1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 24, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 24, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

There is a widespread assumption in Construction Grammar (but also before and elsewhere) that the meanings of verbs correlate with or even determine their complementation forms and patterns. There is much less research on noun complementation, however, although this category is even more interesting for a number of reasons such as the potential for valency reduction, nominal topicalization constructions, and additional complementation options, e.g. PPs and existential constructions.

In this paper we focus on the class of nouns reporting commissive illocutionary acts (, etc.), and address the question of whether there is a correlation (i) between the meaning of these nouns and their preferred complementation patterns, and (ii) between their semantic similarity and their similarity in the distribution of complementation patterns.

We report the results of a study of a set of 17 commissive nouns chosen from a wider collection of illocutionary nouns. Two types of analysis were carried out in order to compare the semantic and grammatical characteristics of these nouns. The semantic analysis was based on insights from speech act theory and the philosophy of language. We developed a framework for a systematic comparative description of the nouns in our word field. The results were tallied with a corpus-based grammatical analysis. Two hundred tokens of each noun type were randomly sampled from the Corpus of Contemporary American English. Using these data, the 17 nouns were subjected to an analysis of the relative frequencies of their complementation patterns.

Results indicate a general match between noun meanings and complementation patterns. More specifically, however, they indicate that the closeness of this match depends on the prototypicality of nouns as members of the class of commissives.

The study, then, contributes to our understanding of the relation between lexis and syntax. At the same time, it confirms the need for a close semantic analysis to account for the great extent to which item-specific information, i.e. properties of individual nouns, have to be taken into consideration at the expense of large-scale generalizations.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
This work is currently available as a sample.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17003.ver
2018-01-19
2024-10-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.17003.ver
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ambroise, Bruno
    2013 Promising. InMarina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech action, 501–522. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110214383.501
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.501 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bach, Kent & Robert Harnish
    1979 Linguistic communication and speech acts. Harvard: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bierwisch, Manfred
    1990 Event nominalizations: Proposals and problems. Acta Linguistica Hungarica40. 19–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Castelfranchi, Cristiano & Marco Guerini
    2007 Is it a promise or a threat?Pragmatics & Cognition15(2). 277–311. doi:  10.1075/pc.15.2.05cas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.2.05cas [Google Scholar]
  5. Conte, Maria-Elisabeth
    1996 Anaphoric encapsulation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics10. 1–10. doi:  10.1075/bjl.10.02con
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.10.02con [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
    2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  7. Davies, Mark
    2008 The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990–2012. Available fromcorpus.byu.edu/coca/
  8. Egan, Thomas
    2008 Non-finite complementation. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. doi:  10.1163/9789401205542
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401205542 [Google Scholar]
  9. Faulhaber, Susen
    2011a Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110240788
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240788 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2011b Idiosyncracy in verb valency patterns. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik59(4). 331–346. doi:  10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0405
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0405 [Google Scholar]
  11. Flowerdew, John
    2003 Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes22 (4). 329–346. doi:  10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00017‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00017-0 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2006 Use of signaling nouns in a learner corpus. InJohn Flowerdew & Michaela Mahlberg (eds.), Lexical cohesion and corpus linguistics, 345–362. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Flowerdew, John & Richard W. Forest
    2014 Signalling nouns in English: A corpus-based discourse approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Robert Jasperson
    1991  That-clauses and other complements. Lingua83. 133–153. doi:  10.1016/0024‑3841(91)90025‑Z
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(91)90025-Z [Google Scholar]
  15. Francis, Gil
    1986 Anaphoric nouns. Discourse Analysis Monographs 11, Birmingham: University of Birmingham Printig Section.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gaeta, Livio
    2002 Quando i verbi compaiono come nomi: Un saggio di Morfologia Naturale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Peter Bakema
    1994 The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110873061
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873061 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, Adele
    2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Green, Mitchell
    2013 Assertions. InMarina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech action, 387–409. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110214383.387
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.387 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gries, Stefan Th
    2010 Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon5(3). 323–346. doi:  10.1075/ml.5.3.04gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.3.04gri [Google Scholar]
  21. Herbst, Thomas
    2011 The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik59(4). 347–367. doi:  10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0406
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0406 [Google Scholar]
  22. Herbst, Thomas 2014 The valency approach to argument structure constructions. InThomas Herbst, Hans-Joerg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns, 167–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1985 The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. InJohn Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 151–183. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.6.08hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.08hop [Google Scholar]
  24. Ivanič, Roz
    1991 Nouns in search of context: A study of nouns with both open- and closed-system characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching2. 93–114.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kissine, Mikhail
    2008 From predictions to promises: How to derive deontic commitment. Pragmatics & Cognition16(3). 471–491. doi:  10.1075/pc.16.3.03kis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.16.3.03kis [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Mair, Christian
    1990 Infinitival complement clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Martìnez Insua, Ana
    2004 Existential there-construction in contemporary British English. Munich: Lincom.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Noh, Eun-Ju
    2000 Metarepresentation: A relevance-theory approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.69
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.69 [Google Scholar]
  31. Proost, Kristel
    2007 Conceptual structure in lexical items. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.168
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.168 [Google Scholar]
  32. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Riddle, Elizabeth
    1975 Some pragmatic conditions on complementizer choice. InPapers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 467–474. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn B. Mervis
    1975 Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology8. 382–439. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0285(76)90013‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X [Google Scholar]
  35. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    1998 Constant and ephemeral hypostatization: Thing, problem and other ‘shell nouns’. InBernard Caron (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists, 20–25. Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2000 English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110808704
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2007 Non-compositionality and emergent meaning of lexico-grammatical chunks: A corpus study of noun phrases with sentential complements as constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik55(3). 313–340. doi:  10.1515/zaa.2007.55.3.313
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa.2007.55.3.313 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2016 English morphology and word-formation: An introduction, 3rd. edn.Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Searle, John
    1976 A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society5(1). 1–23. doi:  10.1017/S0047404500006837
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  40. 1979 Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511609213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  41. Searle, John & Daniel Vanderveken
    1985 Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Taylor, John R.
    2009 Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid 2006 An introduction to cognitive linguistics, 2nd edn.London: Pearson Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Vanderveken, Daniel
    1990 Meaning and speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Vanparys, Johan
    1996 Categories and complements of illocutionary verbs in a cognitive perspective. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Vendler, Zeno
    1967 Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 1968 Adjectives and nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Vergaro, Carla
    2015 Ways of asserting: English assertive nouns between linguistics and the philosophy of language. Journal of Pragmatics84. 1–17. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1987 English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 1988 The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wilson, Deirdre
    2000 Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. InSperber, Dan (ed.), Metarepresentation: A multidisciplinary perspective, 411–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Winter, Eugene
    1992 The notion of unspecific versus specific as a way of analyzing the information of a fund-raising letter. InWilliam C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse descriptions: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising letter, 131–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.16.07win
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.07win [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17003.ver
Loading
Do the meanings of abstract nouns correlate with the meanings of their complementation patterns?
Pragmatics & Cognition 24, 91 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17003.ver
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17003.ver
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17003.ver
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): commissive; complementation; item-specificity; prototype; shell noun

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