1887
Volume 17, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper addresses a pair of construction variants: the N1 V N2 -infinitive construction and its version without , in the cases when both are possible with the same main verb ( / ). It aims to point to the importance of the use of massive e-corpora in gaining better insight into the given construction pair. It also aims to test the hypothesis that the obtained quantitative data from such corpora can at least partially be accounted for by the interplay of: (1) the differences in the semantics of the two construction variants (based on combining relevant cognitive-linguistic insights), (2) the differences in the lexical semantics of the main verbs, and (3) extra-linguistic factors dealt with by models of cross-cultural communication styles. The paper thus argues for a tighter integration of cognitive-linguistic insights and a social-interactional perspective on language phenomena.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00025.pav
2019-08-20
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Croft, W.
    (2009) Toward a social cognitive linguistics. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive science (pp.395–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.25cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.25cro [Google Scholar]
  2. Cuyckens, H., & De Smet, H.
    (2007) For…to-infinitives from Early to Late Modern English. InJ. Pérez-Guerra, D. González-Álvarez, J. L. Bueno-Alonso, & E. Rama-Martínez (Eds.), ‘Of varying language and opposing creed’: New insights into Late Modern English (pp.77–102). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Davies, M.
    (2012) Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157. 10.3366/cor.2012.0024
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2012.0024 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2013) Recent shifts with three non-finite verbal complements in English: Data from the 100-million-word Time corpus (1920s–2000s). InB. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, & S. Wallis (Eds.), The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp.46–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139060998.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060998.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Davies, M., & Fuchs, R.
    (2015) Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9-billion-word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE). English World-Wide, 36(1), 1–28. 10.1075/eww.36.1.01dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.36.1.01dav [Google Scholar]
  6. De Smet, H.
    (2007) For…to-infinitives as verbal complements in Late Modern and Present-Day English: Between motivation and change. English Studies, 88, 67–94. 10.1080/00138380601042766
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138380601042766 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fanego, T.
    (2007) Drift and the development of sentential complements in British and American English from 1700 to the present day. Linguistic Insights: Studies in Language and Communication, 28, 161–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fischer, O.
    (2000) Grammaticalisation: unidirectional, non-reversible?: The case of to before the infinitive in English. InO. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English (pp.149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.53.08fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.53.08fis [Google Scholar]
  9. Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G.
    (2014) Cognitive Linguistics and language variation. InJ. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp.202–217). London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gries, S. T.
    (2001) A multifactorial analysis of syntactic variation: Particle movement revisited. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 8, 33–50. 10.1076/jqul.8.1.33.4092
    https://doi.org/10.1076/jqul.8.1.33.4092 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2002) The influence of processing on grammatical variation: Particle placement in English. InN. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-particle explorations (pp.269–288). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110902341.269
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110902341.269 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London/New York: Continuum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. InM. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp.225–36). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grondelaers, S.
    (2008) National variation in the use of er ‘there’: Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. InG. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp.153–203). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199154.2.153
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154.2.153 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hall, E.
    (1976) Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. InT. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.457–475). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hofstede, G.
    (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1991) Cultures and organizations. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hollmann, W. B.
    (2013) Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics. InT. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.491–509). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ivorra Pérez, F. M.
    (2014) Cultural values and digital discourse: An intercultural communication approach to the transactional discourse of Spanish and US sales websites. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 36, 50–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lewis, R. D.
    (2005) Finland, cultural lone wolf. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2006) [1996]When cultures collide: Managing successfully across cultures (revised edition.) London: Nicholas Brealey.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McFadden, T.
    (2008) Overt subjects of infinitives and for-to in the history of English. Paper presented at the10th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference. Cornell University, 7 August 2008. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/2849136/Overt_subjects_of_infinitives_and_for-to_in_the_history_of_English?auto=downloadinAugust 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A., & Tella, S.
    (2008) Communication style and cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: A case study of Finland, Japan and India. InA. Kallioniemi (Ed.), Renovating and developing subject didactics: Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 2, 2008 (pp.783–796). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Piller, I.
    (2007) Linguistics and intercultural communication. Language and Linguistic Compass, 1(3), 208–226. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00012.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00012.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Prykarpatska, I.
    (2008) Why are you late?: Cross-cultural pragmatic study of complaints in American English and Ukrainian. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 87–102. 10.14198/raei.2008.21.05
    https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2008.21.05 [Google Scholar]
  30. Radford, A.
    (2004) English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511841675
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841675 [Google Scholar]
  31. Uhrig, P.
    (2015) Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 323–337. 10.1515/zaa‑2015‑0030
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0030 [Google Scholar]
  32. Wagner, S.
    (2000) Depends how long you want for it to take: For/to clauses in present-day spoken British English. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 25(2), 191–211.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1988) The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2003) Cross-cultural pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220964
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220964 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
    (2007) Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. InG. Radden, K. M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp.265–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.17wul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.17wul [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00025.pav
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00025.pav
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