Cover not available

In:Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 175–204

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

Chapter 6
Revisiting the English resultative family of constructions

A unifying account

 | University of La Rioja
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.07cer
Abstract
The resultative construction has spurred much debate over the last five decades. This proposal, which is embedded within the Cognitive Construction Grammar paradigm, provides a critical discussion on two fine-grained classifications of resultatives, Goldberg and Jackendoff’s (2004) and Luzondo’s (2014), in order to lay the foundations for a new taxonomy. The family of constructions put forward here benefits from both typologies by drawing on their main insights (the inclusion of the creation and transformation configurations as resultatives, or the constraining factors which license lexical constructional fusion) and by making up for some drawbacks (the status of the way construction as part of the broad family of resultatives) with the goal of achieving a greater degree of refinement and accuracy in the description of resultatives.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Goldberg and Jackendoff’s classification of English resultatives
  • 3.Luzondo’s family of English resultatives
  • 4.A revised classification of resultative constructions in English
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
References (54)
References
Beavers, J. 2012. Resultative constructions. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), Oxford handbook on tense and aspect (908–933). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: a reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language, 81(2) 448–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008b. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. In E. Sosa, & F. J. Cortés (Eds.), Grammar, constructions, and interfaces: Special issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57, 17–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011a. Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011b. A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: The case of build verbs. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English (207–234). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broccias, C. 2001. The need for the resultative network. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 26, 41–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. The English change network. Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Unsubcategorised objects in English resultative constructions. In N. Delbecque, & B. Corneille (Eds.), On interpreting construction schemas. From action and motion to transitivity and causality (103–124). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez, F. 2014. Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. 2010. Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action (13–70). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. The nature of generalizations in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzálvez, F. 2009. The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31(5), 663–723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1305–1358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hampe, B. 2010. Metaphor, constructional ambiguity and the causative resultatives. In S. Handl, & H. J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (185–215). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.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
Hoffman, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). 2013. The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 449–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiménez, R., & Luzondo, A. 2013. Constructions in Role and Reference Grammar. The case of the English resultative. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics. The role of constructions in grammar (179–204). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. 2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 245–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. English object alternations. A unified account. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford, CA, Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. 1990. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical-semantic exploration. Cognition, 41, 123–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge & MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Argument realization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constraints on the complexity of verb meaning and VP structure. In H. M Gaertner et al. (Eds.), Between 40 and 60 puzzles for Krifka. Berlin: ZAS. Available at [URL] (Accessed on May 25, 2008).
Luzondo, A. 2011. Construcciones resultativas del inglés en el Modelo Léxico Construccional: Implicaciones para la modelación de una base de conocimiento léxico conceptual. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of La Rioja.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Revisiting Goldberg’s semantic constraints on the ‘way’ construction. RESLA, 26, 349–364.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2009. Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler, & J. Martín (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondorf, B. 2011. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change, 22, 397–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. 2000. The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peña, M. S. 2003. Topology and cognition. What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences, 31(6), 740–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. 1998. Building verb meanings. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments (97–134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In E. Doron et al. (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure (21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Luzondo, A. 2012. Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. In M. Žic Fuchs, M. Brdar, & I. Raffaelli (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Figurative and non-figurative motion in expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 8(1), 32–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (62–82). Sheffield & Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor & Symbol, 26(3), 161–185. 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, 24(1), 159–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jiménez Sáez, Isabel
2025. The resultative construction with “verbs of cooking” and “verbs of colouring” in English and Spanish: a contrastive lexical-constructional study. ELUA: Estudios de Lingüística. Universidad de Alicante :43 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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