Cover not available

In:The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse: Applications and implications
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez-García and Angela Downing
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 247] 2014
► pp. 133–148

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

A lexico-paradigmatic approach to English setting-constructions

 | University of Cordoba, Spain
Published online: 16 May 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.247.07gue
In this paper I will explore the relationship between constructional and verbal semantics in a two-participant construction exemplified by expressions like I broke my arm (when I fell) (Talmy 2000, 518), where the Subject is described as a mere circumstantial setting for the process (Davidse 1992, 128). Drawing on corpus data with change-of-state verbs, I will illustrate the syntactic contexts where this construction occurs in English, analysing how the particular uses of these verbs interact with the semantico-pragmatic value of the construction. Along the lines of Lemmens (2006), and building on previous work of mine (Guerrero Medina 2010), I will adopt a lexico-paradigmatic view and argue that the paradigmatic behaviour of a verb is actually determined by the entire construction.
References (27)
References
Berry, Margaret. 1975. An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics. 1 Structures and Systems . London: B. T. Batsford Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. “Possible Verbs and the Structure of Events.” In Meanings and Prototypes. Studies in Linguistic Categorisation , ed. by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, 48–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1992. “Transitivity/Ergativity: The Janus-headed Grammar of Actions and Events.” In Advances in Systemic Linguistics , ed. by Martin Davies, and Louise J. Ravelli, 105–135. London: Printer Publisher.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998a. “Agnates, Verb Classes and the Meaning of Construals. The Case of Ditransitivity in English.” Leuvense Bijdragen 87: 281–313.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998b. “On Transitivity and Ergativity in English, or on the Need for Dialogue between Schools.” In English as a Human Language , ed. by Johan van der Auwera, Frank Duriex, and Ludo Lejeune, 95–108. Lincom: München.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990–present . Available online at [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1984. “Notes on Agentivity and Causation. ” Studies in Language 8 (2): 181–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar . 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P. 1980. Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction. Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and Other Components of a Communicating Mind . ­Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guerrero Medina, Pilar. 2010. “On Ergative Pseudo-effective Structures in English: The ‘Adversative’ Type.” In Para, por y sobre Luis Quereda , ed. by Marta Falces, Encarnación Hidalgo, Juan Santana, and Salvador Valera, 397–407. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael 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
. 1994/1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar . 3rd ed. London: Hodder education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. “More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations.” In Causatives and Transitivity , ed. by Bernard Comrie, and Maria Polinsky, 87–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “Frequency vs. Iconicity in Explaining Grammatical Asymmetries.” Cognitive Linguistics 19 (1): 1–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol 2: Descriptive application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lemmens, Marteen. 2006. “More on Objectless Transitives and Ergativisation Patterns in English.” Constructions SV1-6/2006 . Available at [URL], urn:nbn:de:009-4-6802. Last accessed on 19 March 2012.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1994. “A Preliminary Analysis of Causative Verbs in English. ” Lingua 92: 35–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maldonado, Ricardo. 2002. “Objective and Subjective Datives.” Cognitive Linguistics 13 (1): 1–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neale, Amy. 2002. More Delicate Transitivity: Extending the Process Type System Networks for English to Include Full Semantic Classifications . PhD Thesis. Cardiff: School of ­English, Communication and Philosophy, Cardiff University. Available at [URL]. Last accessed on 19 March 2012.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nishimura, Yoshiki. 1993. “Agentivity in Cognitive Grammar.” In Conceptualisations and Mental Processing in Language , ed. by Richard A. Geiger, and Brygida Rudka-Oystyn, 487–530. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. “Semantic Causative Types.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions , ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 43–116. New York: ­Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems . ­Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam. 2003. “Grammatical Metaphor in SFL. A Historiography of the Introduction and Initial Study of the Concept.” In Grammatical Metaphor. Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics , ed. by Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers, and Louise J. Ravelli, 5–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra, and Sarah Lee. 2009. “A Metonymic Analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English.” In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar , ed. by Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda ­Thornburg, and Antonio Barcelona, 291–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Romain, Laurence
2022. Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 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