English Resultatives

A force-recipient account

| Kansai University
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027204912 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027261595 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 

The objective of this book is to develop a force-recipient account of English resultatives. Within this approach the post-verbal NP is a recipient of a verbal force, whether it is a subcategorized object or not, and the verbal force being exerted onto the post-verbal NP is responsible for bringing about the change as specified by the result phrase. It is shown that many apparent puzzles posed by English resultatives are due to the complex interplay between the verb meaning and the constructional meaning, or between the verb meaning and the semantics of the result phrase. Thus the proposed account can provide answers to the question “Which resultatives are possible and which are not?” in a coherent way. Also, the proposed account reveals that English resultatives are not a monolithic phenomenon, and that some “resultatives” cited in the literature as such are not resultatives at all. This book is of interest not only to practitioners of Construction Grammar but also to everyone interested in English resultatives.

[Constructional Approaches to Language, 26]  2020.  xx, 549 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–19
Part I. A force-recipient account
21–68
Chapter 2. The status of the post-verbal NP
23–46
Chapter 3. Force transmission as essential to resultatives
47–68
Part II. So-called idiomatic cases
69–130
Chapter 4. He laughed his head off
71–97
Chapter 5. They beat the hell out of me
99–130
Part III. Resultatives and domains
131–188
Chapter 6. Resultatives with verbs of eating and drinking I
133–156
Chapter 7. Resultatives with verbs of eating and drinking II
157–170
Chapter 8. He laughed himself silly
171–188
Part IV. ‘Change verb’ resultatives and how to accommodate them
189–256
Chapter 9. ‘Change verb’ resultatives
191–210
Chapter 10. What are spurious resultatives?
211–238
Chapter 11. Resultatives with open/shut
239–256
Part V. On the result component
257–326
Chapter 12. To result phrases vs. into result phrases
259–285
Chapter 13. Adjectival result phrases vs. prepositional result phrases
287–308
Chapter 14. Consequences of the AP/PP distinction
309–325
Part VI. Still further issues surrounding adjectival result phrases
327–382
Chapter 15. Maximal end-point constraint reconsidered
329–343
Chapter 16. Selectional restrictions on adjectival result phrases
345–360
Chapter 17. Temporal dependence reconsidered
361–382
Part VII. Resultatives that are not based on force-transmission
383–428
Chapter 18. Princess Anne rides to victory
385–410
Chapter 19. Resultatives with free
411–428
Part VIII. Putative resultatives
429–484
Chapter 20. Follow and disappear
431–449
Chapter 21. Verbs of sound emission followed by a path PP
451–476
Chapter 22. Reconsidering the parallel between change of state and change of location
477–483
Part IX. Still another putative constraint
485–530
Chapter 23. Unique path constraint reconsidered
487–500
Chapter 24. To one’s death
501–509
Chapter 25. Summary and conclusion
511–529
References
531–543
Index of constructions
545
Subject index
547–549
“Winner of the 2020 "English Linguistics Society in Japan" Award.”
English Resultatives: A force-recipient account presents a masterly synthesis of the English resultative construction, based on detailed corpus analysis of British and American English. Iwata presents a force dynamic analysis of English resultative constructions that addresses many of the issues found with earlier accounts. In Iwata’s analysis, schematic construction meanings interact with rich verb meanings to account for the distributional patterns of verbs in resultative constructions and the semantic interpretation of particular verbs in the resultative construction. English Resultatives will serve as the reference point for future research on the resultative construction in English and other languages.”
References

References

Ameka, F.
(1992) Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18: 101–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M.
(1976) Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, J.
(2012) Resultative constructions. In R. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp.908–933). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, J., & Koonz-Garboden, A.
(2012) Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry, 43: 331–369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Weitham, S.
(2010) The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46: 331–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Binnick, R.
(1968) On the nature of the ‘lexical item.’ CLS, 4: 1–13.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2000) Resultative constructions in English and German. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2011) Coercion and leaking argument structures in construction grammar. Linguistics, 49: 1271–1303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.233–252). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1971) The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J.
(1979) Theory of complementation in English syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
(1980) Polyadicity: Part I of a theory of lexical rules and representations. In T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst, & M. Moortgat (Eds.), Lexical Grammar (pp.97–121). Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C.
(2003) The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C.
(1988) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82: 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2014) Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp.251–281). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carlson, G., & Storto, G.
(2006) Sherlock Holmes was in no danger. In B. J. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp.53–70). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, J., & Randall, J. H.
(1989) From conceptual structure to syntax: Projecting from resultatives. Ms. Harvard University and Northeastern University.Google Scholar
(1992) The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 23: 173–234.Google Scholar
(1993) Lexical mapping. In E. Reuland & A. Werner (Eds.), Knowledge and language Volume II (pp.119–142). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2015) Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79: 79–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.
(2007) The importance of not being earnest. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Claridge, C.
(2011) Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H.
(1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.27–64). New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L.
(1997) ‘I’ve never seen anything like it’: Overstatement, understatement, and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12: 43–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Using figurative language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B.
(1998) You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27: 499–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Condoravdi, C., & Gawron, J. M.
(1996) The context-dependency of implicit arguments. In M. Kanazawa, C. Piñon, & H. de Swart (Eds.), Quantifiers, deduction, and context (pp.1–32). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F.
(1979) Idiomaticity as a problem of pragmatics. In H. Parret, M. Sbisá & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics (pp.139–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(1990) Possible verbs and event structure. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp.48–73). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1998) Event structure in argument linking. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.21–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language (pp.49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Connecting frames and constructions: A case study of eat and feed . Constructions and Frames, 1: 7–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A.
(1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W.
(2013) Grammar and complexity: Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. A.
(2016) A theory of saying reports. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. L. Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics (pp.291–332). Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R.
(1982) ‘Talk’: Linguistic action perspectivized as discourse. In R. Dirven, L. Goossens, Y. Putseys, & E. Vorlat (Eds.), The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say and tell , (pp.37–83). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D.
(1979) Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67: 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, T.
(1984) Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
(2002) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Modification of stative predicates. Language, 92: 237–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M. T., & Mateu, J.
(2010) On classes of idioms and their interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 1397–1411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, S.
(1992) The syntax and semantics of middle constructions: A study with special reference to German. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S.
(2011) Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C.
(1986) On the middle construction in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
(2013) Purpose verbs. In J. Pustejovsky, P. Bouillon, H. Isahara, K. Kanzaki, & C. Lee (Eds.), Advances in generative lexicon theory (pp.371–384). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
(1977) Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp.76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1997) Lectures on deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T.
(1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp.75–102). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Johnson, C., & Petruck, M.
(2003) Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16: 235–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B.
(1976) The verb-particle combination in English. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Geuder, W.
(2000) Oriented adverbs: Issues in the lexical semantics of event adverbs. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., & Colston, H. L.
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 183–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1991a) It can’t go down the chimney up: Paths and the English resultative. BLS, 17: 368–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991b) A semantic account of resultatives. Linguistic Analysis, 21: 66–96.Google Scholar
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1998) Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp.203–220). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7: 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In J-O Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.17–43). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20: 93–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R.
(2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80: 532–568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, G.
(1970) How abstract is surface structure? CLS, 6: 270–281.Google Scholar
(1972) Some observations on the syntax and semantics of instrumental verbs. CLS, 8: 83–97.Google Scholar
Gross, M.
(1994) Constructing lexicon-grammars. In B. T. S. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approaches to the lexicon (pp.213–263). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J.
(1976) Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Haïk, Isabelle.
(2012)  The hell in English grammar. In N. Le Querler, F. Neveu, & E. Roussel (Eds.), Relations, connexions, dependances: Hommage au Professeur Claude Guimier (pp.101–126). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J.
(1987) A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers, 10: Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 1. Journal of Linguistics, 3: 37–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B.
(1999) Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements.’ Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX: 127–144. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Herbst, T.
(2012) Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino. In H-J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns (pp.225–255). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2014) The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns (pp.167–216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N., & Schultze-Berndt, E.
(2005) Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. In N. Himmelmann & E. Schultze-Berndt (Eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives (pp.1–68). Oxford: The Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, J., & Napoli, D. J.
(2008) Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 44: 347–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T.
(1988) Small clause results. Lingua, 74: 101–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, G., & Stavrou, M.
(2003) Actions and their results in Greek and English: The complementarity of morphologically encoded (viewpoint) aspect and syntactic resultative predication. Journal of Semantics, 20: 297–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoshi, H.
(1992) Circumstantial predicates, PRO, and d-structure adjunction. English Linguistics, 9: 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R.
(2002) The clause: Complements. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.213–321). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M.
(2007) English mediopassive constructions: A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread and current status. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S.
(1995) Invariance again: What is preserved in a metaphorical mapping? English Linguistics, 12: 173–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) A lexical network approach to verbal semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
(1999) On the status of implicit argument in middles. Journal of Linguistics, 35: 527–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Does MANNER count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics, 40: 61–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004a)  He jumped to his feet: Internal motion and internal path. Tsukuba English Studies 22: A festschrift in honor of Minoru Nakau, 89–99. University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
(2004b)  Over-prefixation: A lexical constructional approach. English Language and Linguistics, 8: 239–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics, 16: 355–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a lexical constructional account: The case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases. Language Sciences, 28: 449–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Where there’s a sound, there’s motion: Two types of path PPs that appear after verbs of sound emission. Paper read at the Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at University of Tokyo, Japan.
(2006c) Where do constructions come from? English Linguistics, 23: 493–533. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008a) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008b) A door that swings noiselessly open may creak shut: Internal motion and concurrent changes of state. Linguistics, 46: 1049–1108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008c) Another look at the maximal end-point constraint on resultatives. Paper read at the Fifth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at University of Texas, Austin.
(2010) Why can we say ‘Bob shot him to death’ but not ‘*Bob shot him into death’? Paper read at the Sixth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at Charles University. Czech Republic.
(2011)  He laughed his head off: A lexical-constructional account. Paper read at the Fourth International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, held at Osnabrueck University. Germany.
(2012) Kekkahyougen-ni oite doushi-ni kouzokusuru meishiku-ga hatasu yakuwari (The role played by the post-verbal NP in resultatives). Paper read at the 84th General Meeting of the English Literature Society in Japan, held at Senshu University, Ikuta campus.
(2014a) ‘Tight links’ make convenient metaphors but loose explanations: Replying to a reply. Language Sciences, 42: 15–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Construction grammar. In A. Carnie, Y. Sato, & D. Siddiqi (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 647–669. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2014c) Aspect and force dynamics: Which is more essential to resultatives? English Linguistics, 31: 234–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014d) Where does Princess Anne rode (the horse) to victory come from? Paper read at the Eighth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at Osnabrueck University. Germany.
(2014e) Going further and further astray: Why a loose explanation never becomes tight. Language Sciences, 45: 135–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Resultatives and domains: The cases of fake reflexives with eat and drink . Paper read at the Sixth Biennial International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, held at University of Wisconsin-Madison. US.
(2015b) Keiyoushi kekka-ku to zenchishi kekka-ku (Adjectival result phrases vs. prepositional result phrases). Paper read at the 33rd General Meeting of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, held at Kansai Gaidai University, Nakamiya Campus.Google Scholar
(2017) ‘State-maintaining’ causatives: A close kin to resultatives. Language Sciences, 64: 103–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1996) The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14: 305–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73: 534–539. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002a) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002b) English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In N. Dehe, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-particle explorations (pp.67–94). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1933) Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jongen, R.
(1985) Polysemy, tropes and cognition, or the non-Magrittian art of closing curtains whilst opening them. In W. Paprotte & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor (pp.121–139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L.
(1971) Implicative verbs. Language, 47: 340–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, I.
(1995) O- and D-predicates: A semantic approach to the unaccusative-unergative distinction. Journal of Semantics, 12: 377–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P.
(2005) Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.71–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, S. R.
(1985) Principles of particle construction. In J. Guéron, H-G. Obenauer, & J-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Grammatical representation (pp.101–140). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kearns, K.
(2007) Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua, 117: 26–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L.
(1999) From event structure to scale structure: Degree modification in deverbal adjectives. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX: 163–180. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
(2005) Building resultatives. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications (pp.177–212). Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M.
(1992) Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters (pp.29–53). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
(1998) The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar (pp.197–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S., & Takami, K.
(2004) Functional constraints in grammar: On the unergative – unaccusative distinction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kusayama, M., & Miyata, A.
(2000) Doushi-to kekkahyougen-no imikankei (The semantic relation between verb meaning and resultatives). Report of the special research Project for the typological investigation of languages and cultures of the East and West 2000, Part II (pp.841–868). University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp.202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1986) Abstract motion. BLS, 12: 455–471. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005a) Integration, grammaticisation, and constructional meaning. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.157–189). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005b) Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.101–159). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R.
(2014) On shell structure. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A.
(1970) Verbs and deletable objects. Lingua, 25: 227–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Objecthood: An event structure perspective. CLS, 35: 223–247.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rapoport, R.
(1988) Lexical subordination. CLS, 24: 275–289.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(1991) Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41: 123–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Lexical semantics and syntactic structure. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp.487–507), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
(1999) Two structures for compositionally derived events. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX: 199–223.Google Scholar
Lindner, S.
(1981) A lexico-semantic analysis of verb-particle constructions with up and out. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Available from IULC (1983).Google Scholar
(1982) What goes up doesn’t necessarily come down: The ins and outs of opposites. CLS, 18: 305–323.Google Scholar
Maienborn, C.
(2001) On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 9: 191–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, C., & Schäfer, M.
(2011) Adverbs and adverbials. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp.1390–1420). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Margerie, H.
(2011) Grammaticalising constructions: To death as a peripheral degree modifier. Folia Linguistica Historica, 32: 115–148.Google Scholar
Martínez-Manrique, F., & Vicente, A.
(2013) What is said by a metaphor: The role of salience and conventionality. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21: 304–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mateu, J., & Espinal, M. T.
(2007) Argument structure and compositionality in idiomatic constructions. The Linguistic Review, 24: 33–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Laughing our heads off: When metaphor constrains aspect. BLS, 33: 284–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
(1996a) Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive linguistics, 7: 183–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996b) How abstract is subjective motion? A comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, language, and discourse (pp.359–374), Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2006) Constraints on the co-occurrence of spatial and non-spatial paths in English: A closer look at the Unique Path Constraint. A plenary talk given at the Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at University of Tokyo, Japan.
McNulty, E.
(1988) The syntax of adjunct predicates. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Meinard, M. E. M.
(2015) Distinguishing onomatopoeia from interjections. Journal of Pragmatics, 76: 150–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moon, R.
(1998) Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morita, J.
(1998) Some notes on prepositional resultatives. Tsukuba English Studies, 17: 319–340.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J., & Hoeksema, J.
(2009) The grammatical versatility of taboo terms. Studies in Language, 33: 612–643. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nemesi, A. L.
(2004) What discourse goals can be accomplished by the use of hyperbole? Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 51: 351–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nemoto, N.
(2005) Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in construction grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.119–136). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neuhaus, L.
(2016) On the relation of irony, understatement, and litotes. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23: 117–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, T.
(2008) Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlacil, B. Gehrke, & R. Nouwen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P (pp.175–195). Berlin & New York: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
(2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1727–1739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G.
(1987) Talking: A study in lexical network theory. BLS, 13: 195–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G.
(1979) The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3: 143–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Two kinds of indexicality. Proceedings of the Semantics and Linguistic Theory, II: 283–301. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
(1995) Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12: 109–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Deferred interpretation. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.344–364). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ono, N.
(2010) Eigo kekka koubunn no koyuusei to ruikeiteki tokusei (Some peculiarities and typological properties of resultatives in English). Paper read at the Twenty-Eighth Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, held at Nihon University, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Paradis, C., Löhndorf, S., van de Weijer, J., & Willners, C.
(2015) Semantic profiles of antonymic adjectives in discourse. Linguistics, 53: 153–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. H.
(1989) Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. CLS, 25: 342–365.Google Scholar
Perek, F.
(2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54: 149–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petruck, M. R. L.
(1996) Frame semantics. In J. Verschueren, J-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 1996 (pp.1–11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plag, I.
(2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P.
(1974) On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
(1991a) The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41: 47–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991b) The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17: 409–441.Google Scholar
(1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G.
(2008) Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J. H.
(2010) Linking: The geometry of argument structure. Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, T.
(1999) Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language, 75: 653–677. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M.
(2008) Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp.13–42). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua, 141: 8–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
(1998) Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.97–134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2001) An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77: 766–797. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M.
(1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rivière, C.
(1982) Objectionable objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 13: 685–689.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.
(1988) Predicative APs. Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 703–710.Google Scholar
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2015) Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics, 26: 467–503. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S.
(1983) The syntactic forms of predication. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
(2004) Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Secondary predicates. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics Vol.2: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1442–1462). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y.
(2004) Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12: 259–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., & Scheffczyk, J.
(2016) FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report (available at http://​framenet​.icsi​.bekeley​.edu)Google Scholar
Sapir, E.
(1944) On grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science, 2: 93–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M.
(1976) The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: The grammar of causative constructions (pp.1–40). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, J.
(1983) Resultatives. In M. Rappaport, A. Zaenen, & L. Levin (Eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar (pp.143–157). Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1999) Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp.129–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp.57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000a) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.2, Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Linguistic categorization, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012) The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind? Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, E.
(2004) On ‘syntactic’ versus ‘semantic’ telicity: Evidence from in and on . In H. Cuyckens, W. de Mulder, & T. Montelmans (Eds.), Adpositions of movement, (pp.145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M.
(1999) On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 1655–1674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tortora, C.
(1998) Verbs of inherently directed motion are compatible with resultative phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 29: 338–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsujimoto, M.
(2003) On the motion uses of English verbs of sound. Unpublished BA thesis, Osaka City University, Japan.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T.
(1985) Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21: 385–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsuzuki, M.
(2003a) Kouirensa to koubun II: Kekka koubun (Action chain and construction II: Resultative construction),” In Y. Nakamura (Ed.), Ninchi bunpouron II (Cognitive grammar II) (pp.89–135). Tokyo: Taishukan:.Google Scholar
(2003b) Three kinds of resultatives: To death, to one’s death & dead . In S. Chiba et al. (Eds.), Empirical and theoretical investigations into language: A festschrift for Masaru Kajita (pp.747–761). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
van der Leek, F.
(2000) Caused-motion and the ‘bottom-up’ role of grammar. In A. Foolen & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics (pp.301–331). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, G.
(2001) Measuring events. Language, 77: 61–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H.
(1978) Thematic relations and the semantic representation of verbs expressing change. Studies in Language, 2: 199–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, C. M.
(1997) Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Ward, G.
(2004) Equatives and deferred reference. Language, 80: 262–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Washio, R.
(1997) Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6: 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, S.
(1997) Resultative predicates and control. Texas Linguistic Forum, 38: 307–321.Google Scholar
(2005a) Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect: Driving thematic and aspectual interpretation (pp.255–273). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005b) Weighing in on scales: A Reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language, 81: 465–473. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Resultatives and the problem of exceptions. In Ik-Hwan Lee et al. (Eds.) Issues in English linguistics (Papers from the 1st World Congress of Scholars of English Linguistics, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, June 30, 2012) (pp.119–131). Hankookmunhwasa, Seoul.Google Scholar
(2015) Word meaning and syntax: Approaches to the interface. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A.
(1971) In a manner of speaking. Linguistic Inquiry, 11: 223–233.Google Scholar

Sources

Barclay, L.
(2008) No time for goodbye. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Brown, S.
(2006) Ricochet. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
Cheever, S.
(1989) Elizabeth Cole. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Child, L.
(2002) Utopia. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Coben, H.
(2000) Darkest fear. New York: Dell Publishing.Google Scholar
(2002) Back spin. London: Orion.Google Scholar
Connelly, M.
(1992) The black echo. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
(2008) Trunk music. New York: Grand Central Publishing.Google Scholar
Crais, R.
(1987) The monkey’s raincoat. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Evanovich, J.
(2005) Eleven on top. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, E. S.
(1952) Top of the heap. New York: Dorchester Publishing Co.Google Scholar
(1960) The case of the fan dancer’s horse. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
(1974) The case of the postponed murder. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
Gerristen, T.
(2005) Body double. New York: Ballantine BooksGoogle Scholar
(2006) Vanish. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Grafton, S.
(1990a) C Is for Corpse. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
(1990b) E is for evidence. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
(1990c) G is for gumshoe. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
Lee, H.
(1988) To kill a mockingbird. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
Miller, S.
(1990) Family pictures. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Muller, M.
(1985) There’s nothing to be afraid of. New York: St. Matin’s Press.Google Scholar
Ostenso, M.
(1925/2008) Wild geese. New Canadian Library.Google Scholar
Paretsky, S.
(2001) Total recall. New York: Dell Publishing.Google Scholar
Picoult, J.
(2004) My sister’s keeper. New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, M. E.
(1989) Family life. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Sayers, D. L.
(1995) Lord Peter. New York: Harper Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Spark, M.
(1963) The girls of slender means. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Thane, E.
(1976/2001) Yankee stranger. New York: Buccaneer Books.Google Scholar
Subjects

Electronic/Multimedia Products

Electronic/Multimedia Products
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2019056152 | Marc record