Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp.94–111

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

Meaning construction and motivation in the English benefactive double object construction

Verbal and constructional semantics at work

 | University of Córdoba
Published online: 17 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00052.gue
Abstract
This paper explores the interaction between verbal and constructional semantics in the benefactive double object construction in English. My main aim is to disentangle the semantics of the construction exploring the constructional potential of the main alternating verb classes, i.e., verbs of “obtaining”, “creation” and “preparing” (Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), and spelling out the cognitive principles that motivate these and other extended uses as cases of lexical-constructional subsumption within the framework of the Lexical Constructional Model (cf. Galera Masegosa, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2012). Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences, 341, 54–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp 231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Rather than advocating a polysemous analysis of the ditransitive, as proposed by Goldberg (Goldberg, A. E. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), the position I take here is that ditransitives with beneficiary arguments and ditransitives with prototypical recipient arguments instantiate two different subconstructions which cannot be treated under the same general rubric, in spite of their “shared surface form” ( (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, p. 330).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Goldberg’s polysemous account of the ditransitive construction
  • 3.Lexical-constructional subsumption in the English benefactive construction. Towards a motivated account of coercion
    • 3.1Internal constraints on subsumption
    • 3.2External constraints on subsumption
  • 4.Final remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Allerton, D. J. (1978). Generating indirect objects in English. J. Linguistics, 141, 21–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T. (2010a). The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’ constructions: A case study of English, German, French and Dutch. In F. Zúniga & S. Kittila (Eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies (pp. 219–243). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). Lectal variation and constructional semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Recent advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 119–221). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K-U Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL]
Galera Masegosa, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2012). Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences, 341, 54–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2009). The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 311, 663–723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, G. M. (1974). Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groefsema, M. (2001). The real-world colour of the dative alternation. Language Sciences, 231, 525–550. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 651, 203–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. (1995). The structure and surface form of benefactives and other prepositional grammatical relations. In C. S. Burgess, K. Dziwirek & D. Gerdts (Eds.), Grammatical relations. Theoretical approaches to empirical questions (pp 117–129). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2005). Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Fried, M. & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp 71–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction In C. B. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2003). Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In E. Francis & L. A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 259–310). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 355–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paszenda, J. (2017). Motivation behind the extended senses of the Polish ditransitive construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, A. Luzondo Oyón & P. Pérez Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp. 219–243). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosca, A. (2012). Accounting for the constructional behavior of “fetch”, “find”, “gather” and “reach”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 641, 163–175.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosca, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2016). Why *John can’t contribute Mary money. Constructional behavior of contribute verbs. Odisea, 171, 139–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1996). The Polish dative. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck, (Eds.), The dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive studies (pp. 341–394). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp 231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Mairal Usón, R. (2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.) Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1996). Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 157–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963). An historical syntax of the English language, Part 1: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue