Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:46:07.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When take means require: A study of extraposed and impersonal constructions with take

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2016

Gregory Furmaniak
Gregory Furmaniak*
Affiliation:
Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this corpus-based study is to offer a syntactic and semantic characterization of sentences whose formal realization can be schematized as it + take + NP + (NP) + to-VP. The examination of the data suggests that this linear structure is shared by two distinct micro-constructions with different semantic properties: a construction with extraposition whose primary meaning is described in terms of consumption and an impersonal micro-construction which is analyzed as an anankastic construction expressing a necessary condition. It is shown that the apparently erratic grammatical behaviour of the string results from the existence in the hierarchical network of constructions of two different micro-constructions with similar formal realizations.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article propose une analyse syntaxique et sémantique des énoncés de la forme it + take + GN + (GN) + to-GV. L'hypothèse défendue, confirmee par 1'observation des données, est que cette réalisation formelle est sous-tendue par deux microconstructions distinctes: une micro-construction avec extraposition dont le sens principal se laisse décrire en termes de consommation métaphorique et une construction impersonnelle analysée comme une structure anankastique qui exprime la notion de condition nécessaire. Nous montrons que le comportement syntaxique apparemment erratique de la forme étudiée s'explique par l'existence, dans le réseau hiérarchique des constructions, de deux micro-constructions différentes rattachées à deux families de constructions distinctes.

Keywords

takeitextrapositionimpersonalanankastictakeitextrapositionimpersonnelanankastique
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 173 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association. 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antinucci, Francesco and Parisi, Domenico. 1971. On English modal verbs. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 28–39.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Alan Cruse, D.. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 410+ million words, 1990-present. Available at: www.americancorpus.org. Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gómez-González, María Ángeles. 1997. On subject it-extrapositions: Evidence from present-day English. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 10: 95–107.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1940. A modern English grammar. Vol. 5. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1991. Purpose clauses: Syntax, thematics, and semantics of English purpose constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy and Fellbaum, Christiane. 1988. An analysis of obligatory adjuncts: Evidence from the class of measure verbs . Proceedings from Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 88, ed. Powers, Joyce and De Jong, Kenneth, 275–288. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2012. The composition of incremental change. In Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure, ed. Demonte, Violeta and Mc-Nally, Louise, 103–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, image and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, N. 1987. Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2005. Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, ed. Östman, Jan-Ola and Fried, Mirjam, 45–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 2001. Discourse constraints on (non)-extraposition from subject in English. Linguistics 39: 683–701.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2006. Parts of speech in a theory without prototypes: The intersection of formal grammar and pragmatics. Paper presented at the Universality and particularity in parts-of-speech systems Conference (POS2006), Amsterdam.Google Scholar
The Oxford English dictionary online. 2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: dictionary.oed.com. Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes 15: 541–573.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. 2nd ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Recanati, Catherine and Recanati, François. 1999. La classification de Vendler revue et corrigée. Cahiers Chronos 4: 167–184 Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2001. What are incremental themes? ZAS Papers in Linguistics 22: 139–157.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18: 523-57.Google Scholar
von Wright, Georg H. 1963. Norm and action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar