Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:05:50.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2014

FRANCISCO RUIZ DE MENDOZA-IBÁÑEZ  and
ALBA LUZONDO-OYÓN
FRANCISCO RUIZ DE MENDOZA-IBÁÑEZ*
Affiliation:
University of La Rioja
ALBA LUZONDO-OYÓN*
Affiliation:
National Distance Education University (UNED)
*
*Addresses for correspondence: francisco.ruizdemendoza@unirioja.es and alba.luzondo@gmail.com
*Addresses for correspondence: francisco.ruizdemendoza@unirioja.es and alba.luzondo@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the role played by motion in the conceptualization of result in the English resultative and caused-motion constructions. We argue that there is a strong preference for the figurative use of caused motion to express a state change when the affected entity experiences a complete transformation. However, if the affected entity acquires a new property but retains its essence, an adjectival phrase is preferred. Another category encompasses figuratively exploited resultatives that formally employ the caused-motion construction, but semantically do not codify the same kind of change. The paper also discusses the motivating role of the metaphor A CHANGE OF STATE IS A CHANGE OF LOCATION to express result, and proposes the additional activity of other high-level metaphors and metonymies.

Keywords

caused-motion constructionmetaphormetonymymotionresultresultative construction
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 32 - 58
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651.Google Scholar
Boas, H. (2003). A Constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H. (2005). Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: a reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language, 81(2), 448–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. (2008). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. (2011). Coercion and leaking argument structure in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303.Google Scholar
Bond, R. (Ed.) (1996). The Penguin book of classical Indian love stories and lyrics. New Delhi: Penguin Books India.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: the structure of the clause (Functional Grammar Series 20) (2nd ed. by Hengeveld, K.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2010). Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In Tabakowska, E., Choiński, M., & Wiraszka, Ł. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action: from theory to application and back (pp. 13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2014). Cognitive Linguistics three decades later: looking back to look forward. In Luchjenbroers, J. & Aldridge-Waddon, M. (Eds.), Conceptual structure and Cognitive Linguistics research. Vol. I, grammar, metaphor and blends. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (in prep).Google Scholar
Eddington, D., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2010). Argument constructions and language processing: evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 213–238). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: a thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1991). A semantic account of resultatives. Linguistic Analysis, 21(1/2), 66–96.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Suttle, L. (2010). Construction Grammar. Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 1–10.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2012). La(s) Gramática(s) de Construcciones. In Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. & Valenzuela Manzanares, J. (Eds.), Lingüística Cognitiva (pp. 249–280). Barcelona: Anthropos.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (2010). Metaphor, constructional ambiguity and the causative resultatives. In Handl, S. & Schmid, H.-J. (Eds.), Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 185–215). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iwata, S. (2006). Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a lexical constructional account: the case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases. Language Sciences, 28(5), 449–496.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Goldberg, A. (1989). Master metaphor list. Compilation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 167–176.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Luzondo, A. (2011). English resultative constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model: implications for constructional modeling within a lexico-conceptual knowledge base. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidad de La Rioja.Google Scholar
Luzondo, A. (2014). Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 30–63.Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2010). Verbos y construcciones en el espacio cognitivo-funcional del siglo XXI. In Álvaro, V., Francisco, J., & Horno Chéliz, M. C. (Eds.), La Gramática del sentido: Léxico y sintaxis en la encrucijada (Conocimiento, lenguaje y comunicación, 3) (pp. 123–152). Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2003). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Cuyckens, H., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. R. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peña, S. (2008). Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1041–1066.Google Scholar
Peña, S. (2009). Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences, 31(6), 740–765.Google Scholar
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2009). The metonymic and metaphoric grounding of two image-schema transformations. In Panther, K., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2007). High-level cognitive models: in search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In Kosecki, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt & Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: towards a consensus view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Nolan, B. & Diedrichsen, E. (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: the role of constructions in grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: a linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Luzondo, A. (2012). Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. In Brdar, M., Raffaelli, I., & Zic Fuchs, M. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: between universality and variation (pp. 117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Mairal, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In Radden, G., Köpcke, K. M., Berg, Th, & Siemund, P. (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp. 33–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Mairal, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Mairal, R. (2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Guerrero, P. (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London & Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Peña, S. (2008). Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish. In Gómez González, M. A., Mackenzie, J. L., & González-Álvarez, E. M. (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 251–280). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Pérez, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary Theory of Metaphor: myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor & Symbol, 26(3), 1–25.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Santibáñez, F. (2003). Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15, 293–320.Google Scholar
Saurenbach, H. (2008). Secondary-predicate constructions in English: from a critique of small clauses to a Construction-Grammar account. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Son, M., & Svenonius, P. (2008). Microparameters of cross-linguistic variation: directed motion and resultatives. In Abner, N. & Bishop, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 388–396). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.Google Scholar
Torre, E. (2012). Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions: an Embodied Construction Grammar approach. Constructions, 1, 1–38.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R., & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar