In:Figurative Thought and Language in Action
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Figurative Thought and Language 16] 2022
► pp. 141–164
Physical and communicative force in Caused-Motion constructions
What they entail and what they implicate
Published online: 28 July 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.06pan
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.06pan
Abstract
Folk models of “mere” talk and “real” action shape the inferential properties of Transitive Caused-Motion (TCM) constructions with a human Patient as direct object. Physical action verbs like force into/out of semantically entail motion of the Patient into/out of a location. In contrast, constructions with speech act verbs like order into/out of pragmatically implicate motion of the Patient. Notwithstanding, cases like boo out of show that strong communicative pressure can result in entailed motion of the Patient. Finally, the contrast between constructional pairs like order somebody out of the car (stronger implicature of motion) vs. order somebody to get out of the car (weaker implicature of motion) supports the hypothesis of an iconic relationship between syntactic closeness and implicational strength.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Folk models of action, force and types of inference
- 2.1The folk model of talk and action
- 2.2Force dynamics
- 3.Physical actions vs. communicative actions in three constructions
- 4.Physical actions vs. communicative actions in TCM constructions
- 4.1Introduction
- 4.2Hypotheses
- 4.3actuality entailments vs. defeasible actuality implicatures
- 4.4Contextually confirmed and reinforced actuality implicatures
- 4.5Borderline cases: When implicature turns into quasi-entailment of actuality
- 4.6Metaphor: physical action as communicative action
- 4.7Manner and iconicity: How they influence the strength of implications
- 5.Conclusion and outlook
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (22)
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. (Stanford Monographs in Linguistics). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th ed. Malden, MA, etc.: Blackwell Publishing.
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3) (pp. 41–51). New York: Academic Press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Panther, K.-U. (2015). Control, syntactic. In J. D. Wright, J. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Vol. 4 (pp. 828–833). Oxford: Elsevier.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2014). Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Linguïstica Aplicada, 27(1), 168–186.
Peña Cervel, S. (2016). Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 474–497.
(1971). What is a speech act? In J. R. Searle (Ed.), The philosophy of language (pp. 39–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spade, P. V. (2006). Ockham’s nominalist metaphysics: Some main themes. In P. V. Spade (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Ockham (pp. 100–117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.