Article published in:
The Linguistics of Temperature
Edited by Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm
[Typological Studies in Language 107] 2015
► pp. 889–916

The syntax of temperature predications

| Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
The syntactic structures encountered in clauses containing temperature concepts tend to differ from the ones employed in standard intransitive clause types. These constructions are remarkable not only because of their unusual internal makeup, but also because of the great variety in syntactic patterns they exhibit. However, despite the considerable variety in the structure of temperature clauses, identical or near-identical temperature constructions recur in languages around the world with amazing regularity. The present study seeks to explore the reasons for the variety in the structure of temperature predications, as well as the reasons for the frequent recurrence of similar or identical construction types at the cross-linguistic level. The conclusion drawn from the available data is that both phenomena are due to cognitive principles, which allow varying construals of temperature events, but which, because of the universality of these principles, also limit the conceptualization of temperature events to a specific set of possible construals.
Published online: 11 February 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.107.30pus
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra, Dixon, Robert M.W. & Onishi, Masayuki
(eds) 2001 Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
① ②
Asher, Ronald E. & Kumari, T.C.
1997 Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bassène, Alain-Christian & Creissels, Denis
2011 Impersonal constructions in Jóola-Banjal. In Malchukov & Siewierska (eds), Impersonal Constructions. A Cross- Linguistic Perspective, 285-306.
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Kamuri Venkata
(eds) 2004 Non-nominative Subjects [Typological Studies in Language 60-61], 2 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Bickel, B.
2004 The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao (eds), Vol. 1, Non-nominative Subjects, 77–112.
Einarsson, Stefan
1945 Icelandic: Grammar, Texts, Glossary. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
Eriksen, Pål, Kittilä, Seppo & Kolehmainen, Leena
2010 The linguistics of weather. Cross-linguistic patterns of meteorological expressions. Studies in Language 34: 565-601. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara, Manzelli, Gianguido & Ramat, Paolo
2011a Expressions for physical and mental states in the Circum-Mediterranean languages: Contact-induced and/or autonomous parallelisms? Workshop on Gradualness in Change and its Relation to Synchronic Variation and Use, University of Pavia.
2011b Experiental constructions in the Circum- Mediterranean area. In Structures and Meanings: Cross-theoretical Perspectives, Maria Frascarelli (ed.), 21-37. Torino: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella
2001 Non-canonically marked A/S in Imbabura Quechua. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds), Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, 149-176.
Hopper, Paula & Thompson, Sandra A.
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251-99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Steven A.
1995 A Practical Grammar of the Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo Language. Fairbanks AK: University of Alaska.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K.A.
2004 The possessor-experiencer dative in Malayalam. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao (eds), Vol. 1, Non-nominative Subjects, 227-244.
Keenan, Edward L.
1976 Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 249-301. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
2011 “It’s boiling hot!” On the structure of the linguistic temperature domain across languages. In Rahmen des Sprechens. Beiträge zur Valenztheorie, Varietätenlinguistik, Kognitiven und Historischen Semantik, Sarah Dessí Schmid, Ulrich Detges, Paul Gévaudan, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Richard Waltereit (eds), 379-96. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju & Gwynn, John Peter Lucius
1985 A Grammar of Modern Telugu. Delhi: OUP.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.1. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.2. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Roderick Ross & Darjowidjojo, Soenjono
1967 A Students’ Reference Grammar of Modern Formal Indonesian. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Ogawa, Akio
2011 Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. In Malchukov & Siewierska (eds), Impersonal Constructions. A Cross- Linguistic Perspective, 19-56.
Malchukov, Andrej & Siewierska, Anna
(eds) 2011 Impersonal Constructions. A Cross- Linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
① ② ③
Mazur, Boleslaw W.
20012. Colloquial Polish. The Complete Course for Beginners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mettouchi, Amina & Tosco, Mauro
2011 Impersonal configurations and theticity: The case of meteorological predications in Afroasiatic. In Malchukov & Siewierska (eds), Impersonal Constructions. A Cross- Linguistic Perspective, 307-322.
Montaut, Annie
2004a A Grammar of Hindi. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
2004b Oblique main arguments in Hindi as localizing predications. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao (eds), Vol. 2, Non-nominative Subjects, 33-56.
Onishi, Masayoshi
2004 Instrumental subjects in Motuna. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao (eds), Vol. 2, Non-nominative Subjects, 83-101.
Ross, Malcolm D.
1996 Contact-induced change and the comparative method: Cases from Papua New Guinea. In The Comparative Method Reviewed. Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, Mark D. Durie & Malcolm D. Ross (eds), 180-217. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sands, Kristina & Campbell, Lyle
2001 Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds), Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, 307-354.
Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fé T.
1972 Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
The Christian Brothers
1965 New Irish Grammar. Dublin: Fallons.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Petersen, Hjalmar P., í Lon Jacobsen, Jógvan & Hansen, Zakaris Svabo
2004 Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & La Polla, Randy
1997 Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth
2007 Experiental Constructions in Yucatec Maya: A Typologically Based Analysis of a Functional Domain in a Mayan Language [Studies in Language Companion Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Laurel J.
. (with the assistance of Parker McKenzie) 1984 A Grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Heinz F.
19996. Langenscheidt’s Taschenwörterbuch Türkisch. Berlin: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar