Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 175–204

Chapter 6
Revisiting the English resultative family of constructions

A unifying account

| University of La Rioja
The resultative construction has spurred much debate over the last five decades. This proposal, which is embedded within the Cognitive Construction Grammar paradigm, provides a critical discussion on two fine-grained classifications of resultatives, Goldberg and Jackendoff’s (2004) and Luzondo’s (2014), in order to lay the foundations for a new taxonomy. The family of constructions put forward here benefits from both typologies by drawing on their main insights (the inclusion of the creation and transformation configurations as resultatives, or the constraining factors which license lexical constructional fusion) and by making up for some drawbacks (the status of the way construction as part of the broad family of resultatives) with the goal of achieving a greater degree of refinement and accuracy in the description of resultatives.
Keywords: constructional paradigm, family of resultatives, constraining factors, way construction, creation and transformation constructions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Goldberg and Jackendoff’s classification of English resultatives
  • 3.Luzondo’s family of English resultatives
  • 4.A revised classification of resultative constructions in English
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.07cer
References (54)
References
Beavers, J. 2012. Resultative constructions. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), Oxford handbook on tense and aspect (908–933). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2005. Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: a reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language, 81(2) 448–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. In E. Sosa, & F. J. Cortés (Eds.), Grammar, constructions, and interfaces: Special issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57, 17–48.Google Scholar
2011a. Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b. A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: The case of build verbs. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English (207–234). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Broccias, C. 2001. The need for the resultative network. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 26, 41–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. The English change network. Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. The cognitive basis of adjectival and adverbial resultative constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 103–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Unsubcategorised objects in English resultative constructions. In N. Delbecque, & B. Corneille (Eds.), On interpreting construction schemas. From action and motion to transitivity and causality (103–124). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez, F. 2014. Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. 2010. Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action (13–70). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009. The nature of generalizations in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez, F. 2009. The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31(5), 663–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1305–1358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B. 2010. Metaphor, constructional ambiguity and the causative resultatives. In S. Handl, & H. J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (185–215). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua, 74, 101–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). 2013. The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S. 2006. Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a lexical constructional account: The case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases. Language Sciences, 28, 449–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jiménez, R., & Luzondo, A. 2013. Constructions in Role and Reference Grammar. The case of the English resultative. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics. The role of constructions in grammar (179–204). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. 2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 245–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. English object alternations. A unified account. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford, CA, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. 1990. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical-semantic exploration. Cognition, 41, 123–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge & MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005. Argument realization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Constraints on the complexity of verb meaning and VP structure. In H. M Gaertner et al. (Eds.), Between 40 and 60 puzzles for Krifka. Berlin: ZAS. Available at [URL] (Accessed on May 25, 2008).
Luzondo, A. 2011. Construcciones resultativas del inglés en el Modelo Léxico Construccional: Implicaciones para la modelación de una base de conocimiento léxico conceptual. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of La Rioja.Google Scholar
2013. Revisiting Goldberg’s semantic constraints on the ‘way’ construction. RESLA, 26, 349–364.Google Scholar
2014. Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 30–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2009. Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler, & J. Martín (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, B. 2011. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change, 22, 397–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. 2000. The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peña, M. S. 2003. Topology and cognition. What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2008. Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences, 31(6), 740–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. 1998. Building verb meanings. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments (97–134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In E. Doron et al. (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure (21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Luzondo, A. 2012. Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. In M. Žic Fuchs, M. Brdar, & I. Raffaelli (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2016. Figurative and non-figurative motion in expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 8(1), 32–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. 2008. Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
2011. Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (62–82). Sheffield & Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor & Symbol, 26(3), 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczesniak, K. 2013. You can’t cry your way to candy: Motion events and paths in the x’s way construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(1), 159–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar