1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. English Text Construction
  4. Volume 11, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Building on Tabakowska’s (19932003200520092013) full-blown defense of a cognitive linguistic approach to literary translation as well as on previous research dealing with the implementations of Construction Grammar(s) for translation studies (Szymańska 2011a2011bSerbina 2015), this paper critically examines the role of iconicity in selected lines from Shakespeare’s capitalizing on the passage of Time-Death and their corresponding translations in present-day Spanish and Italian. Specifically, drawing on Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg 2006) and Contrastive Construction Grammar (Boas 2010aBoas & Gonzálvez-García 2014), I focus on instances of secondary predication with verbs of sensory perception, causative constructions and aspectual constructions iconically connected with the above-mentioned motif and demonstrate that iconicity emerges as a very useful communicative ‘filter’ that can help to minimize any undesirable arbitrariness which may obscure the semantico-pragmatic interpretation of the source text and/or its rendering into the target text.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00006.gon
2018-08-27
2024-10-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/etc.00006.gon
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Achard, Michel
    1998 Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements (Cognitive Linguistics Research Series 11). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110805956
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805956 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alm-Arvius, Christina
    1993 The English Verb See: A Study in Multiple Meaning. Göteborg: Acta Universitas Gothoburgensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Álvarez, José María
    1999 Sonetos. Valencia: Pre-Textos.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baldini, Gabriele
    1992 William Shakespeare: Sonetti. Milan: Feltrinelli. (Translation by Lucifero Darchini .)
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas, Hans C.
    (ed.) 2010a Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2010b Comparing constructions across languages. InContrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10), Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–20.10.1075/cal.10.02boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.02boa [Google Scholar]
  7. Boas, Hans C. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García
    (eds) 2014 Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 15). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.15
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.15 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolinger, Dwight
    1968 Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa2: 119–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 1974 Concept and percept: Two infinitive constructions and their vicissitudes. InWorld Papers in Phonetics: Festschrift for Dr. Onishi’s Kiju, Masao Ōnishi (ed.). Tokyo: Phonetic Society of Japan, 65–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 1977 Meaning and Form. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Borkin, Ann
    1973 To be or not to be. Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings9: 44–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Brinton, Laurel J.
    1985 The iconic role of aspect in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 129. Poetics Today6 (3): 447–459.10.2307/1771905
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1771905 [Google Scholar]
  13. Butler, Christopher S. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García
    2014 Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space (Studies in Language Companion Series 157). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.157
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee, Joan
    2003 Aspect. InInternational Encyclopedia of Linguistics. 2nd ed., W. J. Frawley (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 157–158.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Chamosa González, José Luis
    1997 Crítica y evaluación de traducciones: Elementos para su discusión. InAproximaciones a los Estudios de Traducción, Purificación Fernández Nistal & José María Bravo Gozalo (eds). Valladolid: University of Valladolid Press, 29–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis & José Luis Tornel Sala
    1996 El predicativo en español: Iconicidad y gramática. Lingüística Española ActualXVIII: 17–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Clark, Eve V.
    1971 On the acquisition of the meaning of after and before. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior10: 266–275.10.1016/S0022‑5371(71)80054‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80054-3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Comrie, Bernard
    1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Croft, William
    2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2003 Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Declerck, Renaat
    1982 The triple origin of participial perception verb complements. Journal of English Linguistics16: 27–46.10.1177/007542428301600105
     https://doi.org/10.1177/007542428301600105 [Google Scholar]
  22. Demonte, Violeta
    1991 Observaciones sobre la predicación secundaria: Mando-c, extracción y reanálisis. InDetrás de la Palabra, Violeta Demonte (ed.). Madrid: Alianza, 157–201.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Diessel, Holger
    2005 Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics43: 449–470.10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.449
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.449 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2008 Iconicity of sequence. A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics19: 465–490.10.1515/COGL.2008.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.018 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2013 Adverbial subordination. InBloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds). London: Continuum, 341–354.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Duffley, Patrick
    1992 The English Infinitive. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Ebeling, Jarle
    1998 Using translations to explore construction meaning in English and Norwegian. InCorpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 169–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Enkvist, Nils Erik
    1990 Discourse comprehension, text strategies and style. AMULA73: 166–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Fanego, Teresa
    1990a Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English. I. Studia Neophilologica62: 3–21.10.1080/00393279008588036
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00393279008588036 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1990b Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English. II. Studia Neophilologica62: 129–149.10.1080/00393279008588047
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00393279008588047 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1992 Infinitival Complements in Shakespeare’s English. Santiago de Compostela: University of Santiago de Compostela Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud
    1991 Frequenz und kognition – Frequenz und markiertheit. Folia Linguistica25: 361–394.10.1515/flin.1991.25.3‑4.361
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1991.25.3-4.361 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fischer, Olga C. M.
    1995 The distinction between to and bare infinitival complements in Late Middle English. Diachronica12: 1–30.10.1075/dia.12.1.02fis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.12.1.02fis [Google Scholar]
  34. 1996 Verbal complementation in Early Middle English: How do the infinitives fit in?InEnglish Historical Linguistics 1994, Derek Britton (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 247–270.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 1999 Changes in infinitival constructions in English. InAnglistentag 1998, Sabine Schulting & Fritz-Wilhelm Neumann (eds). Erfurt Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 7–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2000 Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. InPathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, Olga Fischer , Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 149–169.10.1075/slcs.53.08fis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.53.08fis [Google Scholar]
  37. Fischer, Olga & Max Nänny
    1999 Introduction: Iconicity as a creative force in language use. InForm Miming Meaning (Iconicity in Language and Literature 1), Max Nänny & Olga Fischer (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, xv–xxxvi.10.1075/ill.1.04fis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.1.04fis [Google Scholar]
  38. (eds) 2001 The Motivated Sign (Iconicity in Language and Literature 2). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ford, Cecilia E.
    1993 Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554278
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  40. Galera Masegosa, Alicia & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
    2012 Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences34: 54–64.10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.017 [Google Scholar]
  41. García Calvo, Agustín
    1974 William Shakespeare/Sonetos de Amor. Barcelona: Anagrama. 1998 edition.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. García García, Luciano
    2013 Sonetos y Querellas de una Amante. William Shakespeare. Edición en Inglés, Traducción y Notas. Valencia: JPM Ediciones.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Givón, Talmy
    1980 The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language4: 333–377.10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv [Google Scholar]
  44. 1985 Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. InIconicity in Syntax, John Haiman (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 187–219.10.1075/tsl.6.10giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.10giv [Google Scholar]
  45. 1990 Syntax. A Functional-Typological Approach. Vol.2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 1991 Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language15: 85–114.10.1075/sl.15.1.04giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.15.1.04giv [Google Scholar]
  47. 1994 Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language18 (2): 265–337.10.1075/sl.18.2.02giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18.2.02giv [Google Scholar]
  48. 2001 Syntax: An Introduction. VolumeII. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
    2009 The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: First steps towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis. Language Sciences31: 663–723.10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2010 Contrasting constructions in English and Spanish: The influence of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors. InStudies in Contrastive Construction Grammar, Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43–86.10.1075/cal.10.04gon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.04gon [Google Scholar]
  53. 2011 Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics49 (6): 1305–1358.10.1515/ling.2011.037
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.037 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2014 Bringing together fragments and constructions: Evidence from complementation in English and Spanish. InRomance Perspectives on Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 15), Hans C. Boas & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181–226.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Gramley, Stephan
    1987 The Infinitive Forms of English as Verb Complements. Duisburg: LAUD.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Guasti, Maria Teresa
    1993 Causative and Perception Verbs (A Comparative Study). Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Haiman, John
    1980 The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language56 (3): 515–540.10.2307/414448
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414448 [Google Scholar]
  58. 1983 Iconic and economic motivation. Language59 (4): 781–819.10.2307/413373
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413373 [Google Scholar]
  59. 1985 Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6 [Google Scholar]
  60. 1994 Iconicity. InThe Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Ronald E. Asher (ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1629–1633.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 2006 Iconicity. InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol.V. 2nd ed., Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 457–461.10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00194‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00194-2 [Google Scholar]
  62. Halverson, Sandra L.
    2003 The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target15 (2): 197–241.10.1075/target.15.2.02hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.2.02hal [Google Scholar]
  63. 2007 A cognitive linguistic approach to translation shifts. InThe Study of Language and Translation, Willy Vandeweghe , Sonia Vandepitte & Marc van de Velde (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 105–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 2010 Cognitive translation studies. InTranslation and Cognition, Gregory Shreve & Erik Angelone (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 349–369.10.1075/ata.xv.18hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.18hal [Google Scholar]
  65. 2013 Implications of cognitive linguistics for translation studies. InCognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications, Ana Rojo & Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 33–73.10.1515/9783110302943.33
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.33 [Google Scholar]
  66. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Stella Neumann
    2012 Corpus enrichment, representation, exploitation, and quality control. InCross-linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, Silvia Hansen-Schirra , Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 35–52.10.1515/9783110260328.35
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328.35 [Google Scholar]
  67. Haspelmath, Martin
    2008 Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics19: 1–33.10.1515/COG.2008.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Hernanz, María Luisa
    1988 En torno a la sintaxis y semántica de los complementos predicativos en español. Estudi General8: 7–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Hilpert, Martin
    2010 Comparing comparatives: A corpus-based study of comparative constructions in English and Swedish. InContrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10), Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–41.10.1075/cal.10.03hil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.03hil [Google Scholar]
  70. Hiraga, Masako K.
    1994 Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics22: 5–21.10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90053‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90053-1 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
    2013 The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  72. Hollmann, Willem B.
    2015 The iconicity of infinitival complementation in present-day English causatives. InInside-Out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4), Costantino Maeder , Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 286–306.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Horie, Kaoru
    1993 A cross-linguistic study of perception and cognition verb complements: A cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
  74. House, Juliane
    1997 Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Huddleston, Rodney
    1969 Predicate complement constructions in English (A review article). Lingua23: 241–273.10.1016/0024‑3841(69)90026‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(69)90026-6 [Google Scholar]
  76. James, Francis
    1987 Semantics of the English Subjunctive. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Karttunen, Lauri
    1971 Implicative verbs. Language47: 340–358.10.2307/412084
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412084 [Google Scholar]
  78. Kirsner, Robert & Sandra A. Thompson
    1976 The role of pragmatic inference in semantics: A study of sensory verb complements in English. Glossa10: 200–240.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Lakoff, George
    1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  80. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 1991a Concept, Image, and Symbol (The Cognitive Basis of Grammar). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 1991b Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  84. Lvóvskaya, Zinaida
    1997 Problemas Actuales de Traducción. Granada: Granada Lingüística & Método Ediciones.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Machacek, Jaroslav
    1965 Complementation of the English Verb by the Accusative-with-Infinitive and the Content Clause. Prague: Státi Pedgagocké Nakaldatelsví.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. MacWhinney, Brian , Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik
    (eds) 2014 Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  87. McCandless, Robert Ian
    1993 La popularidad de un texto isabelino en España: Los sonetos de Shakespeare. Sendebar4: 225–244.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Maeder, Costantino , Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky
    (eds) 2005 Outside-In – Inside-Out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.4 [Google Scholar]
  89. Micó, José María
    1985 Una traición a Shakespeare. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación5–6: 53–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Mujica Laínez, Manuel
    1983 Sonetos de William Shakespeare. Madrid: Visor.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 1985 Recuerdo de Procusto: Traducir a Shakespeare. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación5–6: 41–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Müller, Wolfgang G. & Olga Fischer
    (eds) 2003 From Sign to Signing (Iconicity in Language and Literature 3). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.3 [Google Scholar]
  93. Nänny, Max & Olga Fischer
    2006 Iconicity: Literary texts. InEncyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 462–472.10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00516‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00516-2 [Google Scholar]
  94. Newmark, Peter
    1987 Manual de Traducción. Madrid: Cátedra.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Nida, Eugene A.
    1964 Towards a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Pérez Romero, Carmen
    1987 Monumento de Amor (Los Sonetos de W. Shakespeare Vertidos al Español en Sonetos). Cáceres: University of Extremadura Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 1988 Sanciones aduaneras en la frontera anglo-española al traducir los sonetos de Shakespeare. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación10: 19–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Praz, Mario
    1964 Shakespeare-Tutte le Opere. Florence: Sansoni.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Riddle, Elizabeth R.
    1975 Some pragmatic conditions on complementizer choice. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society11: 467–474.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Rodríguez Espiñeira, María José
    1989 El complemento predicativo del complemento directo en español. PhD dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela.
  102. 2002 Percepción directa e indirecta en español. Diferencias semánticas y formales. Verba27: 33–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Rojo, Ana & Javier Valenzuela
    2013 Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems. InCognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications, Ana Rojo & Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 283–310.10.1515/9783110302943.283
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.283 [Google Scholar]
  104. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
    2013 Pedagogical grammar and meaning construction. Plenary lecture given atthe 1st International Constructionist Approaches to Language Pedagogy Conference (CALP 2013), Brussels, 8–9 November 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Alicia Galera Masegosa
    2014 Cognitive Modeling: A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  106. Rutelli, Romana
    1986 Shakespeare: I Sonetti. Milan: Garzanti.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Salvi, Giorgio
    1981 Complementi predicativi. Studi di Grammatica Italiana10: 313–349.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Serbina, Tatiana
    2015 A Construction Grammar approach to the analysis of translation shifts: A corpus-based study. PhD dissertation, RWTH Aachen University. https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/538325 (Last accessed on8 June 2018).
  109. Shakespeare, W.
    1995 Sonetti. Testo Inglese a Fronte. Milan: BUR. Translation by A. Serpieri . 2015 edition.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1976 Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of English Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Song, J. J.
    2006 Causatives: Semantics. InEncyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier, 265–268.10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/01027‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01027-0 [Google Scholar]
  112. Spaulding, Robert K.
    1933 Infinitive and subjunctive with hacer, mandar, dejar, and the like. Hispania16 (4): 425–432.10.2307/332111
     https://doi.org/10.2307/332111 [Google Scholar]
  113. Spears, Arthur K.
    1977 The semantics of English complementation. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego.
  114. Szymańska, Izabela
    2011a Mosaics: A Construction-grammar-based Approach to Translation. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 2011b Construction Grammar as a framework for describing translation: A prolegomenon. InNew Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies (Second Language Learning and Teaching), Mirosław Pawlak & Jakub Bielak (eds). Berlin: Springer, 215–225.10.1007/978‑3‑642‑20083‑0_16
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20083-0_16 [Google Scholar]
  116. Tabakowska, Elżbieta
    1993 Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 2003 Iconicity and literary translation. InFrom Sign to Signing (Iconicity in Language and Literature 3), Wolfgang G. Müller & Olga Fischer (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 361–376.10.1075/ill.3.24tab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.3.24tab [Google Scholar]
  118. 2005 Iconicity as a function of point of view. InOutside-In – Inside-Out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4), Costantino Maeder , Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 375–387.10.1075/ill.4.27tab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.4.27tab [Google Scholar]
  119. . Iconicity 2009 Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 5), Frank Brisard , Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 129–145.10.1075/hoph.5.08tab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.08tab [Google Scholar]
  120. 2013 (Cognitive) grammar in translation: Form as meaning. InCognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications, Ana Rojo & Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 229–250.10.1515/9783110302943.229
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.229 [Google Scholar]
  121. Tabakowska, Elżbieta , Christina Ljunberg & Olga Fischer
    (eds) 2007 Insistent Images (Iconicity in Language and Literature 5). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.5 [Google Scholar]
  122. Timyam, Napasri & Benjamin K. Bergen
    2010 A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. InContrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10), Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 136–168.10.1075/cal.10.07tim
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.07tim [Google Scholar]
  123. Ungaretti, Giuseppe
    1986 Saggi e Interventi. Milan: Mondadori.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Valenzuela, A.
    1999 Álvarez: Los Sonetos de Shakespeare son indestructibles. La Verdad (Diario de Murcia), 25thApril 1999, p.72.
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Van der Meer, Geart
    1994 Verbs of perception and their complementation. English Studies5: 468–480.10.1080/00138389408598937
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138389408598937 [Google Scholar]
  126. Verspoor, Marjolijn
    2000 Iconicity in English complement constructions: Conceptual distance and cognitive processing levels. InComplementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives, Kaoru Horie (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 199–225.10.1075/celcr.1.08ver
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.1.08ver [Google Scholar]
  127. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1988 The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  128. Yoon, Jiyoung & Stephanie Wulff
    2016 A corpus-based study of infinitival and sentential complement constructions in Spanish. InCorpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 9), Jiyoung Yoon & Stefan Th. Gries (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 145–164.10.1075/cal.19.06yoo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.19.06yoo [Google Scholar]
  129. Zandvoort, Reinard Willem & Jan Ate Van Ek
    1962 A Handbook of English Grammar. 6th ed.London: Longman Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Zazo, Anna Luisa
    1993 Shakespeare: Sonetti. Milan: Mondadori.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00006.gon
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Construction Grammar(s); iconicity; interlingual translation; Shakespeare; Sonnets

Most Cited

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