieldofcomparativeIndo-Europeanlinguistics,ofthepotentialforreconstruction, i.e. whether such a development reflects common inheritance orindependentinnovations.Weinvestigatethelikelyprehistoryoftheseconstructionsasanextensionofouretymologicalanalysisoftherelevantverbs.Wefurthermorearguethat,inmanycases,athoroughinvestigationofpredicateandargumentstructuremaycontributetotheetymologicalanalysisoftherelevantverbs.

Furthermore, any theoretical analysis of the data investigatedmust be able toaccount for non-compositionalmeaning as a result ofmetaphorical extension, verbalpolysemyingeneral,anditmustimportatheoreticalgroundinginordertocontributetoamore precise understanding of the syntax–semantics interface. For this reason, weadoptaConstructionGrammarframework(Lakoff1987,Fillmore,Kay&O’Connor1988,Goldberg1995,Jackendoff1997,Croft2001,Michaelis&Ruppenhofer2001,Boas2003,Fried&Östman2005,interalia),inwhichtheconstructionistakentobethebasicunitoflanguage,apairingofform–meaning.Onsuchanaccount,grammarandlinguisticobjectsareviewedasbeingonparwithwords,whicharealsoform–meaningpairings.Originally,Construction Grammar was developed to account for idioms, set phrases and fixedexpressions thatother frameworksat the timehadproblems incorporating into theiranalytical machinery. Construction Grammar, in contrast, employs a uniformrepresentational formalism to account for all linguistic data, words,morphemes, andlargermorphosyntacticandsyntacticconstructionsalike.Moreover,onaconstructionalview,bothcompositionalandnon-compositionalmeaningsareaccountedforinthesamemanner,namelyassemanticallyregularvs.semantically irregularpairingsofmeaningwithform.

In Section 2,we outline the background for the investigation of success verbs,whichwedetailfirstinGermanic(Section3),wherethedataaremoreplentiful,beforeextendingouranalysistobroader Indo-Europeancontext(Section4). InSection5,wediscussalreadyknownconceptualmetaphorsforsuccessandelaboratefurtherontherelatedness between them. Then, in Section 6, we propose a reconstruction of thepredicateandargumentstructureconstructionsforsuccessverbsforProto-GermanicaswellasforProto-Indo-European,employingtheformalismofConstructionGrammar.Wefurther present, as the first attempt in the literature, a reconstruction of a basicconceptual metaphor, SUCCESS IS MOTION FORWARD, for both Proto-Germanic andProto-Indo-European.Thisalso includesareconstructionof themappingbetweenthemetaphor and the argument structure for the relevant proto-stages. In Section 7 weprovideasummaryofthecontentandconclusionsofthisarticle.2. TheDativeSubjectConstructionAsisnowwelldocumentedacrossthelanguagesoftheworld,thereareverbsinbothaccusative and ergative languages that do not conform to the canonical pattern ofmarkingthesubjectwiththenominativeortheabsolutive,butratheroccurwithanon-nominative(henceoblique)subject.IntheIndo-Europeanlanguages,suchnon-canonicalsubjectsaretypicallyfoundinthedativeoraccusativecase,asshownin(3)below.Each

5

examplerepresentsoneofBarðdaletal.’s (2012)higher-levelsemanticclasses,whichfrequentlyattestobliquesubjects.Theexamplesin(3)furtherspandifferentbranchesoftheIndo-Europeanlanguages.(3) ObliqueSubjectConstructions2 a. Naturaloccurrences(OldIcelandic) Þá lægði storm-inn then abated.3SG storm-the.ACC ‘Thenthestormabated’(HelgakviðaHundingsbanaII) b. Perception(VedicSanskrit) táta ebhyo yajñáḥ prarocata then they.DAT sacrifice.NOM.SG shine.IMPF.3SG.MID ‘Thentheyhadavisionofsacrifice’(ŚB1,6,2,4) c. Cognition(MiddleEnglish) Him wondrede of þe grete li3te he.OBL wondered.3SGof the great light ‘hewonderedatthegreatlight’(RolandandVernagu161) d. Emotion(OldAlbanian) Më ṇdihē se na ṇlidhnjim duoj ṇdë I.DAT feel.3SG that we.NOM bind.1PL while in vjedmis arësë

fields sheaves‘Ifeltthatwewerebindingsheavesinthefields’(Buzuku;Genesis37:7)

e. BodilyStates(Russian) počemu ž mne tak teplo why indeed.PTCL I.DAT so warm ‘WhyindeedamIsowarm?’(F.Iskander.Put'izvarjagvgreki.1990)f. Happenstance(Latin) Mihi ne illud quidem accidit I.DAT not that.NOM even happened.3SG ‘Ididnotevenhappentoexperiencethat’(Caes.Gal.8.0)g. Attitudes(HomericGreek) sphōïn mén t’epéoike … hestámen you.DU.DAT PTC and’be.proper.3SG stay.INF ‘Youtwowerebettertostay…’(Hom.Il.4.341)h. Hindrance(Hittite) nu=mu :arpašatta=pat CONN=I.DAT/ACC bad.luck.3SG=local-PCL ‘thenIhadbadluck’(Hatt.i.35)

2Unlessotherwisenoted,thedataprovidedcomefromtheEVALISAproject, theNonCanCaseDatabase(http://www.evalisa.ugent.be/noncancase), which contains collected examples of the oblique subjectconstructionacrossallearlybranchesoftheIndo-Europeanlanguagefamily.

6

Weassume that these accusative- and dative-marked arguments are indeed syntacticsubjectsinconstructionsofthistype,buildingonthelargebodyofworkthathasprovidedthesyntacticbasisfordelineatingsyntacticsubjectsandobjects,regardlessoftheircasemarking (Allen 1986,1995, Rögnvaldsson 1995, Barðdal 2000, Barðdal& Eythórsson2003,2012,Eythórsson&Barðdal2005,Conti2008,2009,Fischer2010,Danesi2014a,Fedriani2014,LeMairetal.2017,Danesi,Johnson&Barðdal2018).Theissueofsubjectvs.non-subjectanalysisforthesesubject-likearguments,however,hasnobearingontheresearchpresentedhere.

While oblique subject constructions are well documented for the Germaniclanguages, it is generallyassumed that theyarenot sopervasive inmanyearly Indo-Europeanlanguages(cf.Hock1990onSanskrit,Luraghi2010onHittite,Viti2016aonTocharian).Atpresent, theEVALISAdatabase countsaround1,000predicates for theearlyIndo-Europeanlanguages,ofwhich36belongtotheconceptualdomainofSUCCESS.

Insomeoftheselanguages,e.g.certainNorthGermanicandBalticlanguages,theargumentstructurecontaininganobliquesubjecthasindeedbeenprolificandproductivein the sense that new verbs entering the language may acquire this non-canonicalargumentstructure(cf.Barðdal1999,2008,2011,2012,Bjarnadóttir2014).Therealsoseems tohave been amajor increase in the type frequency of this construction fromSanskrittothemodernIndiclanguages(cf.Hock1990),atleastifonetakesthelowtypefrequencyinSanskritatfacevalue(see,however,Danesi2014bforseveralmoreAvestanpredicatesandHaig2008forsomeOldPersianpredicates).Itis,moreover,clearthattheproductivityof theobliquesubjectconstruction impliesthat there isaspecific typeofsemanticsassociatedwiththeargumentstructure.

Barðdaletal.(2012),forinstance,arguethatgivenaconstructionalapproach,thesemanticsoftheconstructionshouldbedefinableintermsofthelexical-semanticverbclasses that instantiate the construction. On the basis of evidence from five differentearly/archaicIndo-Europeanlanguages,OldIcelandic,OldRussian,OldLithuanian,LatinandAncientGreek,theysuggestseveraldifferentconceptualdomainsassociatedwiththeobliquesubjectconstruction,ofwhichoneisindeedthedomainofSUCCESS. Whileresearchhasshownthattheobliquesubjectconstructionmayhavebeenproductive indifferent languages, there isstillstrongevidence forassumingthatsuchstructurescanandshouldbereconstructedforProto-Germanic(cf.Barðdal&Eythórsson2012,Barðdaletal.2016)andperhapsevenfurtherbackforProto-Indo-European(cf.Barðdal & Smitherman 2013, Barðdal et al. 2013, Danesi et al. 2017, Barðdal &Eythórsson 2019, Barðdal et al. 2019, Pooth et al. 2019). Such investigationsoverwhelminglydemonstrate thatsyntactic reconstruction is indeedpossible, and thefield ofhistorical syntax has, in fact, been steadily progressing as a resultof this andsimilarresearch.Thepresentinvestigationthusaddstothegrowingbodyofscholarshipon reconstructing syntax while, at the same time, further contributing to ourunderstandingoftherelationbetweensemanticchangeandsyntacticstructure.

AsmentionedinSection1above,Christiansen&Joseph(2016)recentlyaddressedwhathasbeenassumedtobeastrongrelationbetweensemanticchangeandchangeinargumentstructure,namely,thatchangeinsemanticsgoeshandinhandwithachangein argument structure, and vice versa, that a change in argument structure reflects achange in verbal semantics (cf. Kemmer & Barlow 2000, Hilpert & Koops 2008). YetChristiansen & Joseph (2016) point to at least some instances where a change inargument structure has no bearing on themeaning of a verb, andwe knowofmanyinstancesofchanges inverbalmeaningwithoutanychanges in therelevantargumentstructure.

7

Smitherman(2012)andBarðdal&Smitherman(2013)havealsoinvestigatedtherelationbetweenmetaphor,argumentstructure,andreconstruction.Theirconclusionisthat there are certain recurrent metaphors found throughout the Indo-Europeanlanguages,manyofwhichmaybeofuniversalnature,andwhichquitecommonlymatchwith similarities in non-canonical argument structure. We elaborate on theseinvestigationsbyfocusingsolelyonmetaphorsforsuccess(notdiscussedbySmitherman2012 or Barðdal & Smitherman 2013), i.e. on a single semantic class of verbs,diachronicallytraceabletoverbsofmotion.ThismetaphorissorecurrentinourdatathatreconstructionofthissemanticshiftforbothProto-GermanicandProto-Indo-European,togetherwith the cognitive frames that allow for this typeof extension, ispracticallyrequiredtoaccountforitsrecurrenceinboththeGermanicandIndo-Europeandaughterlanguages.

In other words, even though a metaphor of success may be universal, itsmanifestationinearlyGermanicandtheearlyIndo-Europeanlanguagesisnot.Intheselanguageswefindauniquepairingbetweenverbsmeaning‘success’,whichhasclearlyarisenthroughmetaphoricalextension,anddativesubjectmarking.Suchanidiosyncraticcouplingofformandmeaningisunexpectedcross-linguistically.3. SuccessinGermanicWebeginourinvestigationbydetailingseveralexamplesofsuccessverbsintheEarlyandtheModernGermaniclanguagesthattakeanobliquesubject.BySUCCESSwedonotonlyrefertoverbsthatstrictlyspeakingmean‘succeed’,butalsotothewiderconceptofsuccess,whichinvolves‘doingwell’ingeneral,‘makingprogress’orhavingthings‘workoutwell’forone(cf.OxfordThesaurusofEnglishforsucceed).Therelevantsuccessverbscanbeclassifiedintosixtypesofmetaphoricalextensions,basedonthefollowingsourcedomains:(4) Metaphoricalextensions● Motion● Giving● Touch/contact● Aiming/reaching● Growth● Luck

OneexamplefromaGermaniclanguageofeachmetaphoricalextensionisgivenin(5),allofwhichoccurwithadativesubject:(5) a. Motion(OldHighGerman) mir gelang ubelo an dîu I.DAT succeeded.3SG[<PIE‘gofast’] badly in this.DAT ‘Ididnotsucceedinthis’(NotkerPsalmen118) b. Giving(OldIcelandic) Hversugefask þérþeir útlenzku how.wellwork.out.3SG[<‘give’]you.DATthat.NOMforeign.NOM menn?

8

men.NOM ‘Howdidtheseforeignmenturnoutforyou?’(Eyrbyggjasaga,Ch.19) c. Touch/contact(EarlyModernDutch)

Dat encanenenheer niet wel rakenthat notcana.OBLlord.OBL not well succeed[<‘touch’]‘Alordcannotsucceedatthat’

(W.Bisschop&E.Verwijs,1870,GedichtenvanWillemvan Hildegaersberch,p.238,l.101,'s-Gravenhage)

d. Aiming/reaching(ModernIcelandic) Mérmiðar velmeðítölskusinfóníuna I.DATprogresses.3SG[<‘aimformiddle’]wellwithItaliansymphony.the ‘IammakinggoodprogresswiththeItaliansymphony’ e. Growth(OldEnglish) Himætðærebyrignegespeów he.DATatthatcitynotsucceeded[<‘grow’]

‘Hedidnotsucceedatthecity’(Ors.4,5;Bos.82,8)

f. Luck(ModernGerman) Auch das glückt mir passabel too that.NOM succeeds.3SG[<‘haveluck’]I.DATpassably ‘That,too,Iwasabletodopassably’

(Rhein-Zeitung,19.07.2003;GottseiDankohnePolizei)Someoftheetymologiesin(5a–f)abovearesynchronicallytransparentintherelevantGermaniclanguage,likeIcelandicgefastin(5b),whichisderivedfromtheverbgefa‘give’andthemiddlesuffix-st<-sk<sik‘self’.TheEarlyModernDutchexamplewithrakenin(5c) isequallystraightforward,since ‘reach/touch’wastheprimarymeaningofrakenduringtheMiddleDutchperiod(WNT1882–2001)andstillis.Hence,weassumethatthemeaning‘succeed’hasdevelopeddirectlyfromthe‘reach/touch’meaning.Also,theverbmiðain(5d)has‘aim’asitsprimarymeaninginIcelandic.Theverbglückenin(5f),whilenotmeaning‘haveluck’inModernGerman,isdocumentedinthissensein16thcenturyGerman (Grimm & Grimm 1954–1971: Bd. 8, Sp. 287), suggesting a direct semanticdevelopmentfrom‘haveluck’to‘succeed’.Thisisadenominalverb,stemmingfromtheMHGnoung(e)lückewhichmeant ‘fortune, luck’, already in the12th century (seee.g.Sanders1965:94–95etpassim).Thus,thederivationalhistoryofglückenisthesameasthat found for the corresponding Icelandic verbs lánast, heppnast and auðnast, allmeaning‘succeed’,withtheoriginalnounmeaning‘fate,fortune,luck’.

However, two of our etymologies above are not synchronically transparent,namelytheonesinvolvingOldHighGerman(gi)linganin(5a)andOldEnglish(ge)spōwanin(5f).StartingwithOldHighGerman(gi)lingan,Schützeichel(2012:202)gives‘succeed’astheprimarymeaning,whileKöbler(2014)adds‘prosper’and‘haveluck’assecondarysenses.EWA(2014:1313)alsonotesthemeaning‘goforward’inMiddleHighGermanwith the unprefixed lingen. Accordingly, Kroonen (2013: 338) reconstructs the form*lingwanforProto-Germanicwiththemeaning‘succeed/makeprogress’.Goingfurtherback in time, the meaning of the Proto-Indo-European verbal root *h1lengwh- isreconstructedas ‘go fast, goeasily, speed, run’ (see, for instance,Pokorny1959:660,

9

Mayrhofer1986–1996:II,421–422,LIV2247–248).Therefore,asemanticdevelopmentfrom‘goforward/fast’to‘makeprogress’to‘succeed’appearsaslikely.

Finally,inOldEnglishtheverb(ge)spōwanin(5e)isdocumentedwiththesenses‘succeed’,‘profit’,‘avail’.Thatis,ASD(1966:708)gives‘succeed’astheprimarymeaning,whileHall(1916:272)adds‘profit’and‘avail’assecondarysenses.ThisGermanicverbgoes back to the Proto-Indo-European root *spheh1-, meaning both ‘grow, increase,become fat’ and ‘prosper’ (Pokorny 1959: 983, LIV2: 584). Therefore, a semanticdevelopmentfrom‘grow’to‘prosper’to‘succeed’appearsaslikely(seealsoIhrig1916:132).

As isdetailed inSection4below, fourof thesesixmetaphoricalextensions, i.e.motion>success,growth>success,touch/contact>successandaim/reach>success,recurinotherearlyIndo-Europeanlanguagesaswell.Inthebulkofthisarticle,however,we focus on the most robust metaphorical extension in our dataset, namely that ofsuccessbeingderivedfromverbsofmotion.ThisprovidesthebackbonetothepartialreconstructionsweputforwardinSection6.Considernowtheevidencefortheanalysisthatmotioncanbeextendedtomean‘succeed’.3.1 (Preverb+)Motion(+Adverb)Byfarthelargestcategoryofsuccessverbsinvolvesmotionandanadverbialmodifier.ThisistypicallyapostverbaladverbfortheNorthGermaniclanguages,butapreverbalperfective or a directional modifier for the West Germanic languages, although OldEnglishpatternswiththeNorthGermaniclanguagesinthisrespectandnotwithWestGermanic.Togivesomeexamples,inModernFaroese,averbofmotiontogetherwiththepostverbalprepositionalmodifiervið‘with,at’isusedtoindicatesuccess:(6) Faroese ganga einhverjum við go.3SG someone.DAT with ‘Someonesucceeds’(Føroyskorðabók;http://www.obg.fo/fob/fob.php)Interestingly,notonlydoes thepatternofMOTIONVERB+ADVrecur inourdataset,cognatesofFaroesegangaarealsofoundinthesametemplate,againwithdativesubjects,inotherGermaniclanguages.Forexample,theOldIcelandiccognategangaisgiveninitssuccessmeaningin(7)below.Inthiscase,theverbofmotionco-occurswiththeadverbléttast‘easiest’.(7) OldIcelandic þeimfeðgumhefðiþá allir hlutir léttastgengit they.DATfather&son.DAThad.3SGthen all.NOMthings.NOMeasiestgone ‘thateverythinghadgonewellforthefatherandson’(Þorlákssaga,Ch.12)

And finally, the same construction is attested in Old Swedish, with the adverb slät‘smoothly’,similartotheOldIcelandicadverbléttast‘easiest’.(8) OldSwedish tha honum ganger mädher alt slät then he.DAT go.3SG with everything smoothly ‘thenhesucceededsmoothlywitheverything’(Al8306)

10

ConstructionsofthistypearewellestablishedintheNorthGermaniclanguages,withaclearpatternemerging:etymologicallyrelatedformsoftheverb‘go’occurinthesamesyntactic and lexical context, namely, alongside a dative subject and an adverb orprepositionalmodifier.Thishassometimesbeenreferredtoas“Double”(Walkden2013,2014)oreven“Triple”Cognacy(Barðdal&Smitherman2013),asi)thelexicalverbiscognate,ii)thepredicatestructureiscognate,andiii)theargumentstructureiscognate.Inthiscasethelexicalverbistheverb‘go’,thepredicatestructureisVERB+ADV,andtheargumentstructureinvolvingdativesubjectsisalsocognate.ThisisexactlythekindofevidenceWalkden(2013,2014)arguesisneededtoestablishcognacybeyonddoubt,i.e.thekindofevidenceneededtoreconstructaconstructionforanearlierproto-stage.

InthelaterstagesofNorthGermanic,wefindanevengreaterdegreeofuniformityacrossthedaughterlanguages,asinModernFaroese,ModernIcelandicandEarlyNewSwedish,wherethesameverbisdocumentedwiththesameadverbialmodifier(væl,velandwäl‘well’,respectively),withthesamemeaningandthesameargumentstructure.(9) a. ModernFaroese einhverjum gongst væl somebody.DAT goes well 'Somebodysucceeds' b. EarlyNewSwedish(1665) honom gåår sällan wäl.

he.DAT goes seldom well‘Hehasseldomsuccess.’(Grubb10)

c. ModernIcelandic Arnari gekk vel með fyrstuönninaí skólanum… Arnar.DAT went well with first term.thein school.the ‘Arnardidwellattheendofthefirsttermatuniversity...’ (https://www.facebook.com/freyjulundur/posts/90775056275)These data give us the set of constructionswith the verb ‘go’ in the North Germaniclanguages,detailedinTable1.Table1.Successwith‘go’inNorthGermanic.

Faroese OldIcelandic ModernIcelandic

OldSwedish EarlyNewSwedish

gangaviðgowith

gangaléttgoeasily

gangaslätgosmoothly

gangastvelgo.MIDwell’

gangavelgowell

gangawälgowell

FortheWestGermaniclanguages,thesamepatternisdocumented,albeitwithadifferent,yetsemantically-related,verbofmovement.OldEnglish,forinstance,hastheverb‘go’

11

occurringwith the adverbwel ‘well’, similar in constructionalmakeup to theModernFaroese,EarlyNewSwedishandModernIcelandicexamples.(10) OldEnglish

…andhim[Decius]forðissereworuldewelonhandeode,þæt... andhe.DATforthisworldwelonhandwent,because ‘…andhe[Decius]succeededhereinthisworldbecause…’

(Ælfric’sLivesofSaints,34)Cognatesofthissameformoftheverb‘go’withthesamesuccessmeaningarealsofoundinMiddleHighGermanandMiddleDutch.InMiddleHighGerman,inaddition,theverboccurswith er-, a prefixwhich in theOldHighGermanprestagewas associatedwithperfectivityandinchoativity(Purtscher1902).(11) MiddleHighGerman swiehaltmirmîndincergât howeverindeedI.DATmything.NOMfares ‘howeverImayfareinmyendeavor’(WolframvonEschenbach,Parzival:12.2)Thisverb,irgangan,alsoexistsinOldHighGerman,butneitherwiththerelevantsuccessmeaningnorwithadativesubject(Köbler2014,EWA2007).Theverysameprefixisalsofound in the followingMiddleDutchexamplealongwith theadverbwale ‘well’, againsimilartotheOldEnglishwelgán,ModernFaroesegangastvel,ModernIcelandicgangavelandEarlyNewSwedishgangawäl.

(12) MiddleDutch Seldenergeethenwaledie... rarelyfaresthey.OBLwellwho ‘Thosewho…rarelyfarewell’(LimburgseSermoenen,28d.)Notethatweglossthesubject,hen,aboveas“oblique”,astheformcaneitherbedativeoraccusative.

Further reflexes of this verb can also be found in theModernWest Germaniclanguageswiththemeaning‘succeed’,asintheModernGermanexamplein(13),bothwithandwithout-er:

(13) ModernGerman Mir (er)geht es gut. I.DAT PRE.goes.3SGit.NOM good ‘Iamdoingwell.’Throughthisinvestigation,wehavedocumentedasimilarsetofmotionverbsinWestGermanic,asinNorthGermanic,indicatingsuccess.TheWestGermanicfactsaregiveninTable2.

12

Table2.Successwith‘go’inWestGermanic

MiddleDutch OldEnglish MiddleHighGerman

ModernGerman

ergaenwale‘go(toacertainpoint/well)’

gánwel‘gowell’

ergân‘fare’

gut(er)gehen‘gowell’

As is implicit in the analysis above, the meaning of the verb go in Germanic variesdependingonpredicateandargumentstructure.Whenoccurring intransitivelywithanominativesubject,theverbattestsitsprimarymeaning‘go,walk’,whilewhenoccurringin the dative subject construction, the verb has the sense ‘succeed, go well’. Hence,differentmeaningsoftheverbareconcomitantwithdifferentpredicateandargumentstructureconstructions.Wetakethevariationinmeaningbetween‘go’and‘succeed’torepresentachangeinthesemanticsofthisverbofmotion.Thatis,weconsiderthe‘go,walk’ meaning to be primary and the ‘succeed’ meaning to be derived through ametaphoricalextension.

Inaddition to the roleof themetaphorical extension, thequestionarisesas towhichdegreethepredicatestructurealsocontributesto thisnewmeaning.That is, towhichdegreedotheprefixesinWest-GermanicandtheadverbsinOldEnglishandNorthGermanic affect verbal semantics? Given that the relevantWest Germanic prefix, er-,denotingperfectivityandinchoativityinOldHighGerman,ispurelyaspectual,itdoesnotappeartoaffectthecoreoftheverbalmeaningduringtheMiddleHighGerman/Dutchperiod.Hence,forWestGermanic,themodificationofmeaningtriggeredbythisprefixissimplyminoror insignificant.The same is true for theprefixge- inOldHighGermangilingan,as themeaning ‘succeed’ isalso foundwiththeunprefixedverb lingan (EWA2014:1313).Historically,however,er-derivesfromaspatialadverbmeaning‘from’andge- derives from a comitative particle meaning ‘with’ (Wischer & Habermann 2004,MartínArista2012,Köbler2014).Itcanthusnotbeexcludedthattheseprefixes,withtheir prehistorical ‘from’ and ‘with’ meanings, have contributed to the by now non-compositionalmeaning‘succeed’whenoriginallyprefixedtotheverb‘go’.

RegardingtheroleoftheadverbialmodifiersinOldEnglishandNorthGermanic,these are allmanner adverbs, ‘well’, ‘easily’, ‘smoothly’, and as such theymodify theverbalevent.Thereisthusnodoubtthatthepolarityofthemanneradverb,withpositiveornegativepolarity,defineswhethertheeventdescribedisasuccessorfailure.Addingapolarity adverb, however, only modifies the new meaning, determined by themetaphoricalextensionofthecoreverbalsemantics(MOTIONFORWARD>SUCCEED),butdoesnotitselfcreatethenewmeaning.Asanexample,letusimagineacollocation[walk +well]. Clearly, [walk +well] does not automatically yield a successmeaning.Instead, theadverbialmodifier simply specifies themannerof thewalkingprocess.Afurther argument stems from the fact that this semanticdevelopment does nothingeuponacollocationwithapolarityadverb,asevidentfromexamplesinvolvingprefixesmeaning‘from’and‘with’,asdiscussedintheprecedingparagraphandaswillbefurtherdiscussedinSection4below.

Toconclude,wetakethemeaning‘succeed’tobenon-compositional,asitcannotbederivedfromthemotionverbper se,nor fromtheprefix/adverb,nor fromtheco-occurrencewithadativesubject,butdrawsinsteaduponallthesefactorstogether.Assuch,thisisaconstructioninthesenseofConstructionGrammar,i.e.aform–meaning

13

pairing,wherethesemanticsofthewholeisnotderivablefromthesemanticsoftheparts.Forapropermodellingofthisconstruction,seeSection6below.

To summarize, Tables 1–2 present common metaphorical extensions of twodifferent,yetsemantically-related,verbs ‘go’,onepermeatingNorthGermanicandtheotherWestGermanic.Infact,asisdetailedinSection6.1below,acomplexparadigmaticrelationisfoundbetweenthesetwodifferentroots;althoughtheyarenotcognate,theyexisted as part of the same single paradigm for the verb ‘go’ in Proto-Germanic. ThishistoricalmorphologicalrelationsetsthestageforthepartialreconstructionpresentedinSection6.1.3.2 OthertypesofmotionconceptualizedassuccessTheverbsinSection3.1areallcognates,developedfromtheverb‘walk’.Thisreflectsthemostfrequentlyattestedtypeofmetaphor,motionassuccess,inourdataset.Below,weintroduce further verbs of motion in Germanic, that also attest the metaphoricalextensionofmotion>success.Themotionmaybedirectionallyspecified,butitneednotbe,asintheexamplefromModernIcelandicwithamotionverbcognatetoEnglishfare:(14) ModernIcelandic

Mér hefur farnast vel I.DAT has.3SG fared well ‘Ihavefaredwell’The motion may also be directed vertically: in Old Icelandic, movement upwards—climbing—canalsoindicatesuccess,asinthefollowingexample:(15) OldIcelandic honum kleif hvergi áfram he.DAT climbed.3SG nowhere forward ‘Hemadenoprogress’(Bragða-Mágussaga,Ch.28)Interestingly,anadverb,áfram‘forward’,isalsousedinthiscontext,perhapstoreinforcethedirectionalsemanticsoftheverbklífa ‘climb’,areinforcementthatisgenerallynotneededwiththeverbsofmotiondiscussedinSection3.1above. Likewise,theOldIcelandicverbsnúna‘turn’canalsobeusedtoindicatesuccess—muchliketheEnglishcolloquialturnout(well).(16) OldIcelandic

Hverso snúnuðo yðr konor yðrar?how turned.3PL you.DAT woman.NOMyour.NOM‘Howdidyouwinsuccesswithyourwomen?’(Hárbarðsljóð,16–18)

Yetanotherexampleinvolvingmotion,meaning‘succeed’inIcelandic,reiðavelaf,withaverbderivedfrom‘ride’,isalsoattested.(17) ModernIcelandic Henni reiddi vel af she.DAT fared.3SG well off ‘Shefaredwell/Shegotthroughitallright’

14

Finally,theverb(gi)lingan‘succeed’inOldHighGermananditscognatesinotherWestGermaniclanguagesgobacktotheProto-Indo-Europeanroot*h1léngwh-e-‘gofast,moveeasily’.Example(5a)isrepeatedbelowforconvenience:(18) OldHighGerman mir gelang ubelo an dîu I.DAT succeeded.3SG badly in this.DAT ‘Ididnotsucceedinthis’(NotkerPsalmen118)ThisparticularOldHighGermanexampleraisesanimportantpointregardingthetimedepth of the metaphorical extensions discussed above, as some of these extensionsappeartobemorelexicalizedthanothers. In theexamples inSection3.1and(14–17)above, the metaphorical meaning extension is within the synchronic stages of thelanguage.Moreprecisely,thesameverbisusedintwodifferentconstructions,onewiththemotionmeaningandtheotherwiththesuccessmeaning.

Incontrast,(gi)linganinOldHighGermanoccursonlyinitssuccessmeaning(andtherelated‘prosper’and‘haveluck’)andonlywithadativesubject.Thisconspicuouslackofvariationinthemeaningandargumentstructureofthisverb,i.e.thislackofverbalpolysemy,may suggest that the timeframe for thisparticularmeaningextensionwith(gi)linganisconsiderablylongerthanfortheothermotionverbsdiscussedhere,i.e.onthe assumption that lack of polysemy speaks for a diachronic change that has beencompleted.

Thisspecificexamplewith(gi)lingan indeedsuggests that theco-occurrenceofthedativesubjectconstructionwithverbsdenoting‘succeed’hasitsrootsmuchfurtherback than in Proto-Germanic. Given that, it certainly appears clear why later verbsdevelopingthemeaning‘succeed’alsoinstantiateargumentstructuresthatdeviatefromthenominativecanon.Thisisbecauseexistingsynonymousverbsinthelanguageattherelevanttimeselectedforanargumentstructurethatitselfdeviatedfromthenominativecanon, namely the dative subject construction. An analogical process of this type,involving caseandargumentstructureassignment toneworexistingverbs,hasbeendocumented both in synchrony (Barðdal 2008) and diachrony (Barðdal 1999, 2009,Barðdal& Eythórsson 2019), thus this is notonly a viable path of change, but also apredictableone.

ExactlyasinSection3.1,alltheexamplespresentedhereinvolveamotionverboccurringwithadativesubject,withthemeaning‘succeed,gowell’,ofwhichsomeoccurwithanadverbialmodifierandsomewithdirectionally-specifiedadverbs.However,oneofourexamplesabove,snúa ‘turn’,occurswithneitherofthetwo,mostlikelybecausedirectional specifications are inherently present in the core semantics of snúa. It istherefore clear that the successmeaning is only foundwith a different predicate andargumentstructurethantheoriginalmeaningofmotion.4. SuccessinIndo-EuropeanLookingfurtherafield,atleastfouroutofsixofthemetaphoricalextensionsin(4)abovecan also be found across the Indo-European language family, namely the extensionsbasedonmotion,growth,touch/contactandaim/reach.ExactlylikeinGermanic,manyofthesemetaphoricalextensionssurfacewithdativesubjects.Likewise,manyofthese

15

verbs are originally verbs of motion, either in the history of the language or in itsprehistory;thesemotionverbstypicallyalsoco-occurwithpreverbsoradverbials.(19) Motion a. Latin:succedo(sub+cedo‘under+step’)

si proinde ut ipse mereor mihiif according.to how I.myself.NOMdeserve I.DATsuccesseritprosper.3SG‘butifIhavesucceededaccordingtowhatIdeserve’(Cic.Fam.10.4.4)

b. EarlyVedic:sam-rdh(sam‘together’+rdh(=r‘move’+dh[ā]‘put’?))3nasmai kamāḥ sámrdhyantenot.he.DAT desire.NOM.PL succeed.PRS.3PL.MID‘Hedoesnothavehisdesiressatisfied’(AV.12.4.19)

c. MiddleVedic:sam-pad(sam+pad‘together+fall/step)’

sám hāsmai padyate yáṃ togetherindeed.he.DAT fall.PRS.3SG.MID which.ACC.SG.M kamaṃ kāmáyatedesire.ACC.SG desire.PRES.3SG‘Indeedheissuccessfulinwhateverdesirehedesires’

(Bṛhad-Ār.Up.6.1.4) d. AncientGreek:sym-baínō(sym+baínō‘with+step/go/walk’)

eí moi sumbaínei toûtoif I.DAT turn.out.3SG this.NOM‘ifIsucceedinthis’(Plat.Laws744a)

e. AncientGreek:pro-chōréō(pro+chōréō‘forward+go’)hṓs hoi dólōi ou proekhṓreesince he.DAT craft.DAT not succeed.3SG‘Sincehecouldnotsucceedbycraft’(Hdt.1.205)

f. Lithuanian:eiti(‘go’)Sūnui einasi mokslasson.DAT.SG go.PRES.3 study.NOM.SG‘Thesonisdoingwellinhisstudies’

(Lietuviųkalbosveiksmažodžiųjunglumožodynas)

3 TheetymologyoftheVedicroot rdh‘succeed,besuccessful,gowell’(seeKulikov2012:362–369foradetaileddiscussionof themeaningand intransitiveusesattested for thisverb)outside Indo-Iranian isunclear(Mayrhofer1986–1996,EWAiaI,118),withtheonlypossibleconnectiontoGr.ἄλϑετο‘becomewholeandsound’(PIE*h2el(-)dh- ‘glücklicherreichen’?seeLIV2262f.),whichisuncertain.Onsemanticgrounds,onemightspeculatethat,likemanyotherverbsofsuccess,itcouldoriginateinaverbofmotion.Specifically,theinitialpartoftherootmayrelyononeofthethreeProto-Indo-European*Her-roots,allreferringtocertainprocessesofmotion:*h1er-(LIV2238: ‘wohingelangen,geraten’),*h2er-(LIV2269f.:‘sich(zusammen)fügen’)and*h3er-(LIV2299f.:‘sichin(Fort)Bewegungsetzen’).

16

g. Lithuanian:(pa-)sekti-s(pa-+sekti+s‘under/aspectual+observe/follow+REFL’)

Kartais ir šuniui pasiseka gardesnį kąsnįsometimes and dog.DAT.SG succeed.3 tastier bite.ACCgautiget.INF‘Sometimeseventhedogsucceedsingettingatastierbite’

(Lietuviųkalbosveiksmažodžiųjunglumožodynas)h. Lithuanian:

(nu-/pa-)vykti(nu-/pa+vykti‘down/under+makeone’sway,go’)Jam gerai ten vykstahe.DAT well there succeed.PRES.3‘Heisdoingwellthere’(Lietuviųkalbosžodynas)

i. Lithuanian:kloti-s(‘put+REFL’)(cf.OHGhladan‘load’;s.Derksen2015:252f;

LIV2362)Kelinonėje man klojosi geraijourney.LOC I.DAT get.on.PAST.3well‘Thejourneywentwellforme’

(Lietuviųkalbosveiksmažodžiųjunglumožodynas)

Alltheexamplesaboveareetymologicallytransparentatthesynchroniclevel,involvingsometypeof(caused)motion,witheitherdirectionalorcomitativepreverbs,exceptfortheLithuanianexamplein(19f),wheretheverbeiti‘go’onlyoccurswithadativesubjectandnopreverbormodifyingadverbial.ThesefactswillbecomerelevantfortheProto-Indo-EuropeanreconstructioninSection6.2below.(20) Giving

a. OldRussian:ou-dati-sja,ModernRussianu-dat’-sja(‘at+give+REFL’) A voina sja imъ ne udala but war.NOM REFL they.DAT NEG succeed.PAST.3SG.F

‘buttheydidnotsucceedatwar’(AfanasijNikitin,“Xoženiezatrimorja”,15thcent.=LateOld/MiddleRussian)

b. Lithuanian:nu-(si)-duoti(‘down(+REFL)+give’) Man nusidave kelionė I.DAT succeed.PRES.3 travel.NOM ‘Mytripwassuccessful’

(21) Touch/contact a. Hittite:ḫap(p)-‘join,attach’(=PIE*h₂ep-‘fit,suit’) takku=šmaš ŪL=ma ḫapzi if=they.DAT/ACC not=but succeed.3sg ‘butiftheydonotsucceed’(KBoXI34I4-5)

17

(22) Aim/reacha. AncientGreek:epi-tunkhánō‘reach,obtain’(‘upon’+tunkhano‘happen’< PIE*dʰeugʰ-‘deliver(aproduct)’)

autôi oudèn epetúnkhane he.DAT nothing.NOM succeed.3SG ‘hesucceededinnothing’(Ant.Lib.41.6)

b. Lithuanian:nu-tìkti(‘down+suit/match’),probablyrelatedtotèkti‘fall to/on’(<PIE*tek-‘reach(outwiththehand)’)4 Ne kiekvienam nutiks taip iškarto not everyone.DAT happen.FUT.3SG thus immediately

atrasti uždarbiofind.INF earning.GEN

‘Noteveryonewillsucceedinfindinganearningimmediately’(Lietuviųkalbosžodynas)

Some of these verbs are polysemous in their respective languages,while others onlydenote success. In those cases, the metaphorical extension is apparent from theetymologicalhistoryoftheroot.Forbothcategoriesofsuccessverbs,someshowvaryingcase frames, as they can instantiate either the Nom-Acc or the Dat-(Nom) argumentstructureconstruction,whileothersareonlyfoundintheDat-(Nom)caseframe. Tosumup,thereareampledatafromfivedifferentbranchesoftheearlyIndo-Europeanlanguagesdocumentingthemetaphoricalextensionofmotiontosuccess.Thegrowthmetaphor,bycontrast,seemstobeconfinedtoGermanicandBalto-Slavic, thetouch/contactmetaphorisfoundinGermanicandHittite,whiletheaim/reachmetaphoris documented in Germanic, Lithuanian and Ancient Greek. We confine ourreconstructionsinSection6belowtothemetaphoricalextensionofmotiontosuccess,asthismetaphoricalextensionhasthewidestdistributionacrosstheEarlyIndo-Europeanbranches.Beforethat,afewwordsonknownmetaphorsofsuccessareinorder.5. MetaphorsforsuccessTorecapitulate,thesixSUCCESSmetaphoricalextensions,documentedinearlyGermanicandasubsetoftheotherearlyIndo-Europeanlanguages,aregivenbelow:(4) Metaphoricalextensions● Motion● Giving● Touch/contact● Aiming/reaching● Growth● Luck

Thequestionthatarisesiswhetherornotthesesourcedomainsarealreadyknowninthefieldofmetaphortheory—andifso,towhichdegree. 4 For a discussion of possibleBaltic (andGermanic) reflexes of this Proto-Indo-European root, see, inparticular,Derksen2015:462,465;LIV2618.Theseincludeverbsmeaningi) ‘suffice,match’(Lith.tìkti‘suit,match’),ii)‘agree,believe’(Lith.tiketi‘believe’,OHGdingen‘id.’),andiii)‘prosper’(Go.þeihan,etc.).

18

Early research on metaphor in the cognitive linguistics community hasdocumentedthatcommonmetaphorsforsuccessare“reachingtheendofapath”(Lakoff1993:222,Radden1996:446ff.) and “motion forward” (Goatly1997,Kövecses2002:137). It turns out that our aim/reachmetaphorical extensionmay be taken to be anelaborationofLakoff’sSUCCESSISREACHINGTHEENDOFAPATH,sincebothaimingandreachingpresupposesintentiontoattainsomethingsomewhere,whetheritbetheendofapathoranotherpredeterminedgoal.Thesameistrueforourmotionextension;thisisclearlyanelaborationofGoatly’sSUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARDmetaphor,eventhoughnotallourmotionexamplesstemfromverbssignifyingmotiondirectedforward.Thus,twoofourestablishedmetaphoricalextensionsforGermanicandIndo-Europeanareclearlyrootedinwell-establishedconceptualmetaphors.

AdditionalresearchintometaphorsinModernEnglishhasrevealedseveralmoreconceptualmetaphors forSUCCESS ineverydayuseofthe language, likethe following(Nicholls2004,Goatly2007:151–160):(23) EnglishconceptualmetaphorsforSUCCESSandFAILURE

● SUCCESSISBIG–FAILUREISSMALL● SUCCESSISHIGH–FAILUREISLOW● SUCCESSISMOVINGFORWARD–FAILUREISSTATICORSTUMBLING● SUCCESSISSWIMMING–FAILUREISDROWNING● SUCCESSISLIFE–FAILUREISDEATH● SUCCESSISSPEED–FAILUREISSLOWNESS

There is a clear connection between the last metaphor, SUCCESS IS SPEED and thedevelopmentof (gi)lingan fromProto-Indo-European*h1lengwh- from themeaning ‘gofast,speed,run’.Also,thefirsttwooftheconceptualmetaphorslistedabove,SUCCESSISBIG and SUCCESS IS HIGH, are indeed relevant for two more of the metaphoricalextensions that we have documented in this article: grow > success and climbing >success.

Eventhoughwehavehereconsideredallmotionverbstogether,irrespectiveofdirection,oneparticularmotionverbthatisusedtodenotesuccessinOldIcelandicisklífa‘climb’,cf.(15)above.Thisuseof‘climb’inthemeaning‘succeed’canalsobeseenas an instantiation of the SUCCESS IS HIGH metaphor since climbing is inherentlydirectional, going either upwards or downwards. Also, SUCCESS IS HIGH is onesubmetaphorofasetofspatialmetaphorsincludingGOODISHIGH,HAPPYISHIGHandMOREISHIGH(cf.Goatly2011).Avariantof thisspatialmetaphor,SUCCESSISUP, isdiscussedbyDavid(2016:89).

Another metaphorical source domain, growing, in the metaphorical extensiongrow>success,maybeseenasaninstantiationoftheSUCCESSISBIGmetaphor,sinceSIZEandGROWTHare intertwinedconcepts,withgrowingbeing involvedwhensizeschangeascendingly.Thisisevidentfromthefactthatifsomebodysucceeds,thatpersonmaybedescribedashaving“grown”(Nicholls2004).TheSUCCESSISBIGmetaphorisalso a submetaphor of the higher-level metaphor GOOD IS BIG, of which otherinstantiationsareIMPORTANTISBIG,SIGNIFICANTISBIGandPOWERFULISBIG(Lakoff&Johnson1980,Nicholls2004,Schubert,Waldzus&Giessner2009).

Thus, three of our documented source domains, giving rise to existingmetaphorical extensions inGermanicand Indo-European,motion, aimingandgrowth,arerootedinestablishedmetaphorsforsuccess.Theremainingthreesourcedomains,

19

giving,touchingandluck,arenotdocumentedinthefield,asfarasweknow.Ofthesethreemetaphors,SUCCESSISAGIFTseemstobeconfinedtoGermanicandBalto-Slavic,SUCCESSISCONTACT/TOUCHINGisconfinedtoGermanicandHittite,whilethelastone,SUCCESSISLUCK,appearstobeonlyfoundinGermanic.ThesethreemetaphorsareofcourseonlythreemoreconstrualsofhowtheconceptofSUCCESSmaybeconceptualizedbyspeakers.

WenowturntothepotentialreconstructabilityoftheearlyGermanicandearlyIndo-EuropeandatapresentedinSections3–4above.

6 ReconstructionInourquest todocumenthow full verbsmaydevelop fromother full verbs,wehaveuncoveredseveralregularitiesinsemanticchange,includingthedevelopmentmotion>success, which is at least of Proto-Germanic origin, if not Proto-Indo-European (seeSections3–4).Hence,wehavegoodreasonstoreconstructasetofsuccessconstructionsforearlierstages.Inwhatfollows,webeginwiththerelativelymoresecurecontextofProto-Germanic inSubsection6.1,beforeproceeding towardsProto-Indo-European inSubsection6.2.6.1 Proto-GermanicAsistrueformostreconstructions,each(partial)reconstructiongivenbelowhasalevelof certainty associated with it that is directly related to the strength of the attestedpatterns.We focus onGermanic for this reason, as the languages ofWest and NorthGermanic in particular share the same set of six conceptual successmetaphors, eachattestedtogreaterorlesserdegreeswiththedativesubjectconstruction.

With regard tomotion verbs, we have documented that there are two sets ofcognates relevant for the Germanic success constructions: in North Germanic, verbscognatetoFaroeseganga;inWestGermanic,verbscognatetoOldEnglishgān.TheNorthGermanic verb can be reconstructed as *gangan for Proto-Germanic, and the WestGermanic as *gǣjan. In spite of having two separate Proto-Indo-European roots,(*ĝhongh-and*ĝheh1i-,respectively),thesetwoverbsareindeedrelated.

ThecommonlyheldviewisthattheoldProto-Indo-Europeanathematicparadigmof*h1ei-‘go’wasreplacedinProto-Germanicwithtwosimilar-lookingbutetymologicallydistinct verbs: Proto-Germanic *gǣjan and *gangan, exactly the verb roots underdiscussionhere(cf.Mottausch1998). In theprehistoryofWestGermanic,*gǣjanand*gangan,gotintegratedintooneparadigm,with*gǣjanusedinthepresentsystemand*gangan in the past. In contrast, in the prehistory of North Germanic, *gangan wasgeneralizedthroughouttheentiretensesystem,althoughreflexesof*gǣjancanbefoundinbothEastNorse(OldSwedishgā,OldDanishgaa)andWest-Norse(OldIcelandicgá).Therefore, even though the two verbs are not etymologically related, they are stillmorphologically related in the sense that they belonged to the same morphologicalparadigmoftheverb‘go’inProto-Germanic.

To continue, thismorphological relation in the history of the languages underdiscussionimpliesasharedhistoryofutilizingthesameverbfortwoargumentstructureconstructions:onewiththeconcretemeaning‘go,walk’andtheotherwiththeabstract

20

meaningof ‘succeed’.Startingwiththeconcretemeaningof ‘walk,go’,weprovidethelexicalcorrespondencesetinTable3.

Table 3. Correspondence set for the verb ‘walk’ in Germanic with the proposedreconstructedform.

FORM1 FORM2 MEANING RECONSTRUCTED

FORM

Gothic gaggan ‘walk’ OldHighGerman gangan gān/gēn ‘walk’ OldEnglish gangan/gongan gān ‘walk’ OldSaxon gangan gān ‘walk’ *gangan-/gǣjan-OldFrisian /gunga gān ‘walk’ OldIcelandicOldSwedish

gangaganga

gágā

‘walk’‘walk

OldDanish gange gaa ‘walk’

* verb-specific argument structure cxt

FORM < gangan-/gǣjan- >

SYN ARG-ST < NP-Nomi >

SEM Self_motion-fr

FRAMES SELF_MOVER i

Figure1.Reconstructionoftheverb‘walk’inProto-Germanic.Moreover,inthesamewaythatonecanconstructacorrespondencesetamonglexicalitems,onecanalsoprovidecorrespondencesetsforsyntacticstructures,atleastgiventheframework of Construction Grammar where no meaningful distinction between thestorageoflexicalitemsandsyntacticstructuresisassumed,i.e.bothexistinthementalrepositoryasform–meaningpairings.ThecorrespondencesetinTable3isnotintendedtocapturethephonologicalshapeoftherelevantlexicalmaterial,butrathertocapturethe lexical items relevant for a particular argument structure and, following that, thesemanticparticipantsofthecorrespondingverbalevent.InallinstancesacrossGermanic,the argument structure for the correspondence set in Table 3 includes a nominativesubject,whichcodestheparticipantof theverbaleventwho ispropellinghim/herselfforward(hence,theindexionboththesyntacticandsemanticparticipantinFigure1).SinceallGermaniclanguageshavethisparticularconstruction—averbofwalkingwith

21

anominativeparticipant—weproposeareconstructionforProto-GermanicasshowninFigure1.

We use the formalism of Construction Grammar to lay out the details of ourreconstruction(Kay&Fillmore1999,Michaelis&Ruppenhofer2001,Boas2003,Fried&Östman2005,Michaelis2009,2013,Sag2012,Fried2015).ThereconstructioninFigure1consistsofthreefields,theFORMfield,theSYNfieldandtheSEMfield.TheFORMfield,inthiscase,isfilledwiththeetymologicallyreconstructedformsthathavealreadybeenproposedbyGermanicetymologists.TheSYNfieldspecifiestheargumentstructure,inthiscasethereisonlyoneargument,namelythenominative,whiletheSEMfielddefinesthesemanticstructureintermsofsemanticframes,inthiscasetheframeassociatedwithSelf_motionintheEnglishFrameNetproject.5AlthoughtheformoftheverbintheFORMfielddiffersinthedaughterlanguagesdependingonwhichformisgeneralizedineachlanguage,theargumentstructureandthesemanticframearethesame.

As alreadymentioned in Section 1, our analysis of themetaphorical extensionfrommotiontosuccessinGermanicmusttakepolysemyintoaccount.Itisclearthatthelexicalverbofmotion, ‘walk,go’,reconstructedinFigure1,isalsousedintheabstractcontextofsuccess,cf.theevidenceinSection3.1.Hence,polysemyishereaccountedforthrough the existence of different argument structure constructions each verb caninstantiate.

Giventheubiquityoftheuseoftheverb‘walk,go’withthesamepredicateandargumentstructureacrossseveralGermaniclanguages—i.e.adativesubject—andarequisite pre- or post-verbal adverbial, we argue that a reconstruction of a successconstruction is also appropriate for Proto-Germanic. In other words, rather thanassumingthateachsuccessconstructionindependentlydevelopedfromtheverb‘walk’intoeachdaughterlanguage,weargueinsteadthattheetymologicalrelationamongthelexicalitemsandthesharedpredicateandargumentstructure,includingvaryingdegreesofproductivityinthelanguagesunderdiscussion,ratherindicateaproto-construction.Bythetermproto-construction,werefertoaconstructionthatmaybereconstructedforaproto-stage,onthebasisofabundantattestationsinthedaughterlanguages. However, the North and West Germanic languages show some importantdifferences,asisevidentfromacomparisonofthetwocorrespondencesetsinTables4–5forNorthandWestGermanic,respectively.EventhoughboththeNorthandtheWestGermaniccorrespondencesetsutilizethesamemorphologicalparadigmfortheverb‘go’,the modifying morphemes differ — namely, North Germanic prefers a post-verbaladverb,whileatleasttwooftheWestGermaniclanguagespreferaperfectiveprefix.Asis discussed in Section 3.1 above, the perfective meaning is most likely a laterdevelopment,with theprehistoricmeaningbeing thedirectionally-specified ‘from’. Inthatsense,theMHGandMiddleDutchformsareequivalenttotheprefixesdiscussedinSection4fortheotherEarlyIndo-Europeanlanguages.OldEnglish,however,patternswithNorthGermanicinthatthebareverb‘succeed’occurswithanadverb‘well’.MiddleDutchalsoshowsaconglomerationofthetwotemplates,asitoccurswithaperfectiveprefixandthemanneradverb‘well’.ThisseemstosuggestthattheVERB+ADVtemplateisyoungerandhasreplacedthePREVERBtemplate.

5 https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Self_motion

22

Table4.Correspondencesetfor‘succeed’inNorthGermanic.

VERBADV MEANING RECONSTRUCTEDFORM

OldIcelandic gangalétt ‘succeed’ OldSwedish gangaslät ‘succeed’ *gangan-/gǣjan-ADVModernFaroese gangavel ‘succeed’

Table5.Correspondencesetfor‘succeed’inWestGermanic.PREVERB VERBADV MEANING RECONSTRUCTED

FORM

OldEnglish gānwel ‘succced’ MiddleHighGerman er- gān ‘succeed’ *PRE-gangan-/gǣjan-MiddleDutch er- gaenwale ‘succeed’

On this basis, we opt for partial reconstructions for both Proto-North Germanic andProto-WestGermanic,asinFigures2–3,respectively.Thesereconstructionsarepartialin that certain “slots” are not lexically specified at this level, namely, the specificmodifyingadverbusedinNorthGermanicandtheprefixinWestGermanic.

* verb-specific argument structure cxt

FORM < gangan-/gǣjan- ADV >

SYN ARG-ST < NP-Dati, NP-Nom/PPj >

SEM Success_or_failure-fr

FRAMES PROTAGONIST i

GOAL j

Figure2.Partialreconstructionof‘succeed’inProto-NorthGermanic.Observe that, exactly as in Figure 1, the argument structure and the semantic frame,includingthesemanticparticipantsoftheverbalevent,arealsoreconstructed,allthisonthe basis of the data presented in Section 3. For both reconstructions, the argumentstructurefor‘succeed’involvesadativesubject(heredefinedasthefirstargumentintheargumentstructure,seeEythórsson&Barðdal2005,Barðdal&Eythórsson2012,2019)alongsideanoptionalnominative“object”oraprepositionalobject(see5baboveforanominative object and 5a for a prepositional object). These syntactic participantscorrespondtothesemanticrolesof“agent”and“goal”,respectively.Importantly,these

23

semantic roles are adopted directly from the FrameNet project, which specifies that‘succeed’asaverbaleventinvolvesanagentandgoal.6

However, FrameNet also makes use of the term protagonist for deprofiledindividualswhoattempttosucceed,atermmoreaccurateforverbsofsuccessselectingfordativesubjects.Clearly,inlanguageswhere‘succeed’occurswithanobliquesubject,the relevant subject referent isnot construedasanagent, butas somesortof anon-agentiveparticipantengagedintheeventofaccidentalornon-controlledsuccess.

* verb-specific argument structure cxt

FORM < PRE-gangan-/gǣjan- >

SYN ARG-ST < NP-Dati, NP-Nom/PPj >

SEM Success_or_failure-fr

FRAMES PROTAGONIST i

GOAL j Figure3.Partialreconstructionof‘succeed’inProto-WestGermanic.InFigures2–3,wereconstructverb-specificargumentstructureconstructionsforProto-NorthandProto-WestGermanic.The functionof theprefixes in the reconstruction inFigure3isnotspecified,sinceitisnottransparentsynchronically,asdiscussedinSection3.1.Alongsidethereconstructions forProto-NorthandProto-WestGermanic, it isalsopossibletoreconstructaverb-classspecificargumentstructureconstructionforverbsofmotioningeneral,notonlyfor‘go’.ConsiderthecorrespondencesetinTable6,whichformsthebasisforapartialreconstructionofaverb-class-specificconstructionofsuccessinProto-GermanicinFigure4.

Table6.Morecorrespondencesformotion>successacrossNorthandWestGermanic

FORM MEANINGOFETYMON

CONSTRUCTIONALMEANING

OldHighGerman DAT-gelingen ‘movequickly’ ‘succeed’OldEnglishOldSwedish

DAT-gānwelDAT-gangaslät

‘gowell’‘gosmoothly’

‘succeed’‘succeed’

OldIcelandicOldIcelandic

DAT-gangaléttDAT-klífaáfram

‘goeasily’‘climbahead’

‘succeed’‘succeed’

OldIcelandic DAT-snúna ‘turn’ ‘succeed’

6 https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Success_or_failure

24

Therearetwomajordifferences in thereconstruction inFigure4,ascomparedtothereconstructions inFigures1–3: i) theFORMfield isempty,and ii) there isanewfieldbetweentheSYNandtheSEMfields,namelyafieldforVERBCLASS.

* verb-class-specific argument structure cxt

FORM < >

SYN ARG-ST < NP-Dati, NP-Nomj >

VERB CL Verbsofmotion

SEM Success_or_failure-fr

FRAMES PROTAGONIST i

GOAL j Figure4.Partialreconstructionofaverb-class-specific‘succeed’constructioninProto-Germanic.ThereasonthattheFORMfieldisemptyisbecausedifferentlexicalverbsofmotionarefound in the success construction in the Germanic languages, even though the sameargument structure is used and the samemetaphorical extension is found. Thus, thispartialreconstructionlacksanylexicalspecificationintheFORMfield.Rather,thispartialreconstructionforGermanicrequiresthattheverbsthatparticipateinthisconstructionbeamemberoftheclass“verbsofmotion”inProto-Germanic.

Figure4, indeed, capturesabroadergeneralizationaboutProto-Germanic thanthe reconstructions inFigures 2–3, namely that the conceptualmetaphor, SUCCESS ISMOTIONFORWARD,musthaveexistedat thisproto-stage.That is,wearenotmerelyreconstructing an argument structure construction together with the relevant lexicalmaterial(infact,inthiscasewearenotreconstructinganylexicalmaterialatall),butthisreconstructionalsoincludesanimplicitassociationwiththeconceptualmetaphorthattriggers theuseof thedative subject construction.This cognitiveassociation fallsoutfromtheco-occurrenceofverbsofmotionintheVERBCLfieldandtheSuccess_or_failureframeintheSEMfield.

Inotherwords,areconstructionliketheoneinFigure4representsanevenlargerstep forward than simplyreconstructing lexicalorphonological information.Notonlydoesourreconstructionencodesyntacticinformation—addingtothegrowingbodyofsyntactic reconstruction— it also encodes cognitive information through the implicitassociationwithaconceptualmetaphor,SUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARD,sharedacrossrelatedlanguages.

AsalreadypointedoutinSection5above,thismetaphor,inandofitself,neednotbeexceptional.Itisentirelypossiblethatametaphorofthistypeisuniversalandoccursin non-Indo-European languages or can perhaps independently emerge in differentbranches. We believe, however, that this particular metaphorical extension is

25

reconstructableforProto-Germanic,sinceitcoincideswithasynchronicallyunmotivatedargument structure, the one involving oblique subjects, and in certain cases,etymologicallyrelated lexical items.Thus,anypotentialexistenceof thismetaphoricalextensioninotherlanguagefamiliesisirrelevantforthepurposesofreconstructioninthepresentarticle.

Thequestion,ofcourse,ariseswhethertheuniquecouplingbetweenalexicalverbmeaning‘succeed’anditsunexpectednon-canonicalsubjectmarkingcouldbeduetotheproductivity of the dative subject construction, for instance in Germanic. On such ascenario, a verb meaning ‘succeed’, occurring with a nominative subject, would getattracted to the dative subject construction, and hence start occurring with a dativesubject instead of the expected nominative. Such verb-specific changeshave certainlybeen documented in the history of the Germanic languages with oblique subjectpredicates(Allen1995:250,Falk1997:51,Barðdal1999,2001,2009,2011,Eythórsson2000, 2002, Jónsson & Eythórsson 2005). The problem, however, is that such item-specific changes are generally not found across several daughter languages, but areconfinedtoonlyoneofthedaughters,duetotheanalogicalnatureofsuchchanges.Inourcase,however,we find the same lexical verbs, the samemeaning, the samepredicatestructure, and the same non-canonical argument structure in one language after theother,which clearly speaks for inheritance rather thanproductivity (cf.Barðdal et al.2012).

Inthenextsectionweshowhowthismotion>successmetaphormaybeexplicitlyreconstructedforthegrammarandtheconceptualsystemofProto-Indo-European.6.2 Proto-Indo-EuropeanLetusnowponderoverthepossibilitythattheDAT-succeedsconstruction,i.e.thedativesubject construction together with the metaphorical extension, SUCCESS IS MOTIONFORWARD,canbereconstructedevenfurtherbacktoProto-Indo-European.AsshowninSections 3–4 above, many verbs of success throughout the Indo-European languagefamilyhaveadativesubjectwithaverbthat,atleastetymologically,derivesfrommotion.Onthisbasis,considerthecorrespondencesetinTable7.Table7.Indo-Europeancorrespondencesetformotion>‘succeed’.

FORM MEANINGOFETYMON

CONSTRUCTIONALMEANING

OldEnglish DAT-gānwel ‘gowell’ ‘succeed’Latin DAT-succedō ‘stepunder’ ‘succeed’AncientGreekLithuanian

DAT-prochōréōDAT-(pa-)sekti-s

‘goforward’‘follow’

‘succeed’‘succeed’

Vedic DAT-sam-pad ‘steptogether’ ‘succeed’

WehavealreadyreconstructedaDAT-‘succeeds’constructionbasedonthemetaphoricalextension,SUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARD,forProto-Germanic(Figures2–3).InLatin,Classical Greek, Lithuanian, and Vedic Sanskrit, we find similar instantiations of thisconstruction(seeSection4above).InallthelanguagesinthecorrespondencesetinTable7,thesubjectoftheverbisinthedativecase.Moreover,eachverbhasetymologicalorsynchronicderivationalrootsexpressingmotion.

26

Forexample,theLatinverbsuccedere‘succeed’representsthesimplexverbcedere‘step’compoundedwiththepreverbsub-‘under’.Likewise,theClassicalGreekprochoréoisacombinationofthepreverbpro-‘forward’andthemotionverbchoréo‘go,move’.Theexamples from Vedic Sanskrit both involve the comitative ‘with’. Note that in theseexamplesapreverbisusedinthesamewayasitisusedwiththeverb‘go,walk’intheWestGermanicdatapresentedinSection3above.

Furthermore, although the degree of polysemy found for the verbs across thelanguages in Table 7 might vary — with the ‘succeed’ meaning becoming the onlymeaningforsomebutnotnecessarilyallthelanguages—thissimplyindicates,withinaConstructionGrammar framework, that the nominative subject constructionwith theoriginal concrete meaning is no longer available for the compounded verb, i.e. thesemantic change is complete. Taking seriously the fact that both the metaphoricalextensionofmotion>successandthepredicateandargumentstructurearerecurrentacross genetically related languages that are distant in time and space, which isunexpectedgiventhelackofanyintrinsiclinkbetweenthetwo,apartialreconstructionfor Proto-Indo-European may be suggested as in Figure 5, on the basis of thecorrespondencesetinTable7above.

* verb-class-specific argument structure cxt

FORM < PRE-V ‘directional/comitative’ V >

SYN ARG-ST < NP-Dati, NP-Nomj >

VERB CL Verbsofmotion

SEM Success_or_failure-fr

FRAMES PROTAGONIST i

GOAL j Figure 5. Partial reconstruction of the DAT-‘succeeds’ construction in Proto-Indo-European.Again,exactlyasinProto-Germanic,thereconstructioninFigure5capturesthefactthatanargumentstructurewithadativesubjectisreadilyusedtoindicatesuccessinProto-Indo-Europeanwithaverboriginallysignifyingmotion.Thatis,themetaphorSUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARD and the dative subject construction coupledwith themeaning‘succeed’ were all available in the constructiCon of Proto-Indo-European. Instead ofleavingtheFORMfieldblank,weuseittospecifythemorphologicalrestrictionsofthepredicate,namely that itmust containapreverbwitheitherdirectionalor comitativesemantics,withtheverbclassspecifyingthatverbsofmotioninparticularparticipateinthis construction. This reconstructionwas achieved by simply projecting back to theproto-languageatemplateconsistentlyfoundacrossthedaughterlanguages,whichisthestandard process of reconstruction. The difference between the reconstructions we

27

propose above and any traditional reconstruction is that in our case a syntacticreconstructionisbeingcarriedout,notaphonologicaloramorphologicalone.

TheclaimhereisthatsomeProto-Indo-EuropeanverbsofmotionfilledtheFORMslotintheconstructioninFigure5,althoughthisassumptiondoesnotholdforallverbsofmotion,exactlyasnotallverbsofmotionareusedtodenotesuccessinallthedaughterlanguages. Given that we assume that such a construction existed in Proto-Indo-European,thequestionarisesastowhysomecognateverbsarenotfoundinstantiatingtheconstructionintheIndo-EuropeanmaterialpresentedinSection4above,whichinturn would allow for a reconstruction of a verb-specific Proto-Indo-Europeanconstructionandnotonlyaverb-class-specificconstructionasininFigure5above.Thereason is,as iswellknowninhistorical linguistics, thatvocabularygetsreplacedovertime(e.g.Firth1935,Bynon1977:183–193,Cavalli-Sforza&Wang1986,D’arcy2006,Calude & Pagel 2011, François 2011). Such a process has been termed ‘lexicalreplacement’or‘lexicalsubstitution’intheliterature,resultinginnewlexicalmaterial,replacingtheolderlexicalmaterialwithinaconstruction,asalsodiscussedbyBarðdal&Eythórsson(2019)fortheNom-DatconstructionintheIndo-Europeanlanguages.

Regardingthecognacyofthecasemarkers,itiscommonknowledgeintheIndo-EuropeanscholarshipthatthemarkersforthedativecasearecognateacrosstheIndo-Europeanbranches(see,forinstance,Kuryłowicz1964:190–193,Szemerényi1996:160,Ringe2006:Ch.2,Clackson2007:90–91),andnotonlyacrosstheGermaniclanguages(exceptofcoursefortheinstancesofsyncretismofthedativewithsomeothercase(s)suchas,e.g., instrumental,wheretheoriginalcognaterelationshipscanbeblurred).Insomebranches,newmarkersforthedativehavearisen,asintheIndo-Aryanlanguages,wherenewmarkerswereadoptedintothelanguageduringtheMiddleandNewIndo-Aryanperiods (seeKulikov2009:440–442,Butt&Ahmed2011).Anotherexample isTocharian,wheretheoriginalProto-Indo-Europeancasesystemhasbeenrestructured.However,ourreconstructionabove isneitherbasedonTochariannor late Indo-Aryandata. Furthermore,althoughthemetaphorSUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARDitselfcouldverywellbeuniversal,thatfactissimplyirrelevantforthepresentpurposes.Thereasonisthatitistheprevalenceofthetemplate—thatthemeaning‘succeed’co-occurswithadative subject construction, summarized by the partial reconstruction in Figure 5—shows beyond doubt that such a construction could and should be reconstructed forProto-Indo-European. Inotherwords, ifwe take seriously that suchametaphormusthaveexistedwithinProto-Indo-European,thenatsomestageintheproductionofthisconstruction theremust have been amapping from a conceptual frame (SUCCESS ISMOTION FORWARD) onto the available argument structure. Oblique subjectconstructions typically express involuntary events, most notably with experientialmeaningbutalsowithothertypesofnon-agentivesemantics.Successmayindeedbelongtothisdomain,dependingonhowitisconceptualizedinalanguage. Yetanotherissuenothithertoaddressediswhethersuccesseventsmaygenerallybe expressed with dative subjects cross-linguistically, irrespective of the motion >success metaphor, for instance in languages generally exhibiting dative subjectconstructions.WeareawareofonlyafewlanguagesoutsideIndo-Europeanwheredativesubjects are found with verbs of success. These include some Finno-Ugric languages(Saami, Finnish, Hungarian), Modern Hebrew, two Nakh-Daghestanian languages(Akhvakh,Avar)andoneTibeto-Burmanlanguage(Japhug).Incontrast,noevidenceforsuch constructions is found in several other languages and language families acrossEurasia,specifically,Kartvelian,Tsez(Nakh-Daghestanian),Japanese,Korean,Dravidian

28

(Tamil,Kannada,Malayalam),Tibeto-Burman(Manipuri,Lamkang),orinSouthAmerica(Cariban).7

Returning to the languages inwhich dative subjects occurwith success verbs,SaamiandFinnisharegeographicallysurroundedbyIndo-Europeanlanguages,namelyGermanic,BalticandSlavic,andthesameholdsforHungarian.Thus,itisunclearwhetherthisisaninheritedFinno-UgricfeatureorwhetheritstemsfromanIndo-Europeanad-orsubstrate.ModernHebrew,moreover,isheavilyinfluencedbyYiddish(Zuckermann2006,2009),whiletheNakh-DaghestanianlanguageshavebeenincontactwithRussian,at least during the last few centuries (Comrie 2008), leaving only Tibeto-Burman asunexplainedbyapotentialcontactsituation.Examplesofverbsofsuccessoccurringwithdative subjects in Amerindian, Austronesian, Japanese, Korean and Kartvelian, forinstance,areconspicuousbytheirabsence.Hence,noclearcross-linguisticgeneralizationemergesinvolvingacorrelationbetweendativesubjectsandsuccessverbs,exceptforinEurasia,whereIndo-Europeanlanguagesareamplypresent.Ofcourse,moresystematicresearchisneededtoruleoutacross-linguisticassociationbetweensuccessverbsanddativesubjectsingeneral.Meanwhile,thesepreliminaryobservationsfurtherstrengthenour claim that a verb-class-specific construction involving dative subjects, with themeaning‘succeed’,maybefelicitouslyreconstructedforProto-Indo-European.Addingamotionverbtotheequationstrengthensthereconstructionevenfurther.

Returningtoourreconstruction,westartwithmodelingtheconceptualframeinFigure6,i.e.ourmetaphor,SUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARD,inProto-Indo-European.Asis evident, the sourcedomain, to the right inFigure6, isMOTIONFORWARDand thetargetdomain,totheleft,isSUCCESS.ThemappingbetweenthesemanticparticipantsofthesourceandtargetdomainsinFigure6,i.e.betweentheself-moveroftheSelfmotion-frame and the protagonist, i.e. the successful individual, of the Success-frame isrepresentedthroughthearrowsbetweentheparticipantsofthetwodomains.Recallthatthe second argument of the dative subject construction is either a nominative or aprepositionalobject.Thisargument,moreover,isoptional,hencethebracketsaroundtheDestination in the source domain and the corresponding Achievement in the targetdomain.

*

SUCCESS IS MOTION FORWARD

Success MotionForward

SuccessfulIndividual=Protagonist(Achievement)

Self-mover(Destination)

7 WethankFláviaCastroAlves,RaghavachariAmritavalli,ShobhanaChelliah,DenisCreissels,SpikeGildea,EitanGrossman,GuillaumeJacques,ZairaKhalilova,RitsukoKikusawa,ElenaKondratyeva,ValériaMolnár,Na’amaPat-El,YakovTestelets,HannuTommolaandJussiYlikoskiforprovidinguswithdatafromavarietyofnon-Indo-Europeanlanguages.

29

Figure6.AReconstructionoftheSUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARDmetaphorinProto-Indo-European(inspiredbythenotationalsystemofDavid2016:Ch.4)Finally,Figure7modelsthemappingbetweenthemetaphorinFigure6andtheverb-class-specificdativesubjectconstructioninFigure5,withverbsofmotion,representedhereinasimplifiedversionforthesakeofclarity.Recallthatthemappingofthesemanticparticipants of the Success-frame onto the arguments of the argument structure isalreadyspecifiedwithintheargumentstructureitselfthroughindexing.Throughthesetwomappings,fromthemetaphoricalsourcedomainontothetargetdomaininFigure6and themappingof theparticipantsof the semantic frameonto thearguments in theargument structure, the following facts fall out: the Self-mover, perceived of as theSuccessfulIndividual,theProtagonist,isrealizedasadativesubjectinthegrammar,andtheDestination,perceivedofastheAchievement,isrealizedaseitheranominativeobjectoraprepositionalobject,whenspelledoutatall.

The double arrows inFigure 7 illustrate themutual influence of the argumentstructureandthemetaphoroneachother;themetaphoraffectsthechoiceofargumentstructure, while at the same time the argument structure predicts a certain type ofsemanticsmotivatedbythismetaphor.

* SUCCESS IS MOTION FORWARD

SYN DATi, NOMj

VERB CL Verbsofmotion

SEM SUCCESS

Figure7.Mappingmetaphorontoaverb-class-specificconstruction.Onecouldnowargue,perhapsinparticularonthebasisofthedativecasemarkingofthesubject, that the conceptual metaphor, motion > success, should be understood asimplyingthatsuccesscomestotheprotagonist.That is,as involvingmovementof thesuccesstotheSuccessfulIndividual,theProtagonist,insteadoftheProtagonistmovingforwardandachievingsuccess.Onemajorproblemwithsuchananalysisisthatitentailsnotonlynostraightforwardmapping,butalsosimplynomappingatall,betweentheSelf-mover of the source domain and any semantic participant in the target domain. Thiswouldproduceamajormismatchbetweentheparticipantrolesof thesourceandthetarget domains, with the Self-mover of the source domain not being anchored in thetargetdomainatall,butsomehowbeingleftoutorbeingunrealizedinthegrammatical

30

representation.Second,thisalsoentailsthattheProtagonist,theSuccessfulIndividual,shouldberealizedasaDestination,whichitisnot,asDestinationinsteadmaterializesastheAchievement,whenrealizedatall.

Anotheroptionwouldbetointroduceanadditionalmetaphorintotheequation,ametaphorwhere the dative subjectwould be perceived of as a beneficiary, somehowreceivingthesuccess.Onsuchananalysis,twometaphorsareneededtoaccountforthesemanticdevelopmentofmotion> successacross the Indo-European family.Of thesetwo,onlyasubsectionofthesemanticparticipantsofthetwosourcedomainswouldberealized in the one target domain, again resulting in amajor mismatch between theparticipantrolesofthesourceandthetargetdomains,nowwiththesuccessitselfhavingtoberealizedasanobject.However,ontheanalysisofthefirstmetaphor,SUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARD,successwouldhavetoberealizedasthesubjectmovingtowardsthedativeargument.Hence,yetanothermismatchwouldarise,namelyastothemappingofthesuccessitselfontoa)subjectonthefirstmetaphor,butontob)objectonthesecondmetaphor.

There is, however, another way of accounting for the perceived benefactiveproperties of the dative subject argument, and thus to account for any potentialperceptionthatsuccessmovesto theProtagonist, theSuccessful Individual, insteadofhim/her achieving success throughmotion forward. This alternative account is evenglaringlyobvious,givenaconstructiongrammarapproach,onwhichitisreasonabletoassumethatanypotentialbenefactivesemantics indeedstemsfromthedativesubjectconstructionitself,irrespectiveofthemetaphormotivatingthemeaningextensionofthelexicalverbsinstantiatingtheconstruction,inthiscaseverbsofmotion.Itisawell-knownfactthatanagentivereadingofdativesubjectargumentsisexcludedinlanguageswheresuchconstructionsarefound.Insteadofrepeatingherethetypeofexamplesthathavebeenusedtoestablishthisintheearlierliterature,forinstancetheungrammaticalityofimperatives,theungrammaticalityofembeddingunderverbsofintentionandverbsofattempting,aswellasexampleswhereoptionalmodifiersexpressingagentivitycanbeshown tobe infelicitous,we refer thereader toBarðdal (2004:124–131),Thráinsson(2007:xx),andthereferencesfoundthere.

Wehaveshownabovethatthereareatleastsixmetaphoricalextensionsbehindthe creation of success verbs across the early Indo-European languages.Hence,moresuchextensionscouldeasilyhaveexisted intheproto-stage.However,weconfineourreconstructiontotheextensionbestattestedinthedaughterlanguages.Whatismore,this metaphorical extension motion > success may well be attested outside Indo-European,which,however,wouldnotcallintoquestionthevalidityofourreconstructionforProto-Indo-European.Thereasonisthatstructuresofthistypeareconfidentlyfoundinalargeenoughnumberofbranchesandcanthusbereconstructedforaproto-stage,irrespectiveof their existence inother language families.That is,webelieve that it isimportantthatanymodelingofanearlierprehistoricstageisinaccordancewiththefactsoftheearliestattesteddaughterlanguages,asonemustassumecontinuationfromtherelevantproto-stagetothedaughterlanguages.

ThebenefitofourpartialreconstructionforProto-Indo-EuropeaninFigures5–7isthattheseprovidesupportforthesuggestionthatanargumentstructureconstructioninvolvingadativesubjectmusthavebeenavailableintheproto-language.Thatis,itaddstothegrowingbodyofworkthatsuggeststhatoblique-subjectconstructionsareindeedreconstructableforProto-Indo-European.ThishasalreadybeenarguedforProto-West-Indo-European(cf.Barðdaletal.2012)andProto-Indo-Europeaningeneral(Barðdal&Smitherman2013,Barðdaletal.2013).Whatthepresentinvestigationaddstoourpool

31

ofknowledgeisthereconstructionofametaphorforProto-Indo-European,SUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARD,onwhichthereconstructedDAT-‘succeeds’constructioninProto-Indo-Europeanisbased.

Thereisnodoubtinourmindsthattheubiquityofthecomplementaryaspectsofthistemplatespeakstoasharedancestralconstruction,whichisitselfasubconstructionoftheobliquesubjectconstructionthathasarguablyexistedintheproto-language.ThefactthattheattestedconstructionswithDAT-‘succeeds’fitintothepurportedtemplateof the oblique subject construction already reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European isstrongevidence for theexistenceof aproto-constructionof the same typeduring theproto-stagesofthelanguagesdiscussedhere.7. SummaryandconclusionThegoalof thisarticlehasbeentocontributetoanunderstudieddomainofhistoricalsemantics in the international scholarship, namely the investigation of how existinglexicalverbsmaydevelopintonewlexicalverbs,asopposedtothedevelopmentoflexicalverbs into auxiliaries. For this purpose, we have focused on the emergence of verbsmeaning ‘succeed’ in several early/archaic Indo-European languages, concentratingparticularlyonGermanic.Wearguethatoneofthemainlociofthisprocessinvolvesthedomainofverbsofmotion,typicallycompoundedwithspatialpreverbsorconstructedwithmodifyingadverbs.Throughthisprocessanewmeaning‘succeed’arisesfromthemeaningofmotion.Thissemanticchangeisaccompaniedby:i)reductioninagentivity,ii)decreaseinsyntactictransitivity,coupledwithiii)systematicuseofpreverbs,andiv)a concomitant change in argument structure from a canonical Nom-(Acc) frame to anoncanonicalDat-(Nom/PP)frame.Thetypeofverbalpolysemyinvolvedisaccountedfor,withinConstructionGrammar,throughdifferentargumentstructureconstructions. Onthebasisof thedatapresented inthisarticle,wehaveshownthat ‘succeed’constructionssystematicallydevelopfromverbsofmotioninbothGermanicandintheIndo-European languages ingeneral.Notonlyhavewedemonstrated thewell-knownregularityinsemanticchange,fromconcretetoabstract,wehavealsoidentifiedamorespecific path of semantic change found with verbs of success, i.e. ‘go (forward)’ >‘succeed’.ThismetaphoricalextensionisarguablydocumentedforseveralbranchesofIndo-European,manifestingtheregularcharacterofthispath,whichthuscanserveasbasis for our semantic reconstruction, going hand in hand with our syntacticreconstruction.

Thus, we reconstruct a ‘succeed’ constructionwith a Dat(-Nom/PP) argumentstructure,instantiatedbythesamelexicalverb‘go(forward)’forProto-Germanic,aswellasaverb-class-specificDAT-‘succeeds’ construction, confined toverbsofmotionwithpreverbsoradverbialmodifiersforProto-Germanicandverbsofmotionwithdirectionaland comitative preverbs in Proto-Indo-European. What is more, we are able toreconstruct a conceptual metaphor, SUCCESS IS MOTION FORWARD, for Proto-Indo-European,anditsmappingwiththedativesubjectconstruction.Asfarasweareaware,this is the first reconstruction of a conceptual metaphor for a proto-language in theliterature.

Wearenot contesting thepossibility thatmetaphors likeSUCCESS ISMOTIONFORWARDmaybefoundcrosslinguisticallyorevenbeindependentlyconstructedgiventheappropriatecognitiveframeofspeakers.However,itisnotself-evidentthatsuchametaphorwouldmapontoargumentstructuresinvolvingdativesubjects,thusdeviating

32

fromthenominativecanon,as in the Indo-European languagesdiscussedhere.Onthecontrary,theco-occurrenceofverbsofsuccesswithdativesubjectsdoesnotseemtobewell attested cross-linguistically, only documented in Modern Hebrew, Finno-Ugric,Nakh-DaghestanianandTibeto-Burman,asfarasweareaware.Mostoftheselanguageshavebeenincontactwith,oraregeographicallyadjacentto,Indo-Europeanlanguages,whichinturnmayaccountfortheexistenceoftheDAT-‘succeeds’constructionintheselanguages. Therefore, the ubiquity of the DAT-‘succeeds’ construction across severalbranchesoftheIndo-Europeanfamily,instantiatedbyverbsofmotionwithdirectionalandcomitativepreverbs,speaksforthereconstructabilityofthisconstruction.

Wehave,moreover, alsoprovidedexamplesof verbsdenoting successderivedthroughothermetaphoricalextensionsthantheonebasedonmotion,likegrowth,luck,touch/contact,aim/reach,andgiving.Suchmetaphoricalextensions,whiledocumentedacrossseveraldaughterlanguages,orevenacrossseveralbranches,arenotattestedtothesamedegreeastheextensionbasedontheSUCCESSISMOTIONFORWARDmetaphorwhich motivates the DAT-‘succeeds’ construction. This may mean that thesemetaphoricalextensionsrepresenteitheranearlierinheritancethathasgonelostoralaterinnovationinthedaughterlanguages.WhiletheDAT-‘succeeds’constructioncanbeconfidently reconstructed for Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-European with motionverbs on the basis of the abundant and recurrent templates presented above, furtherresearchisneededtothrowlightontheissuewhetherothermetaphoricalextensions—e.g.SUCCESSISAGIFT—representsaninnovationorasharedretentioninthedaughterlanguages.

Toaddresstheriddleproposedinthesubtitleofthisarticle—howtosucceedinIndo-European— the root of the success is in the root. Success is achieved throughderivinganabstractmeaningfromanoriginallyconcreterootbymeansofanavailableconceptualmetaphorandadeviantargumentstructureconstruction,usedingeneraltoconveydifferenttypesofinvoluntaryandnon-controlledevents.Thisprocessillustratesregularity in semantic change, of validity for cross-linguistic research and historical-comparativereconstruction,assuchcontributingtoabetterunderstandingofsemanticmetaphorizationandregularityinhistoricalsemantics.ReferencesAllen,CynthiaL.1986.Reconsideringthehistoryoflike.JournalofLinguistics22:375–409.

Allen,CynthiaL.1995.CaseMarkingandReanalysis:GrammaticalRelationsfromOldtoModernEnglish.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

ASD=AnAnglo-SaxonDictionary.1966.BasedonthemanuscriptcollectionsofthelateJosephBosworth,editedandenlargedbyT.NorthcoteToller.London:OxfordUniversityPress.

Barðdal,Jóhanna.1999.CaseandArgumentStructureofsomeLoanVerbsin15thCenturyIcelandic.Allatidersspråk.EnVänskrifttillGertrudPetterssonnovember1999,ed.byIngerHaskå&CarinSandqvist,9–23.LundastudieriNordiskspråkvetenskapA55.Lund:Institutionenförnordiskaspråk.

Barðdal,Jóhanna.2000.ObliquesubjectsinOldScandinavian.NOWELE:North-WesternEuropeanLanguageEvolution37:25–51.

Barðdal,Jóhanna.2001a.TheRoleofThematicRolesinConstructions?EvidencefromtheIcelandicInchoative.Proceedingsofthe18thScandinavianConferenceof

33

Linguistics2000,ed.byArthurHolmer,Jan-OlofSvantesson&ÅkeViberg,127–137.Lund:DepartmentofLinguistics.

Barðdal,Jóhanna.2001b.CaseinIcelandic–ASynchronic,DiachronicandComparativeApproach.LundastudieriNordiskspråkvetenskapA57.Lund:DepartmentofScandinavianLanguages.

Barðdal,Jóhanna.2004.TheSemanticsoftheImpersonalConstructioninIcelandic,GermanandFaroese:BeyondThematicRoles.FocusonGermanicTypology,ed.byWernerAbraham,105–137.Berlin:AkademieVerlag.

Barðdal,Jóhanna.2008.Productivity:EvidencefromCaseandArgumentStructure.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Barðdal,Jóhanna.2009.TheDevelopmentofCaseinGermanic.TheRoleofSemantic,PragmaticandDiscourseFactorsintheDevelopmentofCase,ed.byJóhannaBarðdal&ShobhanaL.Chelliah,123–159.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Barðdal,Jóhanna.2011.TheRiseofDativeSubstitutionintheHistoryofIcelandic:ADiachronicConstructionGrammarAccount.Lingua121(1):60–79.

Barðdal,Jóhanna.2012.PredictingtheProductivityofArgumentStructureConstructions.BerkeleyLinguisticsSociety32(2006):467–478.

Barðdal,Jóhanna,CarleeArnett,StephenMarkCarey,ThorhallurEythorsson,GardB.Jenset,GuusKroonen&AdamOberlin.2016.DativeSubjectsinGermanic:AComputationalAnalysisofLexicalSemanticVerbClassesAcrossTimeandSpace.STUF:LanguageTypologyandUniversals69(1):49–84.

Barðdal,Jóhanna,ValgerðurBjarnadóttir,SerenaDanesi,TonyaKimDewey,ThórhallurEythórsson,ChiaraFedriani&ThomasSmitherman.2013.TheStoryof‘Woe’.JournalofIndo-EuropeanStudies41(3–4):321–377.

Barðdal,Jóhanna&ThórhallurEythórsson.2003.TheChangethatNeverHappened:TheStoryofObliqueSubjects.JournalofLinguistics39(3):439–472.

Barðdal,Jóhanna&ThórhallurEythórsson.2012.‘Hungeringandlustingforwomenandfleshlydelicacies’:ReconstructinggrammaticalrelationsforProto-Germanic.TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety110(3),363–393.

Barðdal,Jóhanna&ThórhallurEythórsson.2019.HowtoIdentifyCognatesinSyntax:TakingWatkins’LegacyOneStepFurther.ToappearinReconstructingSyntax,ed.byJóhannaBarðdal,SpikeGildea&EugenioR.Lujan.Leiden:Brill.

Barðdal,Jóhanna&SpikeGildea.2015.DiachronicConstructionGrammar:EpistemologicalContext,BasicAssumptionsandHistoricalImplications.DiachronicConstructionGrammar,ed.byJóhannaBarðdal,ElenaSmirnova,LotteSommerer&SpikeGildea,1–50.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Barðdal,Jóhanna,LeonidKulikov,RolandA.Pooth&PeterAlexanderKerkhof.2019.ObliqueAnticausatives:AMorphosyntacticIsoglossinIndo-European.SubmittedtoaspecialissueofPoznanStudiesinContemporaryLinguistics.

Barðdal,Jóhanna&ThomasSmitherman.2013.TheQuestforCognates:AReconstructionofObliqueSubjectConstructionsinProto-Indo-European.LanguageDynamicsandChange3(1):28–67.

Barðdal,Jóhanna,ThomasSmitherman,ValgerðurBjarnadóttir,SerenaDanesi,GardB.Jenset&BarbaraMcGillivray.2012.ReconstructingConstructionalSemantics:TheDativeSubjectConstructioninOldNorse-Icelandic,Latin,AncientGreek,OldRussianandOldLithuanian.StudiesinLanguage36(3):511–547.

Bjarnadóttir,Valgerður.2014.ObliqueAnticausativeinLithuanian:AComparativeApproach.BaltisticaXLIX(1):15–39.

34

Boas,HansC.2003.AConstructionalApproachtoResultatives.Stanford:CSLIPublications.

Bréal,Michel.1900.Semantics.StudiesintheScienceofMeaning.London:Heinemann.Butt,Miriam&TafseerAhmed.2011.TheRedevelopmentofIndo-AryanCaseSystemsfromaLexicalSemanticPerspective.Morphology21(3–4):545–572.

Bybee,Joan,ReverePerkinsandWilliamPagliuca.1994.Theevolutionofgrammar:tense,aspectandmodalityinthelanguagesoftheworld.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Bybee,Joan&SandraThompson.2000.ThreeFrequencyEffectsinSyntax.BerkeleyLinguisticSociety23:65–85.

Bynon,Theodora.1977.HistoricalLinguistics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Calude,AndreeaS.&MarkPagel.2011.HowDoWeUseLanguage?SharedPatternsintheFrequencyofWordUseacross17WorldLanguages.PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB366:1101–1107.

Cavalli-Sforza,LuigiLuca&WilliamSY.1986.SpatialDistanceandLexicalReplacement.Language62(1):38–55.

Christiansen,BethanyJ.&BrianD.Joseph.2016.OntheRelationshipBetweenArgumentStructureChangeandSemanticChange.ProceedingsoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmerica1(26):1–11.

Clackson,James.2007.Indo-EuropeanLinguistics:AnIntroduction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Comrie,Bernard.2008.LinguisticDiversityintheCaucasus.AnnualReviewofAnthropology37:131–143.

Conti,Luz.2008.SynchronieundDiachroniedesaltgriechischenGenitivsalsSemisubjekt,HistorischeSprachforschung121:94–113.

Conti,Luz.2009.WeitereszumGenitivalsSemisubjektimAltgriechischen:AnalysedesKasusbeiimpersonalenKonstruktionen.HistorischeSprachforschung122:182–207.

Cornillie,Bert.2008.OntheGrammaticalizationand(Inter)SubjectivityofEvidential(Semi-)AuxiliariesinSpanish.TheoreticalandEmpiricalIssuesinGrammaticalization,ed.byElenaSeoane&MaríaJoséLópez-Couso,77–110.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Croft,Willam.2001.RadicalConstructionGrammar:SyntacticTheoryinTypologicalPerspective.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Danesi,Serena.2014a.SubjecthoodandNon-CanonicalCaseMarking:ACaseStudyonModalVerbsinAncientGreek.ApaperpresentedattheEVALISA/ContraGramWorkshoponNon-CanonicalSubjects,Ghent,March2014.

Danesi,Serena.2014b.AccusativeSubjectsinAvestan:‘Errors’orNoncanonicallyMarkedArguments.Indo-IranianJournal57(3):223–260.

Danesi,Serena,CynthiaA.Johnson&JóhannaBarðdal.2017.BetweentheHistoricalLanguagesandtheReconstructedLanguage:AnAlternativeApproachtotheGerundive+“DativeofAgent”ConstructioninIndo-European.IndogermanischeForschungen122:143–188.

Danesi,Serena,CynthiaA.Johnson&JóhannaBarðdal.2018.WhereDoestheModalityofAncientGreekModalVerbsComeFrom?TheRelationbetweenModalityandObliqueCaseMarking.JournalofGreekLinguistics18(1):45–92.

David,OanaAlexandra.2016.MetaphorintheGrammarofArgumentRealization.UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,DoctoralDissertation.

D’arcy,Alexandra.2006.LexicalReplacementandtheLike(s).AmericanSpeech81(4):339–357.

35

Derksen,Rick.2015.EtymologicalDictionaryoftheBalticInheritedLexicon(LeidenIndo-EuropeanEtymologicalDictionarySeries13).Leiden:Brill.

Diewald,Gabriele.1999.DieModalverbenimDeutschen:GrammatikalisierungundPolyfunktionalität.Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Diewald,Gabriele&ElenaSmirnova.2010.EvidentialityinGerman:LinguisticRealizationandRegularitiesinGrammaticalization.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Diewald,Gabriele&IlseWischer.2013.MarkersofFuturityinOldHighGermanandOldEnglish:AComparativeCorpus-BasedStudy.ComparativeStudiesinEarlyGermanicLanguages:WithaFocusonVerbalCategories,ed.byGabrieleDiewald,LeenaKahlas-Tarkka&IlseWischer,195–216.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

EWA=2014.EtymologischesWörterbuchdesAlthochdeutschen.Bd.5,ed.byLloyd,AlbertL.&RosemarieLühr.Göttingen,Zürich:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

Eythorsson,Thórhallur.2000.Dativevs.Nominative:ChangesinQuirkySubjectsinIcelandic.LeedsWorkingPapersinLinguistics8:27–44.

Eythorsson,Thórhallur.2002.ChangesinSubjectCaseMarkinginIcelandic.SyntacticEffectsofMorphologicalChange,ed.byDavidLightfoot,196–212.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Eythórsson,Thórhallur&JóhannaBarðdal.2005.Obliquesubjects:AcommonGermanicinheritance.Language81(4):824–881.

Falk,Cecilia.1997.Fornsvenskaupplevarverb[OldSwedishexperiencerverbs].Lund:LundUniversityPress.

Fedriani.Chiara.2014.ExperientialConstructionsinLatin.Brill:Leiden.Fillmore,CharlesJ.,PaulKay&MaryCatherineO’Connor.1988.RegularityandIdiomaticityinGrammaticalConstructions:TheCaseofLetAlone.Language64:501–538.

Firth,J.R.1935.TheTechniqueofSemantics.TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety34(1):36–73.

Fischer,Susann.2010.WordOrderChangeasaSourceofGrammaticalization.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Fleischman,Suzanne.1983.TheFutureinThoughtandLanguage:DiachronicEvidencefromRomance.CambridgeUniversityPress.

Fortson,BenjaminW.IV.2003.AnApproachtoSemanticChange.TheHandbookofHistoricalLinguistics,ed.byBrianD.Joseph&RichardD.Janda,648–666.Oxford:Blackwell.

François,Alexandre.2011.SocialEcologyandLanguageHistoryintheNorthernVanuatuLinkage:ATaleofDivergenceandConvergence.JournalofHistoricalLinguistics1(2):175–246.

Fried,Mirjam.2015.IrregularMorphologyinRegularSyntacticPatterns:ACaseofConstructionalRe-Alignment.InJóhannaBarðdal,SpikeGildea,ElenaSmirnova&LotteSommerer(eds.),DiachronicConstructionGrammar,141–174.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Fried,Mirjam&Jan-OlaÖstman.2005.ConstructionGrammarandSpokenLanguage:TheCaseofPragmaticParticles.JournalofPragmatics37(11):1752–1778.

vanGelderen,Elly.2018.TheDiachronyofVerbMeaning:AspectandArgumentStructure.London:Routledge.

Goatly,Andrew.1997.TheLanguageofMetaphors.London:Routledge.Goatly,Andrew.2007.WashingtheBrain:MetaphorandHiddenIdeology.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

36

Goatly,Andrew.2011.MetaphorsasResourcefortheConceptualizationandExpressionofEmotion.AffectiveComputingandSentimentAnalysis:Emotion,MetaphorandTerminology,ed.byKhurshidAhmad,13–25.Dordrecht:Springer.

Goldberg,Adele.1995.AConstructionGrammarApproachtoArgumentStructure.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Grimm,Jacob&WilhelmGrimm.1854–1971.DeutschesWörterbuch.Leipzig:Hirzel.Haande,Ferdinand.2007.RaisingasGrammaticalization:TheCaseofGermanicSEEM-verbs.RivistadiLinguistica19(1):129–150.

Haig,Geoffrey.2008.AlignmentChangeinIranianlanguages:AConstructionGrammarApproach.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter.

Hall,JohnRichardClark.1916.AConciseAnglo-SaxonDictionaryfortheUseofStudents.2ndEd.NewYork:TheMacmillanCompany.

Heine,Bernd.1993.Auxiliaries:CognitiveForcesandGrammaticalization.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hilpert,Martin.2008.GermanicFutureConstructions:AUsage-basedApproachtoLanguageChange.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Hilpert,Martin&ChristianKoops.2008.AQuantitativeApproachtotheDevelopmentofComplexPredicates:TheCaseofSwedishPseudo-Coordinationwithsitta'sit'.Diachronica25(2):242–261.

Hock,HansH.1990.ObliquesubjectsinSanskrit?ExperiencerSubjectsinSouthAsianLanguagesed.byM.K.Verma&K.P.Mohanan,119–139.Stanford:CSLIPublication.

Hock,HansHenrich.1991.PrinciplesofHistoricalLinguistics.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.Ihrig,RoscoeMyrl.1916.TheSemanticDevelopmentofWordsfor“Walk,Run”intheGermanicLanguages.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Jackendoff,Ray.1997.Twistin’theNightAway.Language73:534–559.Jonsson,JóhannesGísli&ThórhallurEythorsson.2005.VariationinSubjectCaseMarkinginInsularScandinavian.NordicJournalofLinguistics28(2):223–245.

Kay,Paul&CharlesJ.Fillmore.1999.GrammaticalConstructionsandLinguisticGeneralizations:TheWhat'sXdoingY?Construction.Language75(1):1–33.

Kemmer,Suzanne&MichaelBarlow.2000.Introduction:AUsage-BasedConceptionofLanguage.Usage-BasedModelsofLanguage,ed.byMichaelBarlow&SuzanneKemmer,7–23.Stanford:CSLI.

Köbler,Gerhard.2014.AlthochdeutschesWörterbuch.6thEd.Availableathttp://www.koeblergerhard.de/ahdwbhin.html.

Kövecses,Zoltán.2002.Metaphor:APracticalIntroduction.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kroonen,Guus.2013.EtymologicalDictionaryofProto-Germanic.Leiden:Brill.Krug,Manfred.2011.Auxiliariesandgrammaticalization.Narrog,H.&H.Bernd(eds.),TheOxfordhandbookofGrammaticalization.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,547-558.

Kulikov,Leonid.2009.EvolutionofCaseSystems.TheOxfordHandbookofCase,ed.byAndrejMalchukov&AndrewSpencer,439–457.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kulikov,Leonid.2012.TheVedic-ya-presents:PassivesandIntransitivityinOldIndo-Aryan(LeidenStudiesinIndo-European;19).Amsterdam:Rodopi.

Kuryłowicz,Jerzy.1964.TheInflectionalCategoriesofIndo-European.Heidelberg:CarlWinter.

Lakoff,George.1987.Women,Fire,andDangerousThings:WhatCategoriesRevealabouttheMind.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

37

Lakoff,George.1993.ContemporaryTheoryofMetaphor.MetaphorandThoughted.byAndrewOrtony,202–251.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lakoff,George&MarkJohnson.1980.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

LeMair,Esther,CynthiaA.Johnson,MichaelFrotscher,ThórhallurEythórsson&JóhannaBarðdal.2017.PositionasaBehavioralPropertyofSubjects:TheCaseofOldIrish.ToappearinIndogermanischeForschungen122:111–142.

LIV=LexikonderindogermanischenVerben.2001.UnterLeitungvonHelmutRixundderMitarbeitvielerandererbearbeitetvonMartinKümmel,ThomasZehnder,ReinerLipp,undBrigitteSchirmer.2nded.Wiesbaden:Reichert.

López-Couso,MaríaJosé&BelénMéndez-Naya.2015.Epistemic/EvidentialMarkersoftheTypeVerb+Complementizer:SomeParallelsfromEnglishandRomance.NewDirectionsinGrammaticalizationResearch,ed.byAndrewSmith,GraemeTrousdale&RichardWaltereit,93–120.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Luraghi,Silvia.2010.ExperiencerPredicatesinHittite.ExAnatolialux:AnatolianandIndoEuropeanStudiesinHonorofH.CraigMelchertontheOccasionofhisSixty-FifthBirthday,ed.byRonaldKim,NorbertOettinger,ElisabethRieken&MichaelJ.Weiss,249–264.AnnArbor:BeechStavePress.

MartínArista,Javier.2012.TheOldEnglishprefixge-:Apanchronicreappraisal.AustralianJournalofLinguistics32(4):411–433.

Mayrhofer,Manfred.1986–1996.EtymologischesWörterbuchdesAltindoarischen.Bd.I–II.Heidelberg:Winter.

Michaelis,LauraA.2009.Sign-BasedConstructionGrammar.TheOxfordHandbookofLinguisticAnalysis,ed.byB.HeineandH.Narrog,155–176.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Michaelis,LauraA.2013.Sign-BasedConstructionGrammar.TheOxfordHandbookofConstructionGrammar,ed.byT.HoffmanandG.Trousdale,133–152.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Michaelis,LauraA.&JosefRuppenhofer.2001.BeyondAlternations:AConstructionalModeloftheGermanApplicativePattern.Stanford:CSLIPublications.

Mottausch,Karl-Heinz.1998.“Gehen”und“Stehen”imGermanischen:VersucheinerSynthese.HistorischeSprachforschung111,bd.I,134-162.

Nicholls,Diane.2004.WhatWeTalkAboutWhenWeTalkAboutSuccessandFailure.MEDMagazine:TheMonthlyWebzineoftheMacmillanEnglishDictionaries16(Feb).URL:http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/MED-Magazine/February2004/16-metaphor-success-failure.htm.

OED=OxfordEnglishDictionary.Availableathttp://www.oed.com.OxfordThesaurusofEnglish.2009.3rdEd.byMauriceWaite.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Pokorny,Julius.1959.IndogermanischesetymologischesWörterbuch.Bd.1.Bern,München:Francke.

Pooth,Roland,PeterAlexanderKerkhof,LeonidKulikov&JóhannaBarðdal.2019.TheOriginofNon-CanonicalCaseMarkingofSubjectsinProto-Indo-European:Accusative,Ergative,orSemanticAlignment.ToappearinIndogermanischeForschungen124.

Purtscher,Fridolin.1902.DieuntrennbarenPartikelnimalthochdeutschenTatian.Chur:J.Casanova.

38

Radden,Günter.1996.MotionMetaphorized:TheCaseofComingandGoing.CognitiveLinguisticsintheRedwoods,ed.byEugeneH.Casad,423–458.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Reznikova,Tatiana,EkaterinaRakhilina&AnastasiaA.Bonch-Osmolovskaya.2012.TowardsaTypologyofPainPredicates.Linguistics50(3):421–465.

Ringe,Don.2006.FromProto-Indo-EuropeantoProto-Germanic.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Rögnvaldsson,Eiríkur.1995.OldIcelandic:ANon-ConfigurationalLanguage?NOWELE:North-WesternEuropeanLanguageEvolution26:3–29.

Sag,IvanA.2012.Sign-BasedConstructionGrammar:AnInformalSynopsis.Sign-BasedConstructionGrammar,ed.byHansC.Boas&IvanSag,69–202.Stanford:CSLIPublications.

Sanders,Willy.1965.Glück:ZurHerkunftundBedeutungsentwicklungeinesmittelalterlichenSchicksalsbegriffs(NiederdeutscheStudien13).Köln:BöhlauVerlag.

Schubert,ThomasW.,SvenWaldzus&SteffenR.Giessner.2009.ControlOvertheAssociationofPowerandSize.SocialCognition27(1):1–19.

Schützeichel,Rudolf.2012.AlthochdeutschesWörterbuch.Berlin:deGruyter.Smitherman,Thomas.2012.MetaphorsExpressedbyArgumentMarkingPatterns:AnHistoricalandTypologicalView.PaperpresentedatHitchesinHistoricalLinguistics,Bergen,February22–23,2012.

Sturtevant,EdgarHoward.1917.LinguisticChange:AnIntroductiontotheHistoricalStudyofLanguage.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Sweetser,Eve.1991.FromEtymologytoPragmatics:MetaphoricalandCulturalAspectsofSemanticStructure.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Szemerényi,OswaldJ.L.1996.IntroductiontoIndo-EuropeanLinguistics.4thEd.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Thráinsson,Höskuldur.2007.TheSyntaxofIcelandic.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Traugott,ElizabethCloss&RichardB.Dasher.2002.RegularityinSemanticChange.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Tsepeleva,Valentina.2015.TracingChangesinArgumentStructuresofDativeSubjectPredicatesinOldRussianandModernRussian.UniversityofBergenM.A.Thesis.

Ullmann,Stephen.1951.ThePrinciplesofSemantics.Glasgow:Jackson.Ullmann,Stephen.1962.Semantics:AnIntroductiontotheScienceofMeaning.Blackwell:Oxford.

Urban,Matthias.2014.LexicalSemanticChangeandSemanticReconstruction.TheRoutledgeHandbookofHistoricalLinguistics,ed.byClaireBowern&BethwynEvans,374–392.London:Routledge.

Viberg,Åke.1983.TheVerbsofPerception:ATypologicalStudy.Linguistics21(1):123–162.

Viti,Carlotta.2016a.TheMorphosyntaxofExperiencePredicatesinTocharian.CahiersdeLinguistique–AsieOrientale(CLAO)45:26–70.

Viti,Carlotta.2016b.ArealDistributionofArgumentMarkingofIndo-EuropeanExperiencePredicates.JournalofIndo-EuropeanStudies44(1):1–84.

Walkden,George.2013.TheCorrespondenceProbleminSyntacticReconstruction.Diachronica30(1):95–122.

Walkden,George.2014.SyntacticReconstructioninProto-Germanic.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

39

Wegener,Heide.2001.VerbsofAffectfromaSynchronicandaDiachronicPerspective.StructuralAspectsofSemanticallyComplexVerbs,ed.byNicoleDehé&AnjaWanner,219–248.Frankfurt:PeterLang.

Wischer,Ilse&MechthildHabermann.2004.DerGebrauchvonPräfixverbenzumAusdruckvonAspekt/AktionsartimAltenglischenundAlthochdeutschen.ZeitschriftfürgermanistischeLinguistik32(2):262–385.

WNT=Woordenboekdernederlandschetaal.1882–2001.'s-Gravenhage:MartinusNijhoff.

Wundt,WilhelmMax.1904.Völkerpsychologie:eineUntersuchungderEntwicklungsgesetzevonSprache,MythusundSitte.Band1.DieSprache.2.Ed.Leipzig:Engelmann.

Zuckermann,Ghil‘adA.2006.ANewVisionforIsraeliHebrew:TheoreticalandPracticalImplicationsofAnalyzingIsrael’sMainLanguageasaSemi-EngineeredSemito-EuropeanHybridLanguage.JournalofModernJewishStudies5(1):57–71.

Zuckermann,Ghil‘adA.2009.HybridityversusRevivability:MultipleCausation,FormsandPatterns.JournalofLanguageContact2(2):40–67.

CynthiaA.Johnson(cajohnso6@gmail.com)PeterAlexanderKerkhof(p.a.kerkhof@hum.leidenuniv.nl)EstherLeMair(lemairesther@gmail.com)LeonidKulikov(leonid.kulikov@ugent.be)JóhannaBarðdal(correspondingauthor)DepartmentofLinguisticsBlandijnberg2BE-9000GhentBelgiumjohanna.barddal@ugent.be