Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 14:2 (2016) ► pp.474–497

Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads

| University of La Rioja

On the basis of corpus data and in consonance with cognitively-oriented constructionist approaches to language, mainly the work by Goldberg (1995, 2006) and the developments in Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal (2008, 2011), we offer a fine-grained analysis of some specific instantiations of the resultative pattern based on the prepositional phrase to death. The analysis starts off from the classification of verb classes made by Levin (1993). The verbs in some of these classes are readily available for fusion into the resultative configuration. Others call for reconstrual in terms of high-level metaphor and/or metonymy before they can conform to the requirements of the pattern mentioned above. Thus, we focus on the way in which the resultative pattern overwrites the properties of some lexical groups of verbs through the licensing activity of such cognitive mechanisms as high-level metaphor and metonymy. Additionally, the prepositional phrase to death is shown to perform two key communicative functions from among those put forward by Boas (2003): placing emphasis on an end point or rendering a vague point clear. Finally, the paper examines the hyperbolic load of the PP to death in some contexts where this PP is seen as converting an argument-structure construction into an implicational one conveying the speaker’s (usually negative) reaction to a given state of affairs.

Keywords: communicative functions, high-level metonymy, high-level metaphor, resultative construction, implicational construction, hyperbole
Published online: 10 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2.08pen
References
Barcelona, A
(2000) On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E
(2008) Web linguistics. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 309–327). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, H.C
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2011) Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C
(2001) The need for the resultative network. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 261, 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, 21, 103–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C
(2011) Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Faber, P., & Mairal, R
(1999) Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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 generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R
(2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
(1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 199–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero, J
(2009) Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Levin, B
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago/London: 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, 411, 123–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constraints on the complexity of verb meaning and VP structure. In H.M. Gaertner, R. Eckardt, R. Musan, & B. Stiebels (Eds.), Between 40 and 60 puzzles for Krifka. Berlin: ZAS. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from [URL].Google Scholar
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
Michaelis, L
(2003) Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuykens, R. Dirven, & J.R. Taylor. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L
(1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–359). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peña, M.S
(2009) Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences, 31(6), 740–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Expresiones resultativas con la frase preposicional to death: Un análisis desde el punto de vista del Modelo Léxico Construccional. In J.L. Cifuentes, A. Gómez, A. Lilio, J. Mateo, & E. Yus (Eds.), Los caminos de la lengua: Estudios en homenaje a Enrique Alcaraz Varó (pp. 797–811). Alicante: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
(2016) Cognitive mechanisms underlying fake reflexive resultatives. Australian Journal of Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, M.S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
forthcoming). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.) Studies in figurative language Amsterdam John Benjamins
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & 
G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B
(2010) Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In E. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renouf, A
(2003) WebCorp: Providing a renewable data source for corpus linguists. In S. Granger & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Mapping concepts: Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 187–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Galera, A
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Luzondo, A
(2016) Figurative and non-figurative motion in the 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 (pp. 62–82). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Ovejas Ramírez, Carla
2021. Hyperbolic markers in modeling hyperbole: a scenario-based account. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 85 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe
2022. Physical and communicative force in Caused-Motion constructions. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
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
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 september 2023. 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.