Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 11:1 (2019) ► pp.79–106

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

Variation motivated by analogy with fixed chunks

Overlap between the reflexive and the way construction

 | University of Silesia in Katowice | Palacký University in Olomouc
Published online: 3 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00024.szc
Abstract
This study looks at the variable use of two related forms, namely the reflexive construction (The defendant talked himself into trouble) and the way construction (The actress danced her way to stardom). Despite their differences, the two constructions are often used in ways that can be described as one taking over the other’s expressive functions. Following Mondorf, B. (2011). Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change, 221, 397–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, I assume that the variation results in part from the historical competition between the two, and from the fact that the process of specialization is not yet complete. I present another factor responsible for the overlap, which may keep the specialization from ever being concluded. It involves specific uses of a construction chunked into formulaic phrases (like talk oneself into trouble) which are used reversively (talk oneself out of trouble) against the specifications of the construction they are based on. That is, the kind of variation discussed here is set in motion by the same mechanism observed in novelty motivated through local analogies with specific expressions and low-level instances of a construction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The properties of the two constructions
    • 2.1Semantic similarities
    • 2.2Pragmatic differences
    • 2.3Unification under the requirement of semantic compatibility
    • 2.4The “soft” nature of pragmatic effects
  • 3.Uses inconsistent with the constructions’ properties
    • 3.1The collocation of the reflexive construction with incompatible resultative phrases
    • 3.2The collocation of the way construction with incompatible resultative phrases
    • 3.3Variation within chunks not entire constructions
    • 3.4Reconciling meanings inconsistent with the construction
  • 4.Chunking
  • 5.Novelty
  • 6.The Principle of No Synonymy
  • 7.Spillback
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2(2), 119–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, I1, 1–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. (pp. 1–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2009). Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 201–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2010). The News on the Web Corpus (NOW): 4.8 billion words, 2010–2017. Available at: [URL]
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & S.-Y. W. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85–101). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar. A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Covarying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 225–236). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2008). Implicature. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). I love me some datives: Expressive meaning, free datives, and F-implicature. In D. Gutzmann & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.) Beyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning (pp. 153–201). Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. J. (1989). Competition and lexical categorization. In R. Corrigan, F. Eckman, & M. Noonan (Eds.), Current issues in linguistic theory. Vol. 61: Linguistic categorization. [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science] (pp. 195–241). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondorf, B. (2011). Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change, 221, 397–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2009). Constructional analysis. In F. Brisard, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 5] (pp. 16–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport, & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar (pp. 143–157). Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1996). The search for units of meaning. Textus, 9(1), 75–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szczesniak, K. (2013). You can’t cry your way to candy: Motion events and paths in the x’s way construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 241, 159–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2012). The mental corpus. How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2015). Why the Principle of No Synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 323–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1998). The semantics of English causative constructions in a universal‑typological perspective. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 113–153). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiliński, J. (2017). On the brink of-noun vs. on the verge of-noun: A distinctive-collexeme analysis. Research in Language, 15(4), 425–443. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2006). Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In S. T. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 101–126). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Th. Gries, Stefan
2025. Corpus Linguistics and the Cognitive/Constructional Endeavor. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Persohn, Bastian
2022. An Emergent Apprehensional Epistemic Adverbial in Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 15:2 ► pp. 405 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue