Pretense constructions in English and Urdu: The case of the inchoative and middle constructions

  1. Mahum Hayat Khan 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Revista:
Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

ISSN: 1697-7750

Ano de publicación: 2024

Número: 33

Páxinas: 157-176

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.6035/CLR.7605 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

Resumo

This article compares the inchoative and middle constructions in two typologically separate languages, English and Urdu. These constructions, which are closely related, have been discussed in formal and functional accounts of language, mainly with respect to English. They have not received much attention in Cognitive Linguistics, much less in cross-linguistic terms. In this regard, the present article shows that the cognitive and cross-linguistic perspectives can combine fruitfully to cast additional light on the usage constraints of these constructions, which determines their meaning potential. The choice of Urdu and English is significant. English is an accusative language, whereas Urdu is a split-ergative language that combines features of ergative and accusative languages. This difference definitely affects the way in which the inchoative and middle constructions are handled by language users. In addition, understanding the motivation behind this aspect of language use is central to our understanding of the nature of these constructions and how they relate. The inchoative and middle constructions are a type of pretense constructions, i.e., those involving the re-construal of states, situations, and events (Ruiz de Mendoza & Miró, 2019), which are often motivated by such phenomena as metaphor and metonymy. The crosslinguistic study of the examples in both languages has allowed us to search for the principles that underlie the expressions. The analysis, besides contributing to the understanding of conceptual differences between English and Urdu, has identified and accounted for relevant constraining factors that stem from typological differences (e.g., use of light verbs in Urdu) and grammatical constraints (e.g., promotion of an element depends on the prominence of its enabling condition in Urdu). The point of convergence has always been the pretense nature of the constructions.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alexiadou, Artemis;Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer (2006).The properties of anti-causatives crosslinguistically. In M.Frascarelli (Ed.),Phases of interpretation(pp.187–211). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.4.187
  • Barcelona, Antonio (2008). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In C. Alm-Arvius, N. Johannesson, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival(pp. 3–42). Stockholm University Press.
  • Barcelona, Antonio (2009). The motivation of construction meaning and form. The roles of metonymy and inference. In K-U Panther,L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 363–401). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.22bar
  • Boas, Hans Christian. (2010). The syntax–lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24:54–82. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.24.03boa
  • Butt, Miriam(1993). The structure of complex predicates in Urdu.[Unpublished dissertation]. Stanford University.
  • Butt, Miriam& Wilhem Geuder(2001). On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs. In N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The function of content words and the content of function words(pp. 323–370). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874006.323
  • Chierchia, Gennaro(2004). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 22–59). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002
  • Coon, Jessica(2013). Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858743.001.0001
  • Davidse, Kristin& Liesbet Heyvaert(2007). On the middle voice: An interpersonal analysis of the English middle. Linguistics, 45(1):37–83. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.002
  • Dik, Simon(1997).The theory of functional grammar: The structure of the clause. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218367.fm
  • Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896
  • Enghels, Renata & Marie Comer(2018). Evaluating grammaticalization and constructional accounts: The development of the inchoative construction with put verbs in Spanish. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar(pp. 107–136). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c5
  • Fagan, Sarah (1988). The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry, 19:181–203. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178586
  • Fagan, Sarah(1992). The syntax and semantics of middle constructions. Cambridge University Press.Goldberg, Adele(1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. CognitiveLinguistics, 13(4):327–356. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022
  • Goldberg, Adele(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language.Oxford University Press.
  • Hale, Ken& Samuel Jay Keyser(1988). Explaining and constraining the English middle.In C. Tenny (Ed.), Studies in generative approach to aspect.Lexicon Project Working Papers(pp. 41–57). Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
  • Halliday, Michael & Christina Matthiessen (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd revised edition). Edward Arnold. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771
  • Haspelmath, Martin(1993). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations.Causatives and transitivity,23:87–121. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.23.05has
  • Haspelmath, Martin(2016). Universals of causative and anticausativeverb formation and the spontaneity scale.Lingua Posnaniensis,58(2):33–63.https://doi.org/10.1515/linpo-2016-0009
  • Haspelmath, Martin(2019). Ergativity and depth of analysis. Rhema Рема, 4:108–130. 10.31862/2500-2953-2019-4-108-130
  • Hook, Peter(1991). Emergence of perfective aspect in Indo-Aryan languages. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization(pp. 59–89). John Benjamins.
  • Kachru, Yamuna(2006). Hindi. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.12
  • Keyser, SamuelJay& Thomas Roeper(1984). On the middle and ergative constructions in English.Linguistic inquiry,15(3), 381–416.
  • Kemmer, Suzzane(1993). The middle voice. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23
  • Koontz-Garboden,Andrew(2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27:77–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9058-9
  • Kövecses, Zoltán& Günter Radden(1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
  • Lakoff, George(1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, George (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphorandthought(2nd ed pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
  • Lakoff, George& Mark Johnson(1999). Philosophy in the flesh.Basic Books.
  • Langacker, Ronald Wayne. (2009). Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics20(1), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.010
  • Leclercq, Benoît. (2019). Coercion: A case of saturation. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00031.lec
  • Levin, Beth(1993). English verb classes and alternations. The University of Chicago Press.
  • Levin, Beth(2015). Semantics and pragmatics of argument alternations. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1:63–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141
  • Levin, Beth& Malka Rappaport-Hovav(1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax lexical-semantics interface. MIT Press.
  • Luzondo, Alba(2011). English resultative constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model: Implications for constructional modeling within a lexical conceptual knowledge base [Unpublished dissertation] Universidad de La Rioja.
  • Mahajan, Anoop(2017). Accusative and ergative in Hindi. In J. Coon, D. Massam, & L. D. Travis (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford University Press.Masica, Colin(1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge University Press.
  • Maldonado, Ricardo(2009). Middle as a basic voice system. InL.GuerreroS. Ibáñez,V. Belloro(Eds.),Studies in role and reference grammar.UNAM.http://ricardomaldonado.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/6/3/2763410/maldonado-rrg2007_final_review.pdf[retrieved online 29 July 2021].
  • McGregor, William (2009). Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass,3(1):480–508. 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00118.xMohanan, Tara(1994). Argument structure in Hindi.CSLI Publications.
  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought(pp. 333–360). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe, & Günter Radden (Eds.) (2011). Motivation in grammar and the lexicon.John Benjamins.https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27
  • Peña, Sandra (2015). A constructionist approach to causative frightenverbs. Linguistics,53(6):1247–1302. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0032
  • Piñón, Chirstopher(2001). A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), SALT Xl(pp. 346–364). Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v11i0.2858
  • Polinsky, M. (2016). Deconstructing ergativity: Two types of ergative languages and their features. Oxford University Press.
  • Radden, Günter, & René Dirven (2007). Cognitive English grammar. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2
  • Rappaport Hovav,Malka& Beth Levin(2012). Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In M. Everaert, M. Marelj & T. Siloni (Eds.), The Theta system: Argument structure at the interface(pp. 150–76). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0006
  • Rappaport Hovav, Malka(2014). Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited.Lingua,141:8–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.006
  • Rosca, Andreea(2012). How conceptual structure impinges on constructional behavior: The case of “give”verbs. Revista de Filología Inglesa, 33:301–320. http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/17256
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, FranciscoJosé(2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen, (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar(pp. 231–270).John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José (2021). Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. Brill.Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Lorena Pérez (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21:321–357. 10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Lorena Pérez (2004). High-level modal metonymies in English and Spanish. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1):103–120.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Olga Díez (2004). High-level action metonymies in English and Spanish. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1):121–138.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José, & Ricardo Mairal (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.05rui
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, FranciscoJosé, & Annalisa Baicchi(2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects(pp. 95–128). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198843
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José& Sandra Peña(2008). Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish. In M. A. Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie, & E. M. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 251–280). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.15rui
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, FranciscoJosé& Alicia Galera (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, FranciscoJosé & Alba Luzondo (2016). Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition,8: 32–58. 10.1017/langcog.2014.41
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Ignasi Miró (2019). On the cognitive grounding of agent-deprofiling constructions as case of pretense constructions. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(2):573–589. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17006.men
  • Sweetser, Eve (1988). Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 389–405. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774
  • Van Valin, Robert(1980). On the distribution of passive and anti-passive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua,50:303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90088-1
  • Yoshimura, Kimihiro& John Taylor (2004). What makes a good middle? The role of qualia in the interpretation and acceptability of middle expressions in English. English Language and Linguistics, 8(2):293–321. 10.1017/S136067430400139X
Fonte de datos: Dialnet