Why *John can´t contribute Mary moneyConstructional behavior of contribute verbs

  1. Rosca, Andrea
  2. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J.
Revista:
Odisea: Revista de estudios ingleses

ISSN: 1578-3820

Año de publicación: 2016

Número: 17

Páginas: 139-157

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Odisea: Revista de estudios ingleses

Resumen

Este artículo examina la estructura conceptual de las principales construcciones en las que aparecen los verbos de contribución de Levin (1993), concretamente las construcciones ditransitiva y dativa que alternan a menudo.El presente trabajo cuestiona la fiabilidad del criterio semántico de Levin para los verbos de contribución y demuestra que la subsunción de estos verbos en la construcción dativa se rige por varios factores, como la presencia de múltiples agentes, múltiples entidades transferidas y múltiples recipientes que desenfocan la relación de posesión entre un único recipiente y un objeto (ej. contribuir, administrar, distribuir), y la prominencia conceptual del evento de movimiento sobre la relación de posesión entre el recipiente y el objeto (ej. remitir, transferir), entre otros.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • BOAS, H. 2000. Resultative constructions in English and German. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina.
  • BOAS, H. 2002. “On the role of semantic constraints in resultative constructions”. Ed. R. RAPP. Linguistics on the way into the new millennium, 1. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 35–44.
  • BOAS, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • BOAS, H. 2008a. “Resolving Form–Meaning Discrepancies in Construction Grammar”. Ed. J. LEINO. Constructional reorganization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 11–36.
  • BOAS, H. 2008b. “Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6. 113–144.
  • COLLEMAN, T. and B. DE CLERCK. 2009. “‘Caused Motion?’ The semantics of the English to–dative and the Dutch aan–dative”. Cognitive Linguistics 20. 5–42.
  • DAVIDSE, K. 1996. “Functional dimensions of the dative in English”. Eds. W. VAN BELLE and W. VAN LANGENDONCK. The Dative. Volume 1: Descriptive Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 289–338.
  • GALERA, A. and F. J. RUIZ DE MENDOZA. 2012. “Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English”. Language Sciences 34. 54–64.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 1992. “The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction”. Cognitive Linguistics 3, 1: 37–74.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 2002. “Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations”. Cognitive Linguistics 13, 4: 327–356.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 2005. “Constructions, Lexical Semantics and the Correspondence Principle: Accounting for Generalizations and Subregularities in the Realization of Arguments”. Eds. N. ERTESCHIK–SHIR and T. RAPOPORT. The Syntax of Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 215–254.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 2006. Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • HARLEY, H. 2002. “Possession and the double object construction”. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2, 29–68.
  • IWATA, S. 2008. The Locative Alternation: A lexical–constructional approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • KRIFKA, M. 2004. “Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the Dative Alternation”. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4, 1–32.
  • LANGACKER, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • LANGACKER, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • LANGACKER, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • LUZONDO, A. 2011. English resultative constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model: implications for constructional modelling within a lexical conceptual knowledge base. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of La Rioja.
  • MAIRAL, R. and F. J. RUIZ DE MENDOZA. 2008. “New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical–Constructional Model”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57, 137–158.
  • MAIRAL, R. and F. J. RUIZ DE MENDOZA. 2009. “Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction”. Eds. C. S. BUTLER and J. MARTÍN ARISTA. Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 153–198.
  • NEMOTO, N. 2005. “Verbal Polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation”. Eds. M. FRIED and H. C. BOAS. Grammatical Constructions – Back to the Roots. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 119–136.
  • PANTHER, K.—U. 1997. “Dative Alternation from a cognitive perspective”. Eds. B. SMIEJA and M. TASCH. Human Contact through Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 107–126.
  • PESETSKY, D. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. PINKER, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • ROSCA, A. 2012. “Accounting for the constructional behavior of fetch, find, gather, and reach”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 64, 161–176.
  • RUIZ DE MENDOZA, F. J. 2013. “Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model”. Eds. E. DIEDRICHSEN and B. NOLAN. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in RRG Grammars. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 231–270.
  • RUIZ DE MENDOZA, F. J. and A. GALERA. 2014. Cognitive Modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • RUIZ DE MENDOZA, F. J. and R. MAIRAL. 2008. “Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model”. Folia Linguistica 42, 2: 355–400.
  • RUIZ DE MENDOZA, F. J. and R. MAIRAL. 2008. 2011. “Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical–constructional subsumption in the Lexical–Constructional Model”. Ed. P. GUERRERO. Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London, UK/Oakville, CT: Equinox. 62–82.
  • VAN DER LEEK, F. 1996. “Rigid Syntax and Flexible Meaning: The Case of the English Ditransitive”. Ed. A. E. GOLDBERG. Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 321–332.
  • WIERZBICKA, A. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • LEVIN, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet