Why *John can´t contribute Mary moneyConstructional behavior of contribute verbs

  1. Rosca, Andrea
  2. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J.
Zeitschrift:
Odisea: Revista de estudios ingleses

ISSN: 1578-3820

Datum der Publikation: 2016

Nummer: 17

Seiten: 139-157

Art: Artikel

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Odisea: Revista de estudios ingleses

Zusammenfassung

This article examines the conceptual structure of the main constructions in which Levin’s (1993) contribute verbs appear, viz. the ditransitive and the dative constructions, which often alternate. The present paperquestions the reliability of Levin’s semantic criterion for contribute verbs and shows that the integration of these verbs into the dative construction is licensed by several factors, such as the presence of multiple agents, multiple transferred entities and multiple recipients which deprofile the possessive relationship between a unique recipient and an object (e.g. contribute, administer, distribute), and the conceptual prominence of the motion event over the possession relationship between the recipient and the object (e.g. refer, transfer), among others.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • BOAS, H. 2000. Resultative constructions in English and German. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina.
  • BOAS, H. 2002. “On the role of semantic constraints in resultative constructions”. Ed. R. RAPP. Linguistics on the way into the new millennium, 1. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 35–44.
  • BOAS, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • BOAS, H. 2008a. “Resolving Form–Meaning Discrepancies in Construction Grammar”. Ed. J. LEINO. Constructional reorganization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 11–36.
  • BOAS, H. 2008b. “Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6. 113–144.
  • COLLEMAN, T. and B. DE CLERCK. 2009. “‘Caused Motion?’ The semantics of the English to–dative and the Dutch aan–dative”. Cognitive Linguistics 20. 5–42.
  • DAVIDSE, K. 1996. “Functional dimensions of the dative in English”. Eds. W. VAN BELLE and W. VAN LANGENDONCK. The Dative. Volume 1: Descriptive Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 289–338.
  • GALERA, A. and F. J. RUIZ DE MENDOZA. 2012. “Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English”. Language Sciences 34. 54–64.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 1992. “The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction”. Cognitive Linguistics 3, 1: 37–74.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 2002. “Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations”. Cognitive Linguistics 13, 4: 327–356.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 2005. “Constructions, Lexical Semantics and the Correspondence Principle: Accounting for Generalizations and Subregularities in the Realization of Arguments”. Eds. N. ERTESCHIK–SHIR and T. RAPOPORT. The Syntax of Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 215–254.
  • GOLDBERG, A. 2006. Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • HARLEY, H. 2002. “Possession and the double object construction”. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2, 29–68.
  • IWATA, S. 2008. The Locative Alternation: A lexical–constructional approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • KRIFKA, M. 2004. “Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the Dative Alternation”. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4, 1–32.
  • LANGACKER, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • LANGACKER, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • LANGACKER, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • LUZONDO, A. 2011. English resultative constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model: implications for constructional modelling within a lexical conceptual knowledge base. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of La Rioja.
  • MAIRAL, R. and F. J. RUIZ DE MENDOZA. 2008. “New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical–Constructional Model”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57, 137–158.
  • MAIRAL, R. and F. J. RUIZ DE MENDOZA. 2009. “Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction”. Eds. C. S. BUTLER and J. MARTÍN ARISTA. Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 153–198.
  • NEMOTO, N. 2005. “Verbal Polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation”. Eds. M. FRIED and H. C. BOAS. Grammatical Constructions – Back to the Roots. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 119–136.
  • PANTHER, K.—U. 1997. “Dative Alternation from a cognitive perspective”. Eds. B. SMIEJA and M. TASCH. Human Contact through Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 107–126.
  • PESETSKY, D. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. PINKER, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • ROSCA, A. 2012. “Accounting for the constructional behavior of fetch, find, gather, and reach”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 64, 161–176.
  • RUIZ DE MENDOZA, F. J. 2013. “Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model”. Eds. E. DIEDRICHSEN and B. NOLAN. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in RRG Grammars. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 231–270.
  • RUIZ DE MENDOZA, F. J. and A. GALERA. 2014. Cognitive Modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • RUIZ DE MENDOZA, F. J. and R. MAIRAL. 2008. “Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model”. Folia Linguistica 42, 2: 355–400.
  • RUIZ DE MENDOZA, F. J. and R. MAIRAL. 2008. 2011. “Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical–constructional subsumption in the Lexical–Constructional Model”. Ed. P. GUERRERO. Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London, UK/Oakville, CT: Equinox. 62–82.
  • VAN DER LEEK, F. 1996. “Rigid Syntax and Flexible Meaning: The Case of the English Ditransitive”. Ed. A. E. GOLDBERG. Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 321–332.
  • WIERZBICKA, A. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • LEVIN, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet