Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 14:2 (2016) ► pp.247–274

The Finnish abstract motion construction mennä V-mA-An [go V-inf-ill] ‘do something unwished’

Usage, development and motivation

| University of Oulu, Finland
This paper addresses the usage, development and motivation of the Finnish mennä V-mA-An [go V-inf-ill] construction. In this construction, the literal motion sense of ‘going’ has been grammaticalized to evoke an affective meaning: the activity expressed in the construction’s infinitival element is considered as unwished (e.g. Johtaja-t men-i-vät lakkautta-ma-an ohjelma-n [manager- pl.nom go-pst-3pl shut.down-inf-ill show-acc] ‘Managers shut down the show [though they should not have]’). This paper uncovers the different ways the construction is used (for example, projecting the disapproving stance onto a specific element, such as the manner, objective or result of the activity, that the speaker finds especially inappropriate when compared to the desired course of events, or creating an ironic tone for the description of an event) and reveals its lexical profile in modern language. The role of the context in the interpretation of the construction as well as its grammaticalization process are also dealt with. It is argued that the affective meaning of the construction is metaphorically motivated by a previously undiscovered image-schematic pattern “deviant path – erroneous goal”. In this schema the trajector is conceived of abstractly deviating from a projected path and ending up at an unwished ending point, and this constitutes a contrast to the desired course of events, the core meaning of the construction. The analysis supports a tenet in cognitive semantics that linguistic structures are often motivated by general cognitive processes such as metaphor and image-schema patterns.
Keywords: verbs of motion, path schema, figurative verb construction, Finnish, motivation in language
Published online: 10 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2.01siv
References (38)
References
Besnier, N. (1990). Language and affect. Annual Review of Anthropology, 191, 419–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H., & Zawada, B. (2001). Introduction. In H. Cuyckens & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in cognitive linguistics (pp. ix–xxvii). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. (2007). Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M.J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 2–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1973). The time-axis phenomenon. Language, 491, 890–925. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huumo, T., & Ojutkangas, K. (2006). An introduction to Finnish spatial relations: Local cases and adpositions. In M.-L. Helasvuo & L. Campbell (Eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish (pp. 11–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, T., & Sivonen, J. (2010). Conceptualizing change as deictic abstract motion: Metaphorical and grammatical uses of ‘come’ and ‘go’ in Finnish. In F. Parrill, V. Tobin, & M. Turner (Eds.), Meaning, form, & body (pp. 118–128). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
ISK = A. Hakulinen, M. Vilkuna, R. Korhonen, V. Koivisto, T.R. Heinonen, & I. Alho. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi [A comprehensive Finnish grammar]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiuru, S. (1977). Suomen kielen kieltohakuiset verbit: Murreaineistoon perustuva syntaktis-semanttinen tutkimus [The negative polarity verbs of Finnish. A syntacto-semantic study based on dialectal data]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1990). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larjavaara, M. (1990). Suomen deiksis [Finnish deixis]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer?: The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onikki-Rantajääskö, T. (2001). Sarjoja: Nykysuomen paikallissijaiset olotilanilmaukset kielen analogisuuden ilmentäjinä [Patterns and analogy: A case study of state-denoting local case constructions in Modern Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (2011). Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In 
K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (2004). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sivonen, J. (2010). Lexicalizing indirect path: Focus on Finnish motion verbs. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 241–272). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Slobin, D.I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative. Vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (1999). The go-and-verb construction in a cross-linguistic perspective: Image-schema blending and the construal of events. In D. Nordquist & C. Berkenfield (Eds.), Proceedings of the second annual high desert linguistics society conference, Albuquerque, NM (pp. 123–134). Albuquerque, NM: High Desert Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
. (2013). Variation and change in English path verbs and constructions: Usage patterns and conceptual structure. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 223–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svorou, S. (1994). The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In J.P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 4 (pp. 181–238). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring systems. 
Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2006). Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In S.T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 101–125). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, J. (2003). Defining non-finites: Action nominals, converbs and infinitives. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 161, 185–237.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Peltola, Rea
2021. Unfolding constructions. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 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.