Cover not available
Part of
Changing Structures: Studies in constructions and complementation
Edited by Mark Kaunisto, Mikko Höglund and Paul Rickman
[Studies in Language Companion Series 195] 2018
► pp. 15–30

Talk into vs convince to

Talking as a cause leading to containment, convincing as a cause leading to a result

 | Université Laval
This paper explores the causative constructions ‘talk NP into + ‑ing’ vs ‘convince NP to + infinitive’ by means of a collection of attested occurrences. It shows the connection between the characteristics described by Wierzbicka (1998), Gries & Stefanowitsch (2004) and Rudanko (2006) and the linguistically-signified semantic content involved in these structures. Wierzbicka’s account and the related Construction Grammar approach are shown to be wanting on both the descriptive and explanatory levels due to a distancing from the level on which a stable relation exists between meaning and linguistic form. An explanation of the distribution and semantics of the two constructions is proposed based on Langacker’s (1987) semiological principle, i.e. on the semantic content associated with each of the linguistic signs involved in these sequences.
Keywords: causatives, container metaphors, path metaphors, Construction Grammar, Natural Semantic Metalanguage, embodiment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Refining the observation of the empirical data
  • 3.Explanations anyone?
  • 4.Construction grammar, embodied cognition and the basic design architecture of human language
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.195.02duf
References (32)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1979. The Syntax of Causative Constructions. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. 1974. The structure of English causatives. Lingua 33: 299–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardzokas, Valandis. 2012. Causality and Connectives. From Grice to Relevance [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 216]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria. 1993. Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. English ‑ing clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48: 1153–1193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2006. The English Gerund-participle. A Comparison with the Infinitive. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2014. Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 251]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. How Words Mean. Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1975. Cause and control: On the semantics of interpersonal manipulation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 4, John P. Kimball (ed.), 59–89. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1980. The Binding Hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4: 333–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Covarying collexemes in the Into-causative. In Language, Culture, and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 225–236. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hollmann, Willem B. 2005. The iconicity of complementation in present-day English causatives. In Outside-in–inside-out [Iconicity in Language and Literature 4], Constantino Maeder, Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky (eds), 287–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Francis, Gill. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong Bok & Davies, Mark A. 2015. The into-causative construction in English: A construction-based perspective. English Language and Linguistics 20: 55–83.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1880[1920]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2006. Emergent alternation in complement selection. The spread of transitive into -ing constructions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34: 312–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Wheedled me into lending him my best hunter: comparing the emergence of the transitive into -ing pattern in British and American English. In Perspectives on Complementation: Structure, Variation and Boundaries, Mikko Höglund, Paul Rickman, Juhani Rudanko & Jukka Havu (eds), 128–140. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 2004. Chomsky’s Minimalism. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 261–312. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 1996. Causatives and Causation. A Universal-typological Perspective. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 43–116. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tutton, Mark. 2009. When in means into: Towards an understanding of boundary-crossing in . Journal of English Linguistics 37: 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie & Kemmer, Suzanne. 1997. Interaction and causation: causative constructions in Modern Standard Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 61–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1998. The semantics of English causative constructions in a universal-typological perspective. In The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 1, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 113–153. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Flach, Susanne
2020. Constructionalization and the Sorites Paradox. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Flach, Susanne
2021. From movement into action to manner of causation: changes in argument mapping in the into-causative. Linguistics 59:1 ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 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.