Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:2 (2014) ► pp.304–341

Licensing and blocking factors in the use of BEGIN verbs

A lexical-constructional and pragmatic analysis

| University of Pisa

This article investigates the cognitive operations underlying the different uses of four main begin verbs in English, i.e. start, begin, commence and initiate, and the pragmatic implications connected with them. The study follows an analytical approach based on the Lexical Constructional Model and on more general but fundamental assumptions of Cognitive Linguistics, according to which grammar is conceptually motivated. Attention is paid to the effects produced at the structural level by our varying conceptualizations of occurrences indicating the inception of an activity, with a special focus on the metonymic and metaphoric processes governing and affecting lexical-syntactic and semantic-pragmatic representations. begin verbs are observed in their ability to be integrated into constructions that appear to be regulated by a well-defined set of constraints.

Keywords: lexical constraints, metaphor, metonymy, construal, begin verbs, initiate, argument structure, start, begin, commence, cognitive constraints, construction
Published online: 31 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.2.03fra
References
Agrell, S
(1908) Aspektänderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitworte: Ein Beitrag zum Studium der indogermanischen Präverbia und ihrer Bedeutungsfunktionen.Lunds Universitets Arsskrift I (iv.2).Google Scholar
Austin, J.L
(1975) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, D
(1993) The problem of the alternation of to V/V-ing after ‘aspectual verbs’. In J. Chuquet & D. Roulland (Eds.), Subordination, subordinations (pp. 185–197). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes II.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A
(1991) A contrastive analysis of existential-presentative and presentative sentences in English and Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudio Ingleses, 22–231, 165–196.Google Scholar
(2002) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. An analysis and a few modest proposals. In H. Cuyckens, K.-U. Panther & T. Berg (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 223–255). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In A. Barcelona, R. Benczes & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D
(1997) Presupposition. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The handbook of logic and language (pp. 939–1008). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Presupposition. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [URL]
Bergen, B.K., & Chang, N
(2005) Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Binnick, R.I
(Ed.) (2012) The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R
(2002) Lexical semantics and pragmatics. Linguistische Berichte, 101, 27–58.Google Scholar
(2011) Some perspectives on lexical pragmatics. In D. Archer & P. Grundy (Eds.), Pragmatics reader (pp. 99–114). Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Boas, H.C
(2008a) Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 61, 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M
(2007) Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J
(Ed.). (1992) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.J
(1988) The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Clark, E.V
(1977) Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Comrie, B
(1976) Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W
(1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (2), 151–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P.W., & Jackendoff, R
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Swart, H
(1998) Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 161, 347–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S.C
(1997a) The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1997b) The theory of functional grammar. Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2010) Looking back at 30 years of cognitive linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 13–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W
(2005) A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duffley, P
(1999) The use of the infinitive and the -ing after verbs denoting the beginning, middle and end of an event. Folia Linguistica, 931, 295–331.Google Scholar
Egg, M
(2003) Beginning novels and finishing hamburgers. Remarks on the semantics of to begin . Journal of Semantics, 201, 163–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, P., & Mairal, R
(1999) Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de 
Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falkum, I.L
(2011) The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. [PhD thesis University College London]. London: UCL.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J
(1985) Syntactic intrusion and the notion of grammatical construction. BLS, 111, 73–86.Google Scholar
(1988) The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. BLS, 141, 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 641, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freed, A.F
(1979) The semantics of English aspectual complementation. Dortrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, S
(2007) On the control/raising ambiguity with aspectual verbs: a structural account. [URL].
Galera Masegosa, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2012) Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences, 34 (1), 54–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H
(Eds.) (2010) Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Peirsman, Y
(2011) Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John 
Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godard, J., & Jayez, D
(1993) Towards a proper treatment of coercion phenomena. In 
S. Krauwer, M. Moortgat, & L. des Tombe (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the European chapter of the ACL (pp. 168–177). Utrecht.
Goossens, L
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (3), 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D.M., & Sethuraman, N
(2005) The role of prediction in construction-learning. Journal of Child Language, 32 (2), 407–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F
(2008) Cognitive Construction Grammar works: An interview with Adele E. Goldberg. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 61, 345–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez García, F., & Butler, C.S
(2006) Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 61, 39–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
(2004) Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R
(1997) The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, 751, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1984) Active zones. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 101, 172–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991) Cognitive Grammar. In F.G. Droste & J.E. Joseph (Eds.), Linguistic theory and grammatical description (pp. 275–306). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John 
Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Indeterminacy in semantics and grammar. In J.L. Cifuentes 
Honrubia (Ed.), Estudios de lingüística cognitiva II (pp. 649–672). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009a) Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B, & Rappaport, M
(2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, C
(2009) Infinitival complement clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C.S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L
(2003) Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Sign-based construction grammar. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp.139–158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J
(1975) English aspectual verbs. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J
(2005) Brothers in arms?: On the relations between cognitive and functional linguistics. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 69–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M
(Eds.) (2005) Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U
(2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G
(2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011) Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2009) The metonymic grounding of two image schema transformations. In G. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J
(1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., & Bouillon, P
(1995) Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 12 (2), 133–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R
(2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, C
(1989) On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Díez, O
(2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & 
R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). 
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Gonzálvez García, F
(2011) Constructional integration in the Lexical-Constructional Model. B.A.S./British and American Studies, 271, 75–95.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal Usón, R
(2006) Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística, 171, 26–47.Google Scholar
(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 (pp. 62–82). Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Peña, S
(2005) Conceptual interactions, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 254–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 211, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Santibáñez, F
(2003) Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15 (2), 293–320.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.J
(1996) Introspection and computer corpora: The meaning and complementation of start and begin. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Sweep, J
(2010a) A frame-semantic approach to logical metonymy. Constructions and Frames, 2 (1)1, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Metonymical object changes in Dutch: Lexicographical choices and verb meaning. In A. Dykstra & T. Schoonheim (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex international congress (pp. 1428–1435). [CD-ROM] Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy/Afuk.Google Scholar
(2012) Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
Taverniers, M
(2004) Grammatical metaphors in English. Moderna Språk, 98 (1), 17–26.Google Scholar
(2006) Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor: Different perspectives on semantic variation. Neophilologus, 901, 321–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tobin, Y
(1993) Aspect in the English verb: Process and result in language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T
(Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R.D. Jr
(Ed.) (1993) Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) The syntax-semantics interface: An introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Lexical representation, Co-composition, and Linking Syntax and Semantics. In J. Pustejovsky, P. Bouillon, H. Isahara, K. Kanzaki , & C. Lee (Eds.), Advances in generative lexicon theory (pp. 67–107). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.D. Jr., & La Polla, R
(1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z
(1967) Verbs and times: Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H
(1993) A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, C.M
(1997a) Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. [PhD thesis University of Edinburgh] Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
(1997b) Conventionality-governed logical metonymy. In H. Bunt, L. Kievit, R. Muskens, & H. Verlinden (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international workshop on computational semantics (pp. 300–312). Tilburg.
Wanner, A
(2009) Deconstructing the English passive. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A
(1988) The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D
(2007) Arguing the case against coercion. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siedmund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 99–123). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.