Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Newman, John


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 1.375
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.527
Rank 29 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.592
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 1.277
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.833

99,00 € / $149.00 / £75.00*

Online
ISSN
1613-3641
See all formats and pricing



Select Volume and Issue
Loading journal volume and issue information...

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

Dutch manner of motion verbs: Disentangling auxiliary choice, telicity and syntactic function

1Delft University of Technology

Citation Information: . Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 1–26, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: 10.1515/cog-2012-0001, February 2012

Publication History

Received:
2010-11-12
Accepted:
2011-09-21
Published Online:
2012-02-10

Abstract

Dutch manner of motion verbs play a prominent role in the literature on unaccusativity. As these verbs can take both hebben ‘have’ and zijn ‘be’ as their perfective auxiliaries, they are considered to show both unergative and unaccusative behavior. The general consensus is that these verbs normally take hebben, yet occur with zijn if they are ‘telicized’ by an endpoint, and that the auxiliaries are diagnostics for the syntactic status of prepositional phrases (PPs). The paper presents attested data that reveal that this generalization is untenable: there are examples that take the opposite auxiliary from what the generalization predicts. To account for the full set of data, the paper takes a cognitive-grammar perspective, arguing that auxiliary choice, telicity and syntactic status of PPs are independent issues requiring their own explanations. Auxiliary choice is analyzed in terms of alternate construals of a motion event: with hebben as a type of act and with zijn as a change of location. In this manner, the paper adds to a growing body of literature that questions the usefulness of the coarse unergative–unaccusative distinction, advocating a ‘local analysis’ instead.

Keywords:: unaccusativity; manner of motion verbs; Dutch; auxiliary choice; telicity; complements and modifiers; prepositions; Cognitive Grammar; construal

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Maaike Beliën
Linguistics in the Netherlands, 2014, Volume 31, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.