Lexical-constructional integration in non-prototypical English middles: the role of high-level metonymy as a motivating factor

Pilar Guerrero Medina

doi:10.18172/jes.2621

Autores/as

Pilar Guerrero Medina University o Córdoba

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.2621

Palabras clave:

Construcción media no prototípica, integración léxicoconstruccional, metonimia conceptual

Resumen

El principal objetivo de este artículo es el estudio del proceso de integración léxico-construccional en las construcciones medias inglesas circunstanciales con un sujeto instrumental o locativo, ejemplificadas respectivamente por Narrow tyres manoeuvre more easily and The tennis court plays a bit slower (cfr. Davidse y Heyvaert 2003, 2007). En primer lugar se analizarán los mecanismos léxico-semánticos que pueden sancionar la adscripción de un predicado verbal a la construcción media en aquellos casos en los que no exista un elemento causativo y la restricción de “afectación” resulte por tanto invalidada. Basándome en Ruiz de Mendoza y Mairal Usón (2007, 2011), intentaré determinar en qué medida la metonimia conceptual puede actuar como un factor motivador externo que justifique estos usos no prototípicos, mostrando también cómo intervienen factores contextuales y de naturaleza pragmático-discursiva, que interactúan para potenciar la interpretación metonímica de la construcción media del tipo “circunstancial”.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Cortés Rodríguez, F. 2009. “The inchoative construction: Semantic representation and unification constraints”. Deconstructing Constructions. Eds. C. S. Butler and J. Martín Arista. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 247-270.

Davidse, K. and L. Heyvaert. 2003. “On the middle construction in English and Dutch”. Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Eds. S. Granger, J. Lerot and S. Petch-Tyson. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 57-73

Davidse, K. and L. Heyvaert. 2007. “On the middle voice: an interpersonal analysis of the English middle”. Linguistics 45 (1): 37-83.

Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. <http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/>

Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar 2: Complex Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2005 (1991). A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Fagan, S. M. B. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions. Cambridge: CUP.

Fellbaum, C. and A. Zribi-Hertz. 1989. The Middle Construction in French and English: A Comparative Study of its Syntax and Semantics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.

Goldberg, A. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Heyvaert, L. 2003. A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hendrikse, A. P. 1989. “Syntactic structures as pragmatic options.” Studies in Language 13 (2): 333-379.

Iwata, S. 1999. “On the status of an implicit argument in middles”. Journal of Linguistics 35: 527-553.

Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Keyser, S. J. and T. Roeper 1984. “On the middle and ergative constructions in English”. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 381-416.

Kövecses, Z. and G. Radden 1998. “Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view”. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37-77.

Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lemmens, M 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Pustejovsky, J. 1991. “The generative lexicon”. Computational Linguistics 17: 409-441.

Radden, G. and R. Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2007. “High-level cognitive models: in search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behaviour”. Perspectives on Metonymy. Proceedings of the International Conference “Perspectives on Metonymy”, held in Łódź, Poland, May 6-7, 2005. Ed. K. Kosecki. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 11-30.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2007. “High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction”. Aspects of Meaning Construction. Eds. G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg and P. Siemund. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 33-51.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2011. “Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model”. Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Ed. P. Guerrero Medina. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing. 62-82.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and S. Peña Cervel. 2008. “Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish”. Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Eds. M. A. Gómez-González, J. L. Mackenzie and E. González Álvarez. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 251-280.

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Van Oosten, J. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Yoshimura, K. and J. R. Taylor. 2004. “What makes a good middle? The role of qualia in the interpretation and acceptability of middle expressions in English”. English Language and Linguistics 8 (2): 293-321.