Transcript PPT

HIGH LEVEL METAPHOR AS A MOTIVATING
FACTOR IN THE CAUSED-MOTION
CONSTRUCTION
Mariana Neagu
University of Galaţi
The XII th International Conference
Cognitive Modeling in Linguistics,
Dubrovnik, Croatia, September 7-14, 2010
CONTENTS (I)

Introduction
1. Constructions: definition, characteristics,
types
2. The caused-motion construction: form and
semantics
3. Related senses associated with the causedmotion construction
CONTENTS (II)
4. The issue of ‘fusion’
4.1. Goldberg’s approach
4.2. The Lexical Constructional Model (LCM )
approach
5. High level metaphors in grammar

Conclusions
Introduction I



Aim
to examine sentences that illustrate metaphorical
uses of the caused-motion construction in English.
to use the analytical and explanatory tools
developed by The Lexical Constructional Model
(Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal, 2007; Mairal and
Ruiz de Mendoza 2008, 2009) in the analysis of the
integration of lexical items within the caused
motion construction
Introduction II

Motivation
1. Figurative uses of the caused-motion
construction are not discussed extensively
and systematically in the literature.
2. Learners of typologically different
languages (e.g. English and Romanian)
often fail to make frequent & good use of
the caused-motion construction (probably
because constructions in L2 can be
obscured by constructions existing in L2)
1. Constructions: definition, characteristics,
types (I)
- the term ‘construction’ in Construction
Grammar: a broadening of the traditional
notion
- the basic unit of linguistic knowledge
- the non-predictability criterion
1. Constructions: definition, characteristics,
types (II)
“Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a
construction as long as some aspect of its
form or function is not strictly predictable
from its component parts or from other
constructions recognized to exist.”
(Goldberg, 2003: 219)
- constructions are language-specific
(Croft, 2001) ->they must be learned
1. Constructions: definition, characteristics,
types (III)

Cognitive Grammar theories sustain that
constructions are the basic language units
that children acquire when learning how to
speak a language
Constructions: definition, characteristics,
types (IV)
Types of constructions:
In terms of schematicity/abstractness,
constructions can be:
- fully lexicaly filled (e.g. idioms)
- partialy lexically filled (e.g. the let alone
construction)
- fully schematic (the caused-motion
construction)

1. Constructions: definition, characteristics,
types (V)

Goldberg’s (1999) classification of argument
structure constructions:
Intransitive: Pat sneezed.
Cognate object: Pat sneezed a a terrible sneeze.
Resultative: She sneezed her nose red.
Caused-motion: She sneezed the foam off the
capuccino.
Way construction: She sneezed her way to the
emergency room.
2. The Caused-Motion Construction:
form and semantics (I)
- a construction common to satellite-framed
languages but almost inexistent in verb-framed
languages
- its form: [SUBJ [V OBJ OBL]] (Goldberg (1995).
OBL->a directional prepositional phrase
(1) They laughed the poor guy out of the room.
(2) Frank sneezed the tissue off the table.
(3) Mary urged Bill into the house.
(4) They sprayed the paint onto the wall.
(5)Lily coaxed George under the table.
2. The caused-motion construction:
form and semantics (II)
X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z : the basic sense
The causer argument (X) causes the theme
argument (Y) to move along a path
indicated by the directional prepositional
phrase (Z)
(6) The cow shouldered Sam to the ground.
(7) She blew the dust off the picture.
(8) The wind blew Mary’s hair into her eyes.
(9) George tickled Jane off the sofa (with a
feather duster)
(10) *The feather duster tickled Jane off the
sofa.
2. Extended senses from the basic sense (I)
1. Conditions of satisfaction entail ‘X causes
Y to move Z’:
(11) Sally implored Jane into the shop.
2. ‘X enables Y to move Z’
(12) They let Allen into their hotel room.
2. Extended senses from the basic sense (II)
3. ‘X prevents
Comp(Z)’
Y
from
moving
(13) Lily barricaded him into the
kitchen.
4. ‘X helps Y to move Z’
(14) Helen guided Allen through
the cold empty streets.
4. The issue of ‘fusion’ (I)


Fusion = the process whereby a verb’s
participant roles are integrated with a
construction’s argument roles
Goldberg’s approach - > the conditions that
the construction imposes on lexical meaning
for a lexical predicate to be a candidate for
incorporation into the caused-motion
construction.
4. The issue of fusion (II)
The Lexical Constructional Model (LCM)
approach (Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal,
2008)
fusion = a cognitive process, regulated by:
Internal constraints: metalinguistic units
encoded in a lexical representation
External constraints: high-level metaphors
and metonymies
A high level metaphor accounts for the
adaptation of the lexical meaning of the
verb to the constructional meaning

5. High-level metaphor in grammar (I)
Grammatical
phenomenon
Change of
transitivity type
Example
Metaphor
He talked
me into
business
COMMUNICATIVE ACTION
IS EXPERIENTIAL ACTION
Nominalization
We couldn’t
prevent the
destruction of
the town by the
enemy
EVENTS ARE OBJECTS
Conversion of a
verb into an
idiomatic phrase
They gave the
thug a big
beating
ACTIONS ARE TRANSFERS
5. High level metaphor in grammar (II)
Grammatical
phenomenon
Example
Metaphor
Use of the
object
construction to
express states
She has a lot of
fear
STATES ARE
POSSESSIONS
5. 1 Real motion without motion verbs (I)
(15) They laughed the poor guy out of the
room.
(16) Sam frightened Bobby under the bed.
(17) The students shouted him out of the
lecture hall.
(18) She winked him into her bedroom.
5. 1 Real motion without motion verbs (II)
(19) a. The firefighters coaxed the man down
from the roof.
b. Sam lured him into the room.
c.*Sam convinced/persuaded him into the
room.
d. Sam convinced/ persuaded me to go into
the room.
5.2 Figurative motion indicating a change of
state
(20) He drank himself into a stupor.
(21) Peter loved Mary back into life.
(22) She drove me into a depression.
(23) How will he get us out the
quagmire of war?
5.3 METAPHORICAL MAPPINGS IN THE
CAUSED-MOTION CONSTRUCTION (I)

AN EXPERIENTIAL ACTION IS EFFECTUAL ACTION
(24) a. They kicked the poor guy out of the room. (kick = an
instrumental predicate)
b. They laughed the poor guy out of the room. (laugh = a
goal-oriented activity predicate)
The ‘instrumental’ element in the SOURCE corresponds to the
‘manner’ element in the TARGET
- > the Correlation Principle (Ruiz de Mendoza and
Santibanez, 2003)
(25) The boss scorned the employee into a depression.
5.3 METAPHORICAL MAPPINGS IN THE
CAUSED-MOTION CONSTRUCTION (II)

COMMUNICATIVE ACTION IS EFFECTUAL ACTION
(26) He talked me out of the room.
(subcategorial conversion of the verb ‘talk’)
(27) The firefighters coaxed the man down
from the roof. (the receiver of the message =
the affected entity)
5.3 METAPHORICAL MAPPINGS IN THE
CAUSED-MOTION CONSTRUCTION (III)

AN ACTIVITY IS AN EFFECTUAL
ACCOMPLISHMENT
(28) He drank himself into a stupor.
He drank her under the table.

AN EMOTIONAL STATE IS AN EFFECTUAL ACTION
(29) Peter loved Mary back into life.
(30) He loved him into death.
Conclusions (I)
1. Figurative uses of the caused-motion
construction:
 motion involved only when the conditions
of satisfaction of the predicate are met
 literal, actual motion without motion verbs
 metaphorical motion
Conclusions (II)
2. Arguments of the caused-motion construction:
 the causer argument ( the X element) -> the
subject’s “force-emitting” properties.
 the theme argument (the Y element): linguistically
realized as a human entity in most cases.
 the path argument (the Z element) tends to be
axiologically negative when the lexical semantic
information attached to the verb contains
indications of specific negative aspects
Conclusions (III)
3. Lexical constructional integration of nonmotion verbs - constrained by high level
metaphors.
4. High level metaphors operate at the lexicogrammatical level.
5. High level metaphor is the motivating factor
underlying the following types of
conversion:
Conclusions IV
a. an activity predicate into a causative
accomplishment predicate (e.g. laugh)
b. an intransitive verb to a goal-directed verb
(e.g. talk)
c. a state predicate into an activity predicate
(e.g. love)
Selected References (I)


Boas, Hans Christian. 2003. A constructional
approach to resultatives. Stanford CSLI
publications.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A
Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago and London: The University of

Chicago Press.
Mairal, Ricardo and Pamela Faber. 2007. Lexical
templates within a functional
cognitive theory
of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive
Linguistics (5), 137- 172.
Selected References (II)


Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Ricardo Mairal
Uson. 2007. High level metaphor and metonymy in
meaning construction. In Radden, G., Kopcke K.,
Berg T. and P. Siemund. eds. Aspects of Meaning
Construction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 33-51
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José and
Ricardo Mairal Usón. 2008. Levels of description
and constraining factors in meaning construction:
an introduction to the Lexical Constructional
Model.” Folia Linguistica vol. 42(2), 355-400.
THANK YOU!