Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:15:27.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a history of English resultative constructions: the case of adjectival resultative constructions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

CRISTIANO BROCCIAS
CRISTIANO BROCCIAS*
Affiliation:
DISCLIC, Università di Genova, Piazza S. Sabina, 2, 16125 Genova, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This contribution provides a corpus-based investigation of the history of adjectival resultative constructions (RCs), e.g. He wiped the table clean, with special reference to Old English and Middle English. The article first briefly discusses some of the parameters relevant to a synchronic analysis of RCs, namely causativity, causality and force-dynamics, as well as the distinction between adjectival and adverbial RCs (collectively referred to as ARCs since the two types cannot always be differentiated diachronically). The article then shows that the diachronic data point to an expansion of the ARC from very specific instantiations, involving a limited set of verbs and adjectives/adverbs (i.e. the washing and cutting scenarios), to progressively more general types (which, however, set up a coherent network of analogical extensions). It is observed that this evolutionary path correlates with the metaphorical interpretation of actions as forces and the emergence of ‘proper’ causative examples, i.e. examples where the verb only symbolises the causing subevent in the causal chain evoked by the RC. Further, it is argued that this investigation highlights the importance of the usage-based model in linguistic analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 27 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Aarts, Bas, Denison, David, Keizer, Evelien & Popova, Gergana (eds.). 2004. Fuzzy grammar: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
BT: Bosworth, Joseph & T. Northcote Toller. 1898/1921. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broccias, Cristiano. 2003. The English change network. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broccias, Cristiano. 2004. The cognitive basis of adjectival and adverbial resultative constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2, 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broccias, Cristiano. 2006. The construal of constructions: Causal and temporal interpretations in change constructions. Constructions SV1–4, www.constructions-online.deGoogle Scholar
Clark Hall, J. R. 1960. A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary, 4th edition. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
De Vriend, Hubert Jan. 1984. The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de Quadrupedibus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DOE: diPaolo Healey, Antonette, Joan Holland, David McDougall, Ian McDougall, Nancy Speirs & Pauline Thompson. 2003. Dictionary of Old English A–F on CD-ROM. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies.Google Scholar
Donner, Morton. 1991. Adverb form in Middle English. English Studies 72, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fischer, Olga, Kemenade, Ans van, Koopman, Willem F. & Wurff, Wim van der. 2001. The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geuder, Wilhelm. 2000. Oriented adverbs: Issues in the lexical semantics of event adverbs. PhD dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80, 532–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 1. Journal of Linguistics 3, 37–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus & Schultze-Berndt, Eva (eds.). 2005. Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem. 2003. Synchrony and diachrony of English periphrastic causatives: A cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, Adele (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–30. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2 Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. & Cervel, M. Sandra Peña (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OED: The Oxford English Dictionary Online, www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Oya, Toshiaki. 2002. Reflexives and resultatives: Some differences between English and German. Linguistics 40, 961–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PPCME2: Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. Penn–Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1995. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Rapoport, Tova. 1999. Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language 75, 653–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. W. 1969. As small as flesh to pot. Folklore 80, 197–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1953. Sweet's Anglo-Saxon primer, revised by Davis, Norman, 9th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2003. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2006. An introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, 2nd edition. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Visser, Frederic Theodor. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Whelpton, Matthew. 2006. Resultatives in Icelandic: A preliminary investigation. MS, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
YCOE: Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Frank Beths. 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki parsed corpus of Old English prose. York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York.Google Scholar
York Poetry Corpus: Pintzuk, Susan, Ann Taylor, Anthony Warner, Leendert Plug & Frank Beths. 2001. The York–Helsinki parsed corpus of Old English poetry. York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York.Google Scholar