Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton November 16, 2017

Verb Class-Specific Caused-Motion Constructions

Xiaorong Xia
From the journal Chinese Semiotic Studies

Abstract

In a constructional approach, the caused-motion construction is productive enough to attract verbs of different types into the construction; however, the distinct senses derived from actual instances indicate it is necessary to posit the caused-motion construction at lower levels because more novel uses present meanings closer to those lower constructions. The present analysis of the corpus data of English motion verbs shows that the senses of manner of caused-motion, manner of causing motion, and accompanied motion arise from their occurrences in the caused-motion construction. From a usage-based perspective, the entrenched use would yield verb class-specific constructions that are productive as well. The lower level of construction, together with the most schematic one, is stored in our memory as part of conceptual representation. The research indicates that creative use of motion verbs in the caused-motion construction is better interpreted with verb class-specific constructions.

References

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1). 39–106.Search in Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2003. A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation. In Leslie Carmichael, Scott C.-H. Huang, & Vida Samiian (eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 Western Conference in Linguistics, 27–42. Fresno, CA: California State University Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2008. Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In Jaakko Leino (ed.), Constructional reorganization, 11–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Clausner, Timothy C., & William Croft. 1997. Productivity & schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science 21(3). 47–282.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in languages: Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Kay, Paul. 1996. Argument structure: Causative ABC constructions. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/5/lec05.html (accessed 18 December 2006).Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2004a [1984]. Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. I). Peking: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2004b [1984]. Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. II). Peking: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2005a. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, 101–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2005b. Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In Mirjam Fied & Hans C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions, 157–189. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Peña, Ma Sandra. 2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences 31. 740–765.10.1016/j.langsci.2009.05.003Search in Google Scholar

Ritter, Elizabeth & Sara T. Rosen. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Gender (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 135–164. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. I). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Van der Leek, Frederike. 1997. Caused-motion and the “bottom-up” role of grammar. In Ad Foolen & Frederike van der Leek (eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics, 301–331. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-11-16
Published in Print: 2017-8-28

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston