In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

466 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 76, NUMBER 2 (2000) phenomenon 'as though the concept of GIVE is present as a default interpretation of a clause containing a subject, object, and indirect object' (xi). David Tuggy's 'Giving in Nawatl' (35-65) uses the cognitive grammar approach developed by Ronald W. Langacker (Foundations of cognitive grammar , vols. I and II, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989/91). It is interesting to note that a causative/applicative suffix can be added to the noun 'food' (= 'give food to' = 'feed'), in which case there is no isolatable morpheme give. John R. Taylor's 'Double object constructions in Zulu' (67-96) demonstrates that there is a remarkable similarity between double object constructions in Zulu and English, but there is 'a much wider range of application' in the former (70). Sally Rice's 'Giving and taking in Chipewyan: The semantics of THING-marking classificatory verbs' (97-134) asserts that there is almost no 'mental or generic statement of giving', which is true for all the Athapaskan languages (97). Speakers obligatorily mark, e.g., the shape of the item given and whether or not it ends up in the recipient's possession in addition to other features such as 'beneficial vs. antagonistic interaction' (xii). Eugene H. Casad's 'Lots of ways to GIVE in Cora' (135-74) defines fourcategories ofgive verbs: personal interest, enabling, terminative, and classificatory . It is unclear, however, if this system works for other Uto-Aztecan languages. Phyllis Perrin Wilcox's 'GIVE: Acts of giving in American Sign Language' (175-207) points out that ASL uses a classification system based on the thing given, distinguishing between two give verbs, depending on whether the signer intends a temporary or relatively permanent transfer. Few realize, I think, that less than 10% of the total deaf population are ASL native signers (176). David Foris's 'Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE: A window into clause structure' (209-48) reveals an 'interaction of transitivity, animacy, voice, and coreferentiality ' for this Otomanguean language spoken in Oaxaca, Mexico (246). Laura A. Tanda's 'Give, have, and take in Slavic' (249-65) maintains that all Slavic languages have similar give constructions, whereas have 'is expressed with an active agent of a transitive verb in West and South Slavic, but as mere existence at a location ... in East Slavic' (263). Theo A. T. M. Janssen's 'Giving in Dutch: An intra-lexematical and inter-lexemetical description' (267-306) posits that the causative use of give is cognitively more basic than its literal sense, whereas John Newman's 'The origin of the German es gibt construction' (307-25) demonstrates that the causative give is the origin of German es gibt ('there is/ are'). Jae Jung Song's 'On the development of MANNER from GIVE' (327-48) explains the origin of the adverbs of manner derived from give in Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese. Michael Tomasello's 'One child's early talk about possession' (349-73) is a study of English child language acquisition of give. One fact which emerges as a result of the author's research is that this verb always occurs with the notion of a 'giver', whereas other verbs may lack explicit subjects. AU the well-written essays in this volume uncover many intricately woven details about languages and ultimately about languageā€”one of the central goals of the Typological Studies in Language series of the journal Studies in Language, Joseph H. Greenberg, Honorary Editor. [Alan S. Kaye, California State University, Fullerton.] Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase. Ed. by Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder. (Linguistik aktuell/Linguistics today, 22.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998. Pp. 386. The impetus for this volume was a workshop on the syntax of DP-modification held in 1997 during the nineteenth meeting of the German Linguistics Association, at which nine of the eleven papers were originally presented. The papers cohere around a unified objective: explication ofthe syntax ofdeterminer phrases (DPs) using distributional, semantic, and/or morphological properties ofnoun phrase (NP) modifiers such as genitives, possessives, and adjectives. (Relative clauses were pointedly excluded from the range of NP modifiers discussed by the various authors .) The editors' introduction succinctly summarizes the theoretical issues to be addressed and helpfully places those...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 466-467
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.