Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 277–299

Chapter 9
The English conative as a family of constructions

Towards a usage-based approach

| University of Córdoba, Spain
This chapter aims to provide a constructionist usage-based analysis of English conative expressions, arguing that a family of related constructions is required to account for the semantico-pragmatic properties of the at-frame in English. Drawing mainly on Broccias’s (2001) and Perek and Lemmens’s (2010) analyses, I challenge Goldberg’s (1995) monosemic analysis of the conative construction, where the ‘directed action’ meaning remains invariable, highlighting the essential role played by the verb’s inherent lexical semantics in determining the specific constructional senses that can be subsumed under the rubric of conative uses. Three distinct configurations are posited: the allative at-construction, instantiated by non-resultative verbs (Tsunoda 1985), the ablative at-construction, instantiated by resultative verbs, and the directional at-construction, compatible with intransitive verbs of ‘visual perception’.
Keywords: ablative at-construction, allative at-construction, conative construction, Construction Grammar, directional at-construction, family-resemblance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The conative construction in the linguistic literature
    • 2.1The lexical rule approach
    • 2.2Tenny’s aspectual approach
    • 2.3Van der Leek’s compositional approach
    • 2.4The constructional approach
  • 3.Lexical-constructional integration in the English conative pattern
    • 3.1The role of the verb’s semantics
      • 3.1.1 The allative at-construction : non-resultative verbs of ‘hitting’
      • 3.1.2 The ablative at-construction : resultative verbs of ‘cutting’ and ‘ingesting’
      • 3.1.3 The directional at-construction : verbs of ‘attention’
    • 3.2The fusion of verbal and constructional semantics: A family-resemblance analysis
  • 4.Final remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.10gue
References (49)
References
Adams, C. M. 2001. The conative alternation: An exploration of semelfactives and the elusive non-Theme Patient. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Boas, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 2003. The grammar machine. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle (288–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broccias, C. 2001. Allative and ablative at-constructions. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), CLS 37: The main session. Volume 1 (67–82). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Capelle, B., & Declerck, R. 2005. Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 889–917. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, A. 1994. A functional typology of antipassives. In B. Fox, & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Voice. Form and function (49–88). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments. Lexical and syntactic constraints (21–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL]
Davidse, K. 2011. Alternations as a heuristic to verb meaning and the semantics of the construction. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (11–37). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 549–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. 2001. The semantic asymmetry of argument alternations (and why it matters). In G. van der Meer, & A. G. B. ter Meulen (Eds.) Making sense. Front lexeme to discourse 171–186. [Groninger Arbeiten zur gennanistischen Linguistik 44]. Groningen: Centre for Language and Cognition.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faber, P., & Mairal, R. 1999. Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. 2007. Constructing grammatical meaning. Isomorphism and polysemy in Czech reflexivization. Studies in Language, 31(4), 721–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013. Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez, F. 2008. Towards a constructionist, usage-based reappraisal of interpersonal manipulation: evidence from secondary predication in English and Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57, 109–136.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1967. Look and see. Language , 43, 937–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, P. 2011. An antipassive interpretation of the English “conative alternation”. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (182–203). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Guerssel, M., Hale, K., Laughren, M., Levin, B., & White Eagle, J. 1985. A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. In W. H. Eilfort, P. D. Knoeber, & K. L. Peterson (Eds.), CLS 21, Part 2: Papers on the parasession on causatives and agentivity (48–63). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. 2002. The clause: complements. In R. Huddleston, & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (213–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Y. 1985. ‘Activity’-‘accomplishment’-‘achievement’- A language that can’t say ‘I burnt it, but it didn’t burn’ and one that can. In A. Makkai, & A. K. Melby (Eds.), Linguistics and philosophy. Festschrift for Rulon S. Well (265–304). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural language and linguistic theory, 14, 305–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M. 1998. Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity. Causative constructions in English. [Current issues in Linguistic Theory 166]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., & Faber, P. 2002. Functional Grammar and lexical templates. In R. Mairal Usón, & M. J. Pérez (Eds.), New perspectives on argument structure in Functional Grammar (39–94). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U. 2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (355–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Perek, F. 2014. Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and synonymy: Corpus methods and applications in cognitive linguistics (61–85). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015. Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar. Experimental and corpus-based perspectives [Constructional Approaches to Language 17]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perek, F. & Lemmens, M. 2010. Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: the case of a constructional split” CogniTextes [on-line] Volume 5/2010 Available at [URL]. Last accessed on 1 October 2014. DOI logo
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. 1998. Building verb meanings. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (97–134). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gonzálvez, F. 2011. Constructional integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 17, 191–208.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. L. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, T. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2). 385–396.Google Scholar
Van der Leek, F. 1996. The English conative construction: a compositional account. In L. M. Dobrin, K. Singer, & L. McNair (Eds.). CLS 32: The main session (363–378). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar