Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Perception verbs prototypically occur with a grammatical subject NP referring to a person. However, and also license an inanimate grammatical subject, more precisely a spatial or temporal setting, in a “” ( Langacker 1991 , 2008 ). The present study addresses this kind of variation, and demonstrates how the two alternate constructions reveal shifts from an egocentric perspective to an anthropocentric perspective. It sets out to accomplish three main goals: first, to establish whether each construction aligns perfectly with one particular perspective; second, to identify the semantic and syntactic characteristics of setting-subject constructions and explain how an inanimate subject NP can be favored over a human subject NP; third, to determine what can motivate speakers’ choices between the two alternate constructions licensed by and . To achieve this, a qualitative, corpus-based analysis is carried out, which helps to understand to what extent the grammatical coding embodies a specific way of viewing the scene. First, the cognitive theoretical concepts (e.g., the Extended Animacy Hierarchy ( Croft, 2003 ), egocentric and canonical viewing arrangements, cognitive schemas and models) that are helpful for the proper characterization of the two structures are presented, as well as the methodology employed to collect data for the present study. I then focus on prototypical, human subject NP constructions which reveal either an egocentric or an anthropocentric point of view of the scene. Finally, setting-subject constructions are addressed: not only are the characteristics of such structures highlighted but also the parameters and factors that contribute to their occurrence are identified. The study shows that such constructions convey the conceptualizer’s assessment of a situation, as the viewing relationship is construed subjectively. A setting-subject construction thus reveals a perspective that indirectly turns out to be more anthropocentric than ‘setting-centric’, as the inanimate locative subject, ranking at the bottom of the Animacy hierarchy, winds up alluding to any possible human being, including the speaker, the addressee and the Other.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Cotte, P.
    (2005) Réflexions sur le sujet, le thème et le cadre. In J. Pauchard & F. Canon-Roger (Eds.), Recherches en linguistique et psychologie cognitive21 (pp.267–282). Reims: Presses Universitaires de Reims.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2006) Un sujet, deux prédications. In D. Lebaud , C. Paulin & K. Ploog (Eds.), Constructions verbales et production de sens (pp.17–26). Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2012) Hiérarchies. E-rea, 9.2. erea.revues.org/2652
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Croft, W.
    (1991) Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2003) Typology and Universals. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Culioli, A.
    (1990) Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Tome 1. Opérations et représentations. Gap: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dirven, R.
    (Ed.) (1989) A User’s Grammar of English: Word, Sentence, Text, Interaction. Compact edition. Frankfurt am Main/Bern: Verlag Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dixon, R. M. W.
    ([1991] 1992) A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dowty, D. R.
    ([1979] 1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  10. Groussier, M. -L. , & Rivière, C.
    (1996) Les mots de la linguistique. Lexique de linguistique énonciative. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    ([1985] 2014) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed.revised. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    ([1980] 2003) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.I. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2006) Subjectification, grammaticalization, and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou , C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification. Various Paths to Subjectivity (pp.17–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892970.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892970.17 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2008) Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Levin, B.
    (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Levin, B. , & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (2005) Argument Realization. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  20. Nuyts, J.
    (2001) Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383–400.10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Palmer, F. R.
    ([1974] 1988) The English Verb. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Pottier, B.
    (1992) Sémantique générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sinclair, J.
    (1996) Collins Cobuild Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Vol.I and II. Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Traugott, E. C.
    (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31–55.10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1995) Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectification (pp.31–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Viberg, Å.
    (1984) The verbs of perception: a typological study. In B. Butterworth , B. Comrie & Ö. Dahl (Eds.), Explanations for Language Universals (pp.123–162). Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110868555.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110868555.123 [Google Scholar]
  28. Davies, M.
    (2004)  BYU-BNC . (Based onthe British National CorpusfromOxford University Press). 100 million words, 1980s-1993. https://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/. Accessed12 Dec. 2017. (BNC)
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English. 560 million words, 1990-present. https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Accessed12 Dec. 2017. (COCA)
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Harper, D.
    (2001–2018) Online Etymology Dictionary. www.etymonline.com. (OnED)
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lawrence, D. H.
    (1921) Women in Love. London: Penguin. (WIL)
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Oxford English Dictionary Online
    Oxford English Dictionary Online (2018) Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com. (OED)
    [Google Scholar]

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