FinUniversity Electronic Library

     
?

Details
Card Table RUSMARC

Constructional approaches to language ;.
English resultatives: a force-recipient account. — v. 26. / Seizi Iwata, Kansei University. — 1 online resource (xx, 549 pages). — (Constructional approaches to language). — <URL:http://elib.fa.ru/ebsco/2383835.pdf>.

Record create date: 12/6/2019

Subject: English language — Verb phrase.; English language — Resultative constructions.; English language — Resultative constructions.; English language — Verb phrase.

Collections: EBSCO

Allowed Actions: –

Action 'Read' will be available if you login or access site from another network Action 'Download' will be available if you login or access site from another network

Group: Anonymous

Network: Internet

Annotation

"The objective of this book is to develop a force-recipient account of English resultatives. Within this approach the post-verbal NP is a recipient of a verbal force, whether it is a subcategorized object or not, and the verbal force being exerted onto the post-verbal NP is responsible for bringing about the change as specified by the result phrase. It is shown that many apparent puzzles posed by English resultatives are due to the complex interplay between the verb meaning and the constructional meaning, or between the verb meaning and the semantics of the result phrase. Thus the proposed account can provide answers to the question "Which resultatives are possible and which are not?" in a coherent way. Also, the proposed account reveals that English resultatives are not a monolithic phenomenon, and that some "resultatives" cited in the literature as such are not resultatives at all. This book is of interest not only to practitioners of Construction Grammar but also to everyone interested in English resultatives"--.

Document access rights

Network User group Action
Finuniversity Local Network All Read Print Download
Internet Readers Read Print
-> Internet Anonymous

Table of Contents

  • English Resultatives
  • Editorial page
  • Title page
  • Copyright page
  • Dedication page
  • Table of contents
  • Acknowledgements
  • 1. Introduction
    • 1.1 What this book is about
      • 1.1.1 What are resultatives
      • 1.1.2 Two questions raised by resultatives with non-subcategorized objects
    • 1.2 How resultatives have been analyzed in Generative Grammar
      • 1.2.1 Small clause analysis
      • 1.2.2 Lexical rule approach
    • 1.3 How resultatives have been analyzed in Construction Grammar
      • 1.3.1 Goldberg (1995)
      • 1.3.2 Boas (2003)
      • 1.3.3 Short summary
    • 1.4 The analysis to be proposed in this book
      • 1.4.1 How to answer the two questions
      • 1.4.2 A lexical-constructional approach
      • 1.4.3 Methodology
      • 1.4.4 Terminology
    • 1.5 Organization of the book
  • Part I. A force-recipient account
  • 2. The status of the post-verbal NP
    • 2.0 Introduction to Part I
    • 2.1 Toward the constructional meaning of resultatives
      • 2.1.1 Boas (2003) once again
      • 2.1.2 Three possible paraphrases
      • 2.1.3 Problems with the first and second approaches
      • 2.1.4 Force-recipient account
    • 2.2 How force is transmitted
      • 2.2.1 ‘Wipe the crumbs off the table’
      • 2.2.2 Virtual pushing
    • 2.3 Further illustrations of virtual actions
      • 2.3.1 ‘Push oneself to one’s feet’
      • 2.3.2 ‘Laugh – off the stage’
      • 2.3.3 ‘Sneeze – out’
    • 2.4 Discourse patient?
    • 2.5 Conclusion
  • 3. Force transmission as essential to resultatives
    • 3.0 Introduction
    • 3.1 Subcategorized object cases
      • 3.1.1 Post-verbal NP as force-recipient
      • 3.1.2 Types of force
    • 3.2 Verbal force as relativized to the result state
    • 3.3 Non-subcategorized object cases again
      • 3.3.1 So-called “unaccusative/unergative” distinction
      • 3.3.2 Types of force, not types of participant roles
    • 3.4 Intransitive resultatives based on intransitive verbs
    • 3.5 Conclusion
  • Part II. So-called idiomatic cases
  • 4. ‘He laughed his head off’
    • 4.0 Introduction to Part II
    • 4.1 V ‘one’s head off’
      • 4.1.1 Why does his head move off?
      • 4.1.2 Force dynamics of ‘V one’s head off’
      • 4.1.3 Network of ‘V one’s head off’
    • 4.2 Two layers of meaning
    • 4.3 Other related constructions
      • 4.3.1 V ‘one’s eyes out’
      • 4.3.2 V ‘one’s heart out’
      • 4.3.3 V ‘one’s guts out’
      • 4.3.4 V ‘one’s lungs out’
      • 4.3.5 V ‘one’s socks off’ and V ‘one’s butt off’
    • 4.4 Discussion
  • 5. ‘They beat the hell out of me’
    • 5.0 Introduction
    • 5.1 A construction which ‘beat the hell out of’ is related to
      • 5.1.1 Perek (2016)
      • 5.1.2 ‘Beat – out of’ construction
    • 5.2 Five types of ‘beat – out of’
      • 5.2.1 ‘Content coming out of a container’ type
      • 5.2.2 ‘Get rid of’ type
      • 5.2.3 ‘Get by coercion’ type
      • 5.2.4 ‘Physiological effect’ type and ‘emotional effect’ type
      • 5.2.5 What the three schemas tell us
    • 5.3 From ‘beat the hell out’ of to ‘V the hell out of’
      • 5.3.1 Beat the hell out of ‘as the ‘emotional effect’ type’
      • 5.3.2 From literal meaning to intensifier meaning
      • 5.3.3 Polysemy network of ‘V the hell out of’
      • 5.3.4 Interim conclusion
    • 5.4 ‘V the shit out of’ and ‘V the daylights out of’
      • 5.4.1 ‘Which types do’ beat the shit out of ‘and’ beat the daylights out of ‘belong to?’
      • 5.4.2 Polysemous networks of ‘V the daylights out of’ and ‘V the shit out of’
    • 5.5 Possible origins of ‘V – out of’ idioms
      • 5.5.1 ‘Beat the devil out of’
      • 5.5.2 ‘Beat the stuffing out of’
    • 5.6 ‘V the life out of’
    • 5.7 Two types of complement alternation
      • 5.7.1 ‘To death’ and ‘shitless’
      • 5.7.2 ‘Out of one’s wits’
    • 5.8 Conclusion
  • Part III. Resultatives and domains
  • 6. Resultatives with verbs of eating and drinking I
    • 6.0 Introduction to Part III
    • 6.1 How to analyze resultatives with ‘eat’ and ‘drink’
      • 6.1.1 Croft (2009)
      • 6.1.2 More on the three phases
      • 6.1.3 Complex causal chains for ‘eat’
      • 6.1.4 ‘Eat – clean’ and ‘eat oneself full’
    • 6.2 ‘Eat oneself’ AP/PP
      • 6.2.1 ‘Eat themselves out of a food supply’
      • 6.2.2 ‘Eat oneself to death’
    • 6.3 ‘Drink oneself’ AP/PP
      • 6.3.1 ‘Drink oneself beautiful’
      • 6.3.2 ‘Drink oneself silly’
      • 6.3.3 ‘Drink oneself to death’
    • 6.4 Result states as relativized to the domains
    • 6.5 Summary and conclusion
  • 7. Resultatives with verbs of eating and drinking II
    • 7.0 Introduction
    • 7.1 ‘Eat – out of house and home’
      • 7.1.1 ‘The caribou eat themselves out of house and home’
      • 7.1.2 ‘He ate me out of house and home’
    • 7.2 ‘Drink – under the table’
      • 7.2.1 Two domains involved
      • 7.2.2 The “beating” sense as primary
    • 7.3 Summary
    • 7.4 Conclusion
  • 8. ‘He laughed himself silly’
    • 8.0 Introduction
    • 8.1 ‘V oneself silly’
      • 8.1.1 Jackendoff (1997)
      • 8.1.2 What does it mean to become “silly” as a result of laughing?
      • 8.1.3 Short-lived result state
      • 8.1.4 Other instances of ‘V oneself silly’
    • 8.2 ‘V oneself stupid’
    • 8.3 ‘V oneself sick’
    • 8.4 Summary
    • 8.5 Conclusion
  • Part IV. ‘Change verb’ resultatives and how to accommodate them
  • 9. ‘Change verb’ resultatives
    • 9.0 Introduction to Part IV
    • 9.1 Weak resultatives and spurious resultatives
      • 9.1.1 Pustejovsky (1991a)
      • 9.1.2 Washio (1997)
      • 9.1.3 Further characteristics of ‘change verb’ resultatives
    • 9.2 How ‘change verb’ resultatives are to be analyzed
      • 9.2.1 What is the host of predication?
      • 9.2.2 Unifying ‘change verb’ resultatives with ordinary resultatives
    • 9.3 Resultative caused-motion counterparts
      • 9.3.1 ‘Break the egg into the pan’
      • 9.3.2 ‘Empty the tank into the sink’
    • 9.4 Still another issue raised by ‘change verb’ resultatives
      • 9.4.1 Result phrase-addition analysis
      • 9.4.2 Result phrase construction
      • 9.4.3 Summary
    • 9.5 Conclusion
  • 10. What are spurious resultatives?
    • 10.0 Introduction
    • 10.1 Putative characteristics of spurious resultatives
    • 10.2 ‘Thinly’
      • 10.2.1 Adverbs that refer to a theme entity
      • 10.2.2 ‘Spread – thinly, cut – thinly’
      • 10.2.3 The distinction between ‘thin’ and ‘thinly’
    • 10.3 ‘Tight/tightly’ and ‘loose/loosely’
      • 10.3.1 When the alternation is really possible
      • 10.3.2 What does it mean to be tight?
      • 10.3.3 ‘Pull – tight’ vs. ‘pull – tightly’
      • 10.3.4 Force persistence
      • 10.3.5 ‘Loose’ vs. ‘loosely’
    • 10.4 Conclusion
  • 11. Resultatives with ‘open’/‘shut’
    • 11.0 Introduction
    • 11.1 How a door becomes ‘open/shut’
      • 11.1.1 Resultative caused-motion?
      • 11.1.2 Co-occurrence of motion and change of state
      • 11.1.3 Internalized translational motion
      • 11.1.4 Co-extensiveness between change of state and internalized translational motion
    • 11.2 Three types of ‘open/shut’ expressions
      • 11.2.1 Type 1
      • 11.2.2 Type 2
      • 11.2.3 Type 3
    • 11.3 What the existence of the three types tells us
      • 11.3.1 Washio’s (1997) three types again
      • 11.3.2 Why ‘open’ may appear in all the three types of resultatives
      • 11.3.3 A unified analysis under the force-recipient account
    • 11.4 Functional ‘open’
    • 11.5 Conclusion
  • Part V. On the result component
  • 12. ‘To’ result phrases vs. ‘into’ result phrases
    • 12.0 Introduction to Part V
    • 12.1 ‘To a whisper’
      • 12.1.1 Point on a scale
      • 12.1.2 Other similar cases
    • 12.2 ‘To death’
      • 12.2.1 Endpoint of a path
      • 12.2.2 Short summary
    • 12.3 ‘Into a coma’
    • 12.4 ‘To pieces’ vs. ‘into pieces’
      • 12.4.1 Corpus data
      • 12.4.2 Different aspects of becoming “pieces”
        • 12.4.2.1 ‘Into pieces’
        • 12.4.2.2 ‘To pieces’
      • 12.4.3 Other expressions for decomposition
    • 12.5 ‘In/Into’ alternation
      • 12.5.1 ‘In’ result phrase
      • 12.5.2 Parallel with spatial paths
    • 12.6 Conclusion
  • 13. Adjectival result phrases vs. prepositional result phrases
    • 13.0 Introduction
    • 13.1 Previous analyses
      • 13.1.1 A matter of conventionalization?
      • 13.1.2 Tsuzuki (2003a, 2003b)
      • 13.1.3 Problems with Tsuzuki (2003a, 2003b)
    • 13.2 The difference between an AP and a ‘to’-PP
      • 13.2.1 Aspectual integration of the verbal event and the change of state
      • 13.2.2 ‘AP only’ cases
      • 13.2.3 ‘To-PP only’ cases
      • 13.2.4 ‘Shoot – dead’ vs. ‘shoot – to death’
    • 13.3 Differences between APs, ‘to’-PPs, and ‘into’-PPs
      • 13.3.1 Into-‘PPs’
      • 13.3.2 Summary
    • 13.4 How the choice of result phrases is really to be accounted for
      • 13.4.1 Tsuzuki’s (2003a, 2003b) proposal once again
      • 13.4.2 Verspoor’s (1997) data once again
    • 13.5 Implications for the force-recipient account
    • 13.6 Conclusion
  • 14. Consequences of the AP/PP distinction
    • 14.0 Introduction
    • 14.1 Aspectual constraint
      • 14.1.1 Immediate result or not?
      • 14.1.2 APs and PPs behave differently
      • 14.1.3 Prepositional result phrases vs. path result phrases
    • 14.2 ‘She cried herself to sleep’
      • 14.2.1 Enabling causation
      • 14.2.2 How to enable someone to sleep
        • 14.2.2.1 ‘To sleep’ vs. ‘awake’
        • 14.2.2.2 A soothing/calming force
      • 14.2.3 How to enable oneself to sleep
        • 14.2.3.1 Fake reflexive cases
        • 14.2.3.2 ‘Sing’-type and ‘read’-type
        • 14.2.3.3 ‘Drink’-type
        • 14.2.3.4 ‘Cry’-type
      • 14.2.4 Enabling causation in force dynamics
    • 14.3 Conclusion
  • Part VI. Still further issues surrounding adjectival result phrases
  • 15. Maximal end-point constraint reconsidered
    • 15.0 Introduction to Part VI
    • 15.1 Wechsler (2005a, 2005b)
    • 15.2 Problems
    • 15.3 Well-behaved data?
      • 15.3.1 Wechsler (2012, 2015)
      • 15.3.2 The “well-behaved” data as an illusion
    • 15.4 What is wrong with the maximal end-point constraint?
    • 15.5 Conclusion
  • 16. Selectional restrictions on adjectival result phrases
    • 16.0 Introduction
    • 16.1 Subcategorized object cases
      • 16.1.1 How the result state is brought about
      • 16.1.2 Not a direct result but a consequence
    • 16.2 ‘Wipe – wet’
      • 16.2.1 The wiping force once again
      • 16.2.2 When and why ‘wipe – wet’ is possible
        • 16.2.2.1 When ‘wipe’ becomes a verb of adding substance
        • 16.2.2.2 ‘Rub’ and ‘brush’
    • 16.3 Fake object cases
      • 16.3.1 Goldberg (1995), Vanden Wyngaerd (2001)
      • 16.3.2 Where the apparent delimited endpoint comes from
    • 16.4 Conclusion
  • 17. Temporal dependence reconsidered
    • 17.0 Introduction
    • 17.1 Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001)
      • 17.1.1 Two types of resultatives
      • 17.1.2 Temporal coextensiveness
    • 17.2 Temporal dependence is only part of the story
      • 17.2.1 Problems with Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001)
      • 17.2.2 The real difference between ‘wriggle free’ and ‘wriggle oneself free’
      • 17.2.3 ‘Kick free’
      • 17.2.4 When the subevents are temporally co-extensive
    • 17.3 Croft (2012)
      • 17.3.1 Integrating force-dynamic and aspectual representations of event structure
      • 17.3.2 Modifications needed
    • 17.4 Conclusion
  • Part VII. Resultatives that are not based on force-transmission
  • 18. ‘Princess Anne rides to victory’
    • 18.0 Introduction to Part VII
    • 18.1 ‘To victory’
      • 18.1.1 Direct Object Restriction
      • 18.1.2 Violation of the Direct Object Restriction
      • 18.1.3 Apparent puzzle of ‘to victory’
    • 18.2 ‘To victory’ as a goal-achieving path
      • 18.2.1 Why the Direct Object Restriction holds
      • 18.2.2 Goal-like characteristics
      • 18.2.3 Change of state that is based on a metaphor
      • 18.2.4 Caused motion vs. simple motion
    • 18.3 Further instances of changes of state effected by metaphorical changes of location
      • 18.3.1 ‘To success’
      • 18.3.2 ‘To exhaustion’
        • 18.3.2.1 No need for fake reflexives
        • 18.3.2.2 Who gets exhausted?
    • 18.4 Changes of state which are effected by physical changes of location
      • 18.4.1 ‘To safety’ and ‘to freedom’
      • 18.4.2 ‘Out of sight’
    • 18.5 Conclusion
  • 19. Resultatives with ‘free’
    • 19.0 Introduction
    • 19.1 Does ‘free’ denote an endpoint?
      • 19.1.1 ‘‘Free’ as expressing an endpoint’ thesis
      • 19.1.2 Problems
    • 19.2 ‘V – ‘free’’
      • 19.2.1 How to cause something to become free
      • 19.2.2 ‘Free’ vs. ‘to freedom’
      • 19.2.3 Resultatives based on self-initiated force
    • 19.3 ‘Cut – free’
      • 19.3.1 Apparent puzzle
      • 19.3.2 ‘Separation’-‘cut’
      • 19.3.3 ‘Cut – free’ as a ‘change verb’ resultative
      • 19.3.4 Putative restriction
    • 19.4 Conclusion
  • VIII. Putative resultatives
  • 20. ‘Follow’ and ‘disappear’
    • 20.0 Introduction
    • 20.1 ‘Follow him out of the room’
      • 20.1.1 Another apparent counter-example to the Direct Object Restriction
      • 20.1.2 ‘Follow’ as a motion verb
      • 20.1.3 Further-specifying path PPs
    • 20.2 Other approaches
      • 20.2.1 Rappaport Hovav & Levin (2001)
      • 20.2.2 Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004)
    • 20.3 ‘Disappear down the road’
      • 20.3.1 Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004)
      • 20.3.2 ‘Disappear’ as a motion verb
      • 20.3.3 How to become invisible
      • 20.3.4 Whose visual field?
    • 20.4 Conclusion
  • 21. Verbs of sound emission followed by a path PP
    • 21.0 Introduction
    • 21.1 Previous analyses
      • 21.1.1 Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995, 96, 99)
      • 21.1.2 Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004)
      • 21.1.3 Meaning shift or construction?
    • 21.2 ‘Motion-describing’ type
      • 21.2.1 Parallel between manner and sound
      • 21.2.2 Further parallels
    • 21.3 ‘Motion-induced’ type
      • 21.3.1 Two types of sound emission
      • 21.3.2 Motion-describing’ type vs. ‘motion-induced’ type
    • 21.4 More on the distinction
    • 21.5 Where there is a sound, there should be a motion
    • 21.6 Verbs of sound emission followed by ‘open/shut’
      • 21.6.1 Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995)
      • 21.6.2 A fundamental problem
      • 21.6.3 The sound-emission event as describing an internalized translational motion
      • 21.6.4 Functional ‘open’ once again
    • 21.7 Conclusion
  • 22. Reconsidering the parallel between change of state and change of location
    • 22.0 Introduction
    • 22.1 Putative parallel between change of state and change of location
      • 22.1.1 Transitive cases
      • 22.1.2 Intransitive cases
    • 22.2 Motion expressions
    • 22.3 Resultatives that are based on motion
    • 22.4 Overall picture
    • 22.5 Conclusion
  • Part IX.
  • 23. Unique path constraint reconsidered
    • 23.0 Introduction
    • 23.1 Unique path constraint
      • 23.1.1 Goldberg (1991a, 1995)
      • 23.1.2 Adjectival result phrases do not denote paths
    • 23.2 Why adjectival result phrases do not co-occur with path PPs
      • 23.2.1 Co-occurrence of more than one result phrase
      • 23.2.2 No special constraint is necessary
    • 23.3 Still another distinction that has been overlooked
      • 23.3.1 Why motion verbs do not co-occur with result phrases
      • 23.3.2 Resultatives based on motion once again
    • 23.4 Conclusion
  • 24. ‘To one’s death’
    • 24.1 Another instance of resultative based on motion?
    • 24.2 Why ‘to one’s death’ means what it does
    • 24.3 Contextual modulation
    • 24.4 Conclusion
  • 25. Summary and conclusion
    • 25.1 Resultative constructions under a force-recipient account
    • 25.2 Answers to the two questions
      • 25.2.1 Answer to the first question
      • 25.2.2 Answer to the second question
    • 25.3 How to arrive at the observed syntax
    • 25.4 Cross-linguistic differences
    • 25.5 Final word
  • References
  • Index of constructions
  • Subject index

Usage statistics

stat Access count: 0
Last 30 days: 0
Detailed usage statistics