The semantic map model is relatively new in linguistic research, but it has been intensively used during the past three decades for studying both cross‐linguistic and language‐specific questions. The goal of the present contribution is to give a comprehensive overview of the model. After introducing the different types of semantic maps, we present the steps involved for building the maps and discuss in more detail the different types of maps and their respective advantages and disadvantages, focusing on the kinds of linguistic generalizations captured. Finally, we provide a thorough survey of the literature on the topic, and we sketch future avenues for research in the field.

This paper investigates universal and areal structures in the lexicon as manifested by colexification patterns in the semantic domains of perception and cognition, based on data from both small and large datasets. Using several methods, including weighted semantic maps, formal concept lattices, correlation analysis, and dimensionality reduction, we identify colexification patterns in the domains in question and evaluate the extent to which these patterns are specific to particular areas. This paper contributes to the methodology of investigating areal patterns in the lexicon, and identifies a number of cross-linguistic regularities and of area-specific properties in the structuring of lexicons.

"The inventory of extant synchronic types are but the inventory of available grammaticalization pathways that gave rise to them. Consequently, the constraints on syntactic universals are in essence constraints on the developmental process of grammaticalization, rather than on the resulting synchronic structures" Talmy Givón (2001: 205)."All explanations for linguistic phenomena, both universal and language-specific, must necessarily have a diachronic dimension, since all linguistic phenomena have histories which determine their present conventionalized state. With respect to language universals [...], an explanation is not valid unless it can be demonstrated that the explanatory principle is actually at work in the mechanism of change that brings about the cross-linguistic pattern.Taking the role of diachrony one step further, one could argue that since there are so few absolute universals, identifying the mechanisms of change behind cross-linguistic patterns will lead us closer to an understanding of the factors that produce cross-linguistic patterns, and these factors, I would maintain, are the only true universals of language [...]. Thus, the focus for establishing the explanations for cross-linguistic similarities should be on the mechanisms of change" Joan Bybee (2008: 108). AbstractIn this paper, we argue that an expanded conception of the distinction between speaker-oriented and subjectoriented inferences is crucial for understanding the motivations and mechanisms of semantic change in grammaticalization and subjectivation, on the one hand, and for clarifying the links between semantic change and reductive formal changes. Speaker-oriented inferences have significant consequences, leading to the relaxation of selectional restrictions on a construction. In turn, the relaxation of selectional restrictions can create conditions in which the type-and token-frequency of a construction can rise considerably. Furthermore, changes in the selectional restrictions on a construction can themselves catalyze semantic change by coercing listeners into new form-function pairings. This framework is applied to the grammaticalization of allative futures, a typological comparative concept developed in order to compare structurally diverse future tenses. A small typological study allows us to reconsider some problematic pathways of grammaticalization and to suggest some alternative analyses. Following the typological discussion, a detailed diachronic case study of a verbless allative future in Ancient Egyptian is presented.

No abstract

While working together on a TEIcompliant interchange format for Ancient Egyptian-Coptic textual resources (see section 4.2), a group of shared concerns on the topic arose from the topographical orientation of the former and the textual dimension of the latter. 9The paper is structured as follows. In section 1, we provide a definition of the four main conceptual elements of the data model, namely Object, Document, Witness, and Text, and we describe how they relate to one another. Metadata that apply to these elements and relationships are then discussed in section 2. Section 3 is devoted to a brief discussion of the advantages of this data model in terms of localization of written production. The links between the TDM and other conceptual models (as well as TEI elements) are presented in section 4. The conclusions provide perspectives concerning the online resources that would allow a linked open data implementation of the model in Egyptology. In this section, we take as a point of departure the definitions of the four key elements of the TDM and we proceed with a discussion of their relationships. The Conceptual Data Model11 These elements are:• Object, which refers to a physically discrete material object (in its present state, based on current available evidence); 12• Document, which refers to an artefact reconstituted in its original entirety (i.e. materially made up of 1 to n Objects) and envisioned as an idealized writing space or text support; 13• Witness, which refers to a single occurrence of a Text, in its material (and more broadly philological) dimensions, on 1 to n Document; 14• Text, which refers to a textual composition as it can be reconstructed from (the compilation of 1 to n) Witness(es). 159 A first paper on the topic was presented at the Text encoding initiative conference and members ' meeting 2015 (October 28-31, Lyon -France) by L. Coulon, F. Elwert, E. Morlock, S. Polis, V. Razanajao, S. Rosmorduc, S. Schweitzer, and D. Werning. 10 The basic elements introduced in this section (as well as their relationships) were first presented in an internal report of the Ramses Project by T. Gillen, St. Polis, and N. Sojic, Metadata: A progress report for the Ramses Project (2014/05/14).11 These four elements are identified (although with other labels) by Morlock and Santin, 'The inscription between text and object' (n. 7, above) 141 (see n. 12-15, below). The main originality of the TDM lies, therefore, in the explicit definition of all the possible types of relationships between these elements.12 Compare with the 'physical object part' defined as 'a detachable physical part of a material object that can be physically isolated' in Morlock and Santin, 'The inscription between text and object' (n. 7, above) 341.13 Compare with 'text-bearing object' defined as 'a material object that bears one or several inscribed texts' in Morlock and Santin, 'The inscription between text and object' (n. 7, above) 341. Note that Document is explicitly defined in the TDM in relation to a writing space. No matter how i...

'pictographic', 'logographic', 'syllabic', or 'alphabetic' (see already Taylor, 1883). These types are often descriptively mismatched, 6 since they raise to the rank of systems individual functions of constitutive units, and thus do not take account of the necessarily composite character of systems strictly speaking (we shall come back to this issue in §3 below). In addition, these typologies 7 are generally found paired, consciously or otherwise, with a teleological perspective that envisages writing systems as attempts more or less resulting in or approximations more or less successful in the aim of achieving the alphabetic ideal (Sampson, 2016), 8 4. The appellation 'graphemology' would surely be too restrictive (to the extent that scripturology goes far beyond the study of graphemes alone; the same observation applies to Daniels' (2018) 'graphonomy' (cf. §2 below), and 'graphology' is obviously unavailable. The designation 'grammatology' is probably too charged with connotations inherited from Gelb (1952) and Derrida (1967). We are left with 'scripturology', even though the term is already used by medievalists to refer to the discipline occupied with the evolution and structures of medieval orthographic systems (the science of scripta, cf. Gossen, 1979), and by the communication sciences in the study of 'scripts'. 5. See nevertheless Heath (2016, p. 487), who highlights that this remained among the goals of J. Greenberg and that these morphological types have sometimes been replaced by other general criteria, such as the opposition OV vs. VO (Lehmann, 1973), 'head' vs. 'dependent-marking' (Nichols, 1986), or languages with ergative vs. non-ergative syntax (Dixon, 1979). 6. Sampson (2015, p. 42): "scripts which have evolved over long periods as the everyday writing systems of whole speech-communities or nations are almost always something of a mixture." We refer here to the classification of scripts on a continuum between pure phonography and pure logography proposed by DeFrancis & Unger (1994) and Unger & DeFrancis (1995). 7. An influential typology, resting on the debatable primacy (even universality) of the syllable, is currently that of Daniels (e.g., 2017, 2018), who proposes a classification in five types: (1) logosyllabic, (2) syllabic, (3) abjad, (4) alphabet, (5) abugida. 8. Sampson (2016, p. 562): "The idea that a logographic script might be a fully-fledged, entirely satisfactory mode of written communication scarcely entered the purview of these scholars."

RÉSUMÉ. Nous proposons de réviser le codage de l'égyptien ancien qui repose sur un standard nommé « Manuel de Codage » (1988)

This paper extends the scope of application of the semantic map model to diachronic lexical semantics. Combining a quantitative approach to large-scale synchronic polysemy data with a qualitative evaluation of the diachronic material in two text languages, ancient Egyptian and ancient Greek, it shows that weighted diachronic semantic maps can capture informative generalizations about the organization of the lexicon and its reshaping over time. The general methodology developed in the paper is illustrated with a case study of the semantic extension of time-related lexemes. This case study shows that the blend of tools well established in linguistic typology with proven methods of historical linguistics enables a principled approach to long-standing questions in the fields of diachronic semasiology and onomasiology.