In:Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 107–128
Falling to one’s death in multiple landscapes
From blending to typology
Published online: 12 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.05bro
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.05bro
Abstract
This paper discusses whether He fell to
his death is a possible counterexample to Goldberg’s (1995) Unique
Path Constraint, which bans simultaneous motion in multiple
landscapes in caused motion/resultative constructions. On the face
of it, He fell to his death involves the blending
of motion in a physical landscape (as hinted at by
fell) and motion in a metaphorical landscape
(dying is conceptualised as telic motion). A possible solution to
this apparent violation is the claim that He fell to his
death is not an instance of the resultative
construction and/or that to his death is metonymic
for the place where one is presumed to have died. This paper argues
that neither option is feasible: the example at hand instantiates
the resultative construction and metonymy is not relevant. Instead,
our ability for blending intimately connected facets of a complex
event and the satellite-framed nature of English are held to be
decisive factors for the licensing of the example under
discussion.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Multiple landscapes
- 3.To one’s death is not a result phrase, or is
it?
- 3.1Defining result(ative) phrases
- 3.2The role of simultaneity
- 4.To one’s death as a metonymy
- 4.1Access to the target
- 4.2Metaphoric motion
- 4.3Revealing the target
- 4.4Verb variation
- 4.5Other prepositional phrases
- 4.6Interim conclusion
- 5.Ecological motivation
- 6.Conclusions
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (19)
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing
the properties and prototype structure of
metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining
Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus
View (pp. 7–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beavers, J. (2012). Resultative
Constructions. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Tense and
Aspect (pp. 908–933). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy
in Language, Thought and
Brain. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Broccias, C. (2003). The
English Change Network: Forcing Changes into
Schemas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2014). Tight
metaphors vs. deadly metonymies: a further rebuttal of
Iwata’s bipartite adjectival
resultatives. Language
Sciences, 44, 40–46.
Fauconnier, G., & M. Turner. (2002). The
Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden
Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Goldberg, A. (1991). It
can’t go up the chimney down: paths and the English
resultative. Proceedings of
the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society, 368–378.
(1995). Constructions:
A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Iwata, S. (2014a). “Tight
links” make convenient metaphors but loose explanations:
replying to a reply. Language
Sciences, 42, 15–29.
(2014b). Going
further and further astray: why a loose explanation never
becomes tight. Language
Sciences, 45, 135–151.
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept,
Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of
Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(1991). Foundations
of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2, Descriptive
Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lemmens, M. (1998). Lexical
Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity: Causative
Constructions in
English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Matsumoto, Y. (2013). Constraints
on the co-occurrence of spatial and non-spatial paths in
English: A closer look. Ms., Kobe University.
Oxford English
Dictionary (available
at [URL]).