The integration of contact by impact verbs into the intransitive motion construction

  1. Iza, Aneider 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Revista:
Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación

ISSN: 1576-4737

Año de publicación: 2015

Número: 63

Páginas: 173-199

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5209/REV_CLAC.2015.V63.50174 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación

Resumen

The present investigation will analyze the lexical-constructional integration of contact by impact verbs (transitive by origin) into the intransitive-motion construction. Departing from the classical works by Levin (1993), Goldberg (1995) and Faber and Mairal (1999) on contact by impact verbs, I will propose a new taxonomy that overcomes the weaknesses of previous classifications and discuss the constructional use of these verbs in real language data. Finally, I will explain the compatibility of such verbs with the intransitive-motion construction following the explanatory tools provided by the Lexical Constructional Model (Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal, 2008a, 2008b, 2011). The main conclusions that derive from this study are that most contact-by-impact verbs are compatible with the intransitive-motion construction, this integration being possible by applying different high-level metaphors and metonymies and that all contact-by-impact verbs that are related to sound (batter, bump, crack,…) are licensed into the intransitive-motion construction thanks to the use of the high-level metonymy RESULT FOR ACTION, in which the resulting sound is taken as the action performed by the subject.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Faber, P. B. and R. Mairal Usón. 1999. Construction a Lexicon of English Verbs. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Fellbaum, Christiane. (ed.) 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Fillmore, C.J. 1970. "The grammar of Hitting and Breaking". In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.). Reading in English Transformational Grammar. 120-133.
  • Gao, H. and C. Cheng. 2003. "Verbs of contact-by-impact in English and their equivalents in Mandarin Chinese." Language and Linguistics 4. 3: 485-508.
  • Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University Press.
  • Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Goldberg, A. and R. Jackendoff. 2004. "The English Resultative as a family of constructions". Language 80. 3: 532-568.
  • Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.
  • Kuno, S. and K. Takami. 2004. Functional Constraints in Grammar: On the Unergative-Unaccusative Distinction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. 1993. "The contemporary theory of metaphor". In Andrew Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 202-251.
  • Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
  • Lakoff, G. and M. Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: a Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Luzondo, A. 2007. "Semantic constraints on the caused-motion construction". EPOS XXIII: 167-180.
  • Mairal Usón, R. 2002. "Why the notion of Lexical Template?". Anglogermánica Online 1. Revista Electrónica Periódica de Filología Alemana e Inglesa.
  • Mairal Usón, R. and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. 2009. "Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction". In Christopher S. Butler and J. M. Arista (eds.). Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 153-198.
  • Miller, George A., Richard Beckwith, Christian Fellbaum, Derek Gross, and Katherine J. Miller. 1990. Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography 3:235-244.
  • Navarro i Ferrando, I. 2011. "Lexical decomposition of English spatial particles and their subsumption in motion constructions". Language Value, 3. 1: 114-137.
  • Pérez-Hernández, L. 1996. "The cognition of requests." Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 4:189-208.
  • Pérez-Hernández, L. 2009. Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 40:62-92.
  • Pérez-Hernández, L. 2012. "Saying something for a particular purpose: construccional compatibility and constructional families." RESLA 25: 189-210.
  • Pérez-Hernández, L. 2013. "Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links." Language & Communication 33(2):128-149.
  • Pérez-Hernández, L. and M. S. Peña Cervel. 2009. "Pragmatic and cognitive constraints on lexical-constructional subsumption" ATLANTIS. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies. 31. 2: 57-73
  • Pérez-Hernández, L. and F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. 2011. "A Lexical-Constructional Model account of illocution" Vial: Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8. 99-137.
  • Princeton University. 1997. Word Net version 1.6. Software.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 1999. Introducción a la Teoría Cognitiva de la Metonimia. Granada: Método Ediciones.
  • Ruiz De Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. and J. L. Otal Campo. 2002. Metonymy, Grammar, And Communication. Granada: Comares.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2006. "Levels of semantic representation: where lexicon and grammar meet". Interlingüística 17. 26-47.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2007. "High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction". In G. Radden, K.M. Köpcke, T. Berg, and P. Siemund (Eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction in Lexicon and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 33-49.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2008a. "Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model". Folia Linguistica. Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 42. 2: 355-400.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2008b. "New challenges for lexical representation with the Lexical-Constructional Model". Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2011. "Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model". In Pilar Guerrero (ed.). Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Equinox.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and L. Pérez Hernández. 2001. "Towards a pragmatically-oriented cognitive functional grammar. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 42. 187-214.
  • Talmy, L. 1985. "Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms". In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 36-149.
  • Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Volume 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Van Valin, R. D., Jr. 2005. The Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
  • Van Valin, R. D., Jr. and R. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax, Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet