Cover not available

In:English Resultatives: A force-recipient account
Seizi Iwata
[Constructional Approaches to Language 26] 2020
► pp. 531–542

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

References

Published online: 23 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.26.refs
Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18: 101–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J. (2012). Resultative constructions. In R. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp.908–933). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J., & Koonz-Garboden, A. (2012). Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry, 43: 331–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Weitham, S. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46: 331–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Binnick, R. (1968). On the nature of the ‘lexical item.’ CLS, 4: 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2000). Resultative constructions in English and German. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Coercion and leaking argument structures in construction grammar. Linguistics, 49: 1271–1303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.233–252). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1979). Theory of complementation in English syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1980). Polyadicity: Part I of a theory of lexical rules and representations. In T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst, & M. Moortgat (Eds.), Lexical Grammar (pp.97–121). Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broccias, C. (2003). The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82: 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2014). Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp.251–281). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, G., & Storto, G. (2006). Sherlock Holmes was in no danger. In B. J. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp.53–70). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carrier, J., & Randall, J. H. (1989). From conceptual structure to syntax: Projecting from resultatives. Ms. Harvard University and Northeastern University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carrier, J., & Randall, J. H. (1992). The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 23: 173–234.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carrier, J., & Randall, J. H. (1993). Lexical mapping. In E. Reuland & A. Werner (Eds.), Knowledge and language Volume II (pp.119–142). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2015). Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79: 79–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (2007). The importance of not being earnest. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Claridge, C. (2011). Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.27–64). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (1997). ‘I’ve never seen anything like it’: Overstatement, understatement, and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12: 43–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Using figurative language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B. (1998). You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27: 499–513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C., & Gawron, J. M. (1996). The context-dependency of implicit arguments. In M. Kanazawa, C. Piñon, & H. de Swart (Eds.), Quantifiers, deduction, and context (pp.1–32). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1979). Idiomaticity as a problem of pragmatics. In H. Parret, M. Sbisá & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics (pp.139–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). Possible verbs and event structure. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp.48–73). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Event structure in argument linking. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.21–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language (pp.49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (2013). Grammar and complexity: Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, W. A. (2016). A theory of saying reports. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. L. Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics (pp.291–332). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1982). ‘Talk’: Linguistic action perspectivized as discourse. In R. Dirven, L. Goossens, Y. Putseys, & E. Vorlat (Eds.), The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say and tell, (pp.37–83). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67: 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernst, T. (1984). Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Modification of stative predicates. Language, 92: 237–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T., & Mateu, J. (2010). On classes of idioms and their interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 1397–1411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fagan, S. (1992). The syntax and semantics of middle constructions: A study with special reference to German. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (1986). On the middle construction in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Purpose verbs. In J. Pustejovsky, P. Bouillon, H. Isahara, K. Kanzaki, & C. Lee (Eds.), Advances in generative lexicon theory (pp.371–384). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1977). Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp.76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Lectures on deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp.75–102). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Johnson, C., & Petruck, M. (2003). Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16: 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1976). The verb-particle combination in English. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geuder, W. (2000). Oriented adverbs: Issues in the lexical semantics of event adverbs. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 183–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1991a). It can’t go down the chimney up: Paths and the English resultative. BLS, 17: 368–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991b). A semantic account of resultatives. Linguistic Analysis, 21: 66–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp.203–220). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7: 219–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In J-O Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.17–43). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20: 93–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80: 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, G. (1970). How abstract is surface structure? CLS, 6: 270–281.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1972). Some observations on the syntax and semantics of instrumental verbs. CLS, 8: 83–97.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gross, M. (1994). Constructing lexicon-grammars. In B. T. S. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approaches to the lexicon (pp.213–263). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gruber, J. (1976). Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haïk, Isabelle. (2012). The hell in English grammar. In N. Le Querler, F. Neveu, & E. Roussel (Eds.), Relations, connexions, dependances: Hommage au Professeur Claude Guimier (pp.101–126). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1987). A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers, 10: Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 1. Journal of Linguistics, 3: 37–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements.’ Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX: 127–144. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2012). Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino. In H-J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns (pp.225–255). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2014). The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns (pp.167–216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N., & Schultze-Berndt, E. (2005). Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. In N. Himmelmann & E. Schultze-Berndt (Eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives (pp.1–68). Oxford: The Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J., & Napoli, D. J. (2008). Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 44: 347–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1988). Small clause results. Lingua, 74: 101–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horrocks, G., & Stavrou, M. (2003). Actions and their results in Greek and English: The complementarity of morphologically encoded (viewpoint) aspect and syntactic resultative predication. Journal of Semantics, 20: 297–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoshi, H. (1992). Circumstantial predicates, PRO, and d-structure adjunction. English Linguistics, 9: 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (2002). The clause: Complements. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.213–321). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, M. (2007). English mediopassive constructions: A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread and current status. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwata, S. (1995). Invariance again: What is preserved in a metaphorical mapping? English Linguistics, 12: 173–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). A lexical network approach to verbal semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). On the status of implicit argument in middles. Journal of Linguistics, 35: 527–553. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Does MANNER count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics, 40: 61–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004a). He jumped to his feet: Internal motion and internal path. Tsukuba English Studies 22: A festschrift in honor of Minoru Nakau, 89–99. University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004b). Over-prefixation: A lexical constructional approach. English Language and Linguistics, 8: 239–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics, 16: 355–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006a). Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a lexical constructional account: The case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases. Language Sciences, 28: 449–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006b). Where there’s a sound, there’s motion: Two types of path PPs that appear after verbs of sound emission. Paper read at the Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at University of Tokyo, Japan.
Iwata, S. (2006c). Where do constructions come from? English Linguistics, 23: 493–533. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008b). A door that swings noiselessly open may creak shut: Internal motion and concurrent changes of state. Linguistics, 46: 1049–1108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008c). Another look at the maximal end-point constraint on resultatives. Paper read at the Fifth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at University of Texas, Austin.
(2010). Why can we say ‘Bob shot him to death’ but not ‘*Bob shot him into death’? Paper read at the Sixth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at Charles University. Czech Republic.
(2011). He laughed his head off: A lexical-constructional account. Paper read at the Fourth International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, held at Osnabrueck University. Germany.
(2012). Kekkahyougen-ni oite doushi-ni kouzokusuru meishiku-ga hatasu yakuwari (The role played by the post-verbal NP in resultatives). Paper read at the 84th General Meeting of the English Literature Society in Japan, held at Senshu University, Ikuta campus.
(2014a). ‘Tight links’ make convenient metaphors but loose explanations: Replying to a reply. Language Sciences, 42: 15–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014b). Construction grammar. In A. Carnie, Y. Sato, & D. Siddiqi (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 647–669. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014c). Aspect and force dynamics: Which is more essential to resultatives? English Linguistics, 31: 234–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014d). Where does Princess Anne rode (the horse) to victory come from? Paper read at the Eighth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at Osnabrueck University. Germany.
(2014e). Going further and further astray: Why a loose explanation never becomes tight. Language Sciences, 45: 135–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a). Resultatives and domains: The cases of fake reflexives with eat and drink . Paper read at the Sixth Biennial International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, held at University of Wisconsin-Madison. US.
(2015b). Keiyoushi kekka-ku to zenchishi kekka-ku (Adjectival result phrases vs. prepositional result phrases). Paper read at the 33rd General Meeting of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, held at Kansai Gaidai University, Nakamiya Campus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). ‘State-maintaining’ causatives: A close kin to resultatives. Language Sciences, 64: 103–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14: 305–354. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73: 534–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002a). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In N. Dehe, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-particle explorations (pp.67–94). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1933). Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jongen, R. (1985). Polysemy, tropes and cognition, or the non-Magrittian art of closing curtains whilst opening them. In W. Paprotte & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor (pp.121–139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1971). Implicative verbs. Language, 47: 340–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufmann, I. (1995). O- and D-predicates: A semantic approach to the unaccusative-unergative distinction. Journal of Semantics, 12: 377–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2005). Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.71–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, S. R. (1985). Principles of particle construction. In J. Guéron, H-G. Obenauer, & J-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Grammatical representation (pp.101–140). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kearns, K. (2007). Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua, 117: 26–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (1999). From event structure to scale structure: Degree modification in deverbal adjectives. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX: 163–180. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2005). Building resultatives. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications (pp.177–212). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters (pp.29–53). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar (pp.197–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kusayama, M., & Miyata, A. (2000). Doushi-to kekkahyougen-no imikankei (The semantic relation between verb meaning and resultatives). Report of the special research Project for the typological investigation of languages and cultures of the East and West 2000, Part II (pp.841–868). University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 39–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp.202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1986). Abstract motion. BLS, 12: 455–471. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005a). Integration, grammaticisation, and constructional meaning. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.157–189). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.101–159). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, R. (2014). On shell structure. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1970). Verbs and deletable objects. Lingua, 25: 227–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Objecthood: An event structure perspective. CLS, 35: 223–247.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rapoport, R. (1988). Lexical subordination. CLS, 24: 275–289.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1991). Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41: 123–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Lexical semantics and syntactic structure. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp.487–507), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Two structures for compositionally derived events. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX: 199–223.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindner, S. (1981). A lexico-semantic analysis of verb-particle constructions with up and out. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Available from IULC (1983).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). What goes up doesn’t necessarily come down: The ins and outs of opposites. CLS, 18: 305–323.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maienborn, C. (2001). On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 9: 191–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maienborn, C., & Schäfer, M. (2011). Adverbs and adverbials. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp.1390–1420). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Margerie, H. (2011). Grammaticalising constructions: To death as a peripheral degree modifier. Folia Linguistica Historica, 32: 115–148.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez-Manrique, F., & Vicente, A. (2013). What is said by a metaphor: The role of salience and conventionality. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21: 304–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateu, J., & Espinal, M. T. (2007). Argument structure and compositionality in idiomatic constructions. The Linguistic Review, 24: 33–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Laughing our heads off: When metaphor constrains aspect. BLS, 33: 284–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1996a). Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive linguistics, 7: 183–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996b). How abstract is subjective motion? A comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, language, and discourse (pp.359–374), Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constraints on the co-occurrence of spatial and non-spatial paths in English: A closer look at the Unique Path Constraint. A plenary talk given at the Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at University of Tokyo, Japan.
McNulty, E. (1988). The syntax of adjunct predicates. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meinard, M. E. M. (2015). Distinguishing onomatopoeia from interjections. Journal of Pragmatics, 76: 150–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morita, J. (1998). Some notes on prepositional resultatives. Tsukuba English Studies, 17: 319–340.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J., & Hoeksema, J. (2009). The grammatical versatility of taboo terms. Studies in Language, 33: 612–643. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nemesi, A. L. (2004). What discourse goals can be accomplished by the use of hyperbole? Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 51: 351–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nemoto, N. (2005). Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in construction grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.119–136). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikitina, T. (2008). Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlacil, B. Gehrke, & R. Nouwen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P (pp.175–195). Berlin & New York: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2004). Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1727–1739. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G. (1987). Talking: A study in lexical network theory. BLS, 13: 195–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3: 143–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Two kinds of indexicality. Proceedings of the Semantics and Linguistic Theory, II: 283–301. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12: 109–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Deferred interpretation. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.344–364). Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ono, N. (2010). Eigo kekka koubunn no koyuusei to ruikeiteki tokusei (Some peculiarities and typological properties of resultatives in English). Paper read at the Twenty-Eighth Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, held at Nihon University, Tokyo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, C., Löhndorf, S., van de Weijer, J., & Willners, C. (2015). Semantic profiles of antonymic adjectives in discourse. Linguistics, 53: 153–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1989). Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. CLS, 25: 342–365.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54: 149–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petruck, M. R. L. (1996). Frame semantics. In J. Verschueren, J-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 1996 (pp.1–11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1974). On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1991a). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41: 47–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991b). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17: 409–441.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Randall, J. H. (2010). Linking: The geometry of argument structure. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapoport, T. (1999). Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language, 75: 653–677. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp.13–42). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua, 141: 8–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.97–134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77: 766–797. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rivière, C. (1982). Objectionable objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 13: 685–689.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (1988). Predicative APs. Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 703–710.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics, 26: 467–503. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1983). The syntactic forms of predication. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2011). Secondary predicates. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics Vol.2: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1442–1462). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12: 259–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report (available at [URL])Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1944). On grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science, 2: 93–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: The grammar of causative constructions (pp.1–40). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. In M. Rappaport, A. Zaenen, & L. Levin (Eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar (pp.143–157). Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1999). Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp.129–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp.57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000b). Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.2, Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Linguistic categorization, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, E. (2004). On ‘syntactic’ versus ‘semantic’ telicity: Evidence from in and on . In H. Cuyckens, W. de Mulder, & T. Montelmans (Eds.), Adpositions of movement, (pp.145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 1655–1674. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tortora, C. (1998). Verbs of inherently directed motion are compatible with resultative phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 29: 338–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsujimoto, M. (2003). On the motion uses of English verbs of sound. Unpublished BA thesis, Osaka City University, Japan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T. (1985). Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21: 385–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsuzuki, M. (2003a). Kouirensa to koubun II: Kekka koubun (Action chain and construction II: Resultative construction),” In Y. Nakamura (Ed.), Ninchi bunpouron II (Cognitive grammar II) (pp.89–135). Tokyo: Taishukan:.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003b). Three kinds of resultatives: To death, to one’s death & dead . In S. Chiba et al. (Eds.), Empirical and theoretical investigations into language: A festschrift for Masaru Kajita (pp.747–761). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Leek, F. (2000). Caused-motion and the ‘bottom-up’ role of grammar. In A. Foolen & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics (pp.301–331). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, G. (2001). Measuring events. Language, 77: 61–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verspoor, C. M. (1997). Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ward, G. (2004). Equatives and deferred reference. Language, 80: 262–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Washio, R. (1997). Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6: 1–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. (1997). Resultative predicates and control. Texas Linguistic Forum, 38: 307–321.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005a). Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect: Driving thematic and aspectual interpretation (pp.255–273). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Weighing in on scales: A Reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language, 81: 465–473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Resultatives and the problem of exceptions. In Ik-Hwan Lee et al. (Eds.) Issues in English linguistics (Papers from the 1st World Congress of Scholars of English Linguistics, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, June 30, 2012) (pp.119–131). Hankookmunhwasa, Seoul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Word meaning and syntax: Approaches to the interface. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1971). In a manner of speaking. Linguistic Inquiry, 11: 223–233.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sources
Barclay, L. (2008). No time for goodbye. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, S. (2006). Ricochet. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheever, S. (1989). Elizabeth Cole. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Child, L. (2002). Utopia. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coben, H. (2000). Darkest fear. New York: Dell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Back spin. London: Orion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connelly, M. (1992). The black echo. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Trunk music. New York: Grand Central Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crais, R. (1987). The monkey’s raincoat. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evanovich, J. (2005). Eleven on top. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, E. S. (1952). Top of the heap. New York: Dorchester Publishing Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1960). The case of the fan dancer’s horse. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1974). The case of the postponed murder. New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerristen, T. (2005). Body double. New York: Ballantine BooksGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Vanish. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grafton, S. (1990a). C Is for Corpse. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990b). E is for evidence. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990c). G is for gumshoe. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, H. (1988). To kill a mockingbird. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, S. (1990). Family pictures. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muller, M. (1985). There’s nothing to be afraid of. New York: St. Matin’s Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ostenso, M. (1925/2008). Wild geese. New Canadian Library.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paretsky, S. (2001). Total recall. New York: Dell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Picoult, J. (2004). My sister’s keeper. New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robertson, M. E. (1989). Family life. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sayers, D. L. (1995). Lord Peter. New York: Harper Paperbacks.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spark, M. (1963). The girls of slender means. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thane, E. (1976/2001). Yankee stranger. New York: Buccaneer Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue