1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 32, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

have the function of drawing the language user’s attention to the non-agentive elements of a predication, while endowing one of these elements with agent-like qualities. Members of this family are the , and constructions. These constructions have been discussed in the literature, especially in projectionist accounts of language, without adequately accounting for their relatedness, which in our view can best be done by investigating their grounding in cognition. The present article addresses this issue by considering agent-deprofiling constructions as belonging to the class of what we term . Pretense constructions provide non-descriptive, or re-construed, representations of states, situations, or events. Because of their re-construed nature, which involves metaphor and/or metonymy, in these configurations there is no one-to-one match between the semantic and syntactic functions of their elements. We discuss how this reorganization of the semantic and syntactic function of constructional elements produces specific meaning implications that can be motivated by underlying metaphoric and metonymic shifts, sometimes working in cooperation.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.17006.men
2019-11-05
2024-10-15

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/resla.17006.men
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Broccias, C.
    (2003) The English change network. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110901207
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110901207 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2004) The cognitive basis of adjectival and adverbial resultative constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 103–126. 10.1075/arcl.2.04bro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.2.04bro [Google Scholar]
  3. (2008) Towards a history of English resultative constructions: the case of adjectival resultative constructions. English Language and Linguistics, 12(1), 1–28. 10.1017/S1360674307002493
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002493 [Google Scholar]
  4. Butler, C. S., & F. Gonzálvez
    (2014) Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.157
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dik, S. C.
    (1980) Studies in Functional Grammar. London and New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (1997) [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)] The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2006) Constructions at Work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2013) Constructionist approaches to language. InT. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2019) Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldberg, A. E., & R. Jackendoff
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gonzálvez, F.
    (2009) The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31, 663–723. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Greenberg, J.
    (1967) Some Universals of Grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. InJ. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp.73–75). London: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd revised edition. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Iwata, S.
    (2008) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kageyama, T.
    (1997) Denominal verbs and relative salience in lexical conceptual structure. InT. Kageyama (Ed.), Verb semantics and syntactic structure (pp.45–96). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. 2nd edition (pp.202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, R. W.
    (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1998) Morphology and lexical semantics. InA. Zwicky, & A. Spencer (Eds.), Handbook of morphology (pp.248–271). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  23. Michaelis, L.
    (2003) Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. InH. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.93–122). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219074.163
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.163 [Google Scholar]
  24. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
    (2009) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25 [Google Scholar]
  25. Peña, M. S.
    (2015) A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs. Linguistics, 53(6), 1247–1302.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. (2016) Cognitive mechanisms underlying fake reflexive resultatives. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 36(4), 502–541. 10.1080/07268602.2016.1169975
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2016.1169975 [Google Scholar]
  27. Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. InB. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp.231–270). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2017a) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp.138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (2017b) Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 30(1), 297–322.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Luzondo, A.
    (2012) Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. InM. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Zic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Between universality and variation (pp.117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2016) Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 8, 32–58. 10.1017/langcog.2014.41
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.41 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2018) Cognitive model types and the constructicon. Antares, 10(20), 50–72. 10.18226/19844921.v10.n20.04
     https://doi.org/10.18226/19844921.v10.n20.04 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ruiz de Mendoza, F., Luzondo, A., & Pérez-Sobrino, P.
    (2017) Constructing families of constructions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.58
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Peña, S.
    (2008) Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish. InM. A. Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie, & E. M. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: functional and cognitive perspectives (pp.251–280). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.60.15rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.15rui [Google Scholar]
  38. Slobin, D. I.
    (2000) Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. InS. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp.107–138). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1075/cilt.198.10slo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.198.10slo [Google Scholar]
  39. (2006) What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse and cognition. InM. Hickmann, & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in language: linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp.60–81). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.66.05slo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.05slo [Google Scholar]
  40. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Towards a Cognitive Semantics. 2vols.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Taylor, J. R.
    (1995) Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Valin, R. D. Jr.
    (1980) On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua, 50, 303–327. 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90088‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90088-1 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2005) The syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: an introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.17006.men
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agent-deprofiling constructions; construcciones de desperfilación de agentes; construcciones de pretensión; constructional family; familia construccional; metaphor; metonimia; metonymy; metáfora; pretense constructions

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