1887
Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Despite the wealth of literature on English resultatives, there still remain a number of issues that have not been squarely addressed. This paper addresses two of them through a case study of resultatives based on . First, while the existence of resultatives with objects not selected by verbs is well-known in the literature (e.g., ), few studies have addressed the issue of exactly which entities may appear as non-selected objects. Second, there are resultatives whose form is to be analyzed as a mixture of the verb’s lexically-specified syntactic frame and the syntactic frame of resultatives (e.g. ), but such resultatives have been neglected in previous studies.

In order to find an answer to the first issue, this paper adopts a force-recipient account, according to which the post-verbal NP of a resultative is a force-recipient (cf. Croft 1990199119982012). It is shown that non-selected objects like are indeed force-recipients in a conceptual scene. As for the second issue, such resultatives can be accommodated by means of a constructional analysis which holds that verbs contribute the semantics of the resulting expression, and that argument structure constructions simply enable the verb meaning to take its form. Together, these findings indicate that verbs play a far more important role than argument structure constructions in effecting the syntax and semantics of the resulting expression.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21006.iwa
2021-12-21
2022-05-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Carrier, J., & Randall, J. H.
    (1992) The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 23: 173–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Croft, W.
    (1990) Possible verbs and event structure. InS. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp.48–73). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1998) Event structure in argument linking. InM. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.21–63), CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language (pp.49–68). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  8. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  10. Embick, D.
    (2004) On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 355–392. 10.1162/0024389041402634
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389041402634 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, C.
    (1970) The grammar of hitting and breaking. InR. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp.120–134). Ginn.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1977) Topics in lexical semantics. InR. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp.76–138). Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–138). Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T.
    (1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. InA. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp.75–102). Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gawron, J. M.
    (1986) Types, contents, and semantic objects. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 427–476. 10.1007/BF00603218
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00603218 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80, 532–568. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grunau, J.
    (1985) Towards a systematic theory of the semantic role inventory. CLS, 21, 144–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Iwata, S.
    (2008) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2020) English resultatives: A force-recipient account. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.26 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jackendoff, R.
    (1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, G.
    (1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 39–74. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp.202–251). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  27. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Levin, B., & Rapoport, R.
    (1988) Lexical subordination. CLS, 24, 275–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1991) Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41, 123–151. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90034‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90034-2 [Google Scholar]
  34. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Levinson, L.
    (2010) Arguments for pseudo-resultative predicates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, 135–182. 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9089‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9089-x [Google Scholar]
  36. Petruck, M.
    (1996) Frame semantics. InJ. Verschueren, J-O. Ӧstman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 1996 (pp.1–11). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.2.fra1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.2.fra1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ramchand, G.
    (2008) Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  38. Randall, J. H.
    (2010) Linking: The geometry of argument structure. Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑8308‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8308-2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
    (1998) Building verb meanings. InM. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.97–134). CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2001) An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77, 766–797. 10.1353/lan.2001.0221
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0221 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rivière, C.
    (1982) Objectionable objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 13: 685–689.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Rothstein, S.
    (1983) The syntactic forms of predication. PhD dissertation, MIT.
  43. Simpson, J.
    (1983) Resultatives. InM. Rappaport, A. Zaenen, & L. Levin (Eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar (pp.143–157). Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Talmy, L.
    (2000a) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.1, Concept structuring systems. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.2, Typology and process in concept structuring. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Taylor, J. R.
    (2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tenny, C.
    (1994) Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1150‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8 [Google Scholar]
  48. Washio, R.
    (1997) Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6: 1–49. 10.1023/A:1008257704110
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008257704110 [Google Scholar]
  49. Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary
    Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary (2003) London: Harper Collins Publishers.
  50. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, third edition
    Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, third edition (1995) Longman.
  51. Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms, third edition
    Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms, third edition (2010) Oxford University Press.
  52. The Penguin Dictionary of English Idioms
    The Penguin Dictionary of English Idioms (2002) Penguin Books.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21006.iwa
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21006.iwa
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error