Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:1 (2014) ► pp.30–63

Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions

 | Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED, Madrid)
Drawing on the assumptions made in Construction Grammar(s), the present proposal addresses the debate between formulating broad-scale generalizations of the type postulated by Goldberg (1995) or finer-grained analyses, heavily based on lexical-class identification, as those put forward by Boas (2010, 2011), who claims that Goldberg’s account leads to the over-generation of ungrammatical examples. The position taken here is that, although Goldberg’s theory has largely overlooked the role of verb meaning(s), generalizations in the form of constraints are still necessary to build a fully principled account of lexical-constructional fusion. Taking the family of resultative constructions as a case study, I employ the analytical tools (i.e. the apparatus of so-called internal and external constraints on constructional integration) developed by the Lexical Constructional Model in order to show that a fine-nuanced description can go hand in hand with the postulation of macro-generalizations.
Keywords: Lexical Constructional Model, resultative constructions, lexical-constructional fusion, Construction Grammar(s), constraints, metonymy, metaphor
Published online: 23 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.1.02luz
References (87)
Alonso Ramos, M. (2002). Colocaciones y contorno en la definición lexicográfica. Lingüística Española Actual , 24(1), 63–96.Google Scholar
Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language , 431, 640–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar and simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergh, G. (2005). Min (d)ing English language data on the Web: What can Google tell us? ICAME Journal , 291, 25–46.Google Scholar
Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E. (2008). Web linguistics. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 309–327). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives . Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2005). Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to 
Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language , 81(2), 448–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007). Construction Grammar in the twenty-first century. English Language and Linguistics , 11(3), 569–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a). Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics , 61, 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010). Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics , 241, 54–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011). Coercion and leaking argument structure in Construction Grammar. Linguistics , 49(6), 1271–1303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 233–354). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broccias, C. (2003). The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2009a). Criteria of adequacy in functional linguistics. Folia Linguistica , 43(1), 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C. S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 117–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005). Logical and typological arguments for radical construction grammar. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Schryver, G.-M. (2002). Web for/as corpus: A perspective for the African languages. Nordic Journal of African Studies , 11(2), 266–282.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause . 2nd edition by K. Hengeveld. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 13–70).  Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Faber, P., & Mairal, R. (1999). Constructing a lexicon of English verbs . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J. O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (Eds.). (2002). Meaning and universal grammar . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1991). A semantic account of resultatives. Linguistic Analysis , 21(1–2), 2–96.Google Scholar
1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005). Constructions, lexical semantics and the Correspondence Principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspects (pp. 215–254). Oxford: 
Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics , 20(1), 93–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010). Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics and event structure (pp. 39–58). 
Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language , 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Suttle, L. (2010). Construction Grammar. Interdisciplinary Reviews : Cognitive Science , 11,1-10.Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. B., & Markman, A. B. (2009). Constructional sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Linguistics , 20(4), 675–702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2008). Construction Grammar works: An interview with Adele E. 
Goldberg. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics , 61, 345–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009). The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis. Language Sciences , 31(5), 663–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012). La (s) Gramática (s) de Construcciones. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano 
& J. Valenzuela Manzanares (Eds.), Lingüística Cognitiva (pp. 249–280). Barcelona: 
Anthropos.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C. S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics , 41, 39–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics , 8(4), 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S. (2006a). Where do constructions come from?. English Linguistics , 23(2), 493–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006b). Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a lexical constructional account: The case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases. Language Sciences , 28(5), 449–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008). The locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures . Cambridge: MIT-Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language , 75(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Goldberg, A. E. (1989). Master metaphor list. Compilation . University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991a). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991b). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003a). Constructions in Cognitive Grammar. English Linguistics , 201, 41–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b). Explanation in Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Grammar. In J. Moore & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp. 239–261). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2005). Construction Grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation . Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Faber, P. (2002). Functional Grammar and lexical templates. In R. Mairal & M. J. Pérez Quintero (Eds.), New perspectives on argument structure in Functional Grammar (pp. 41–98)Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2005). Decomposing semantic decomposition: towards a semantic metalanguage in RRG. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 279–308). Taipei, Taiwan: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2007). Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics , 51, 137–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2010). Verbos y construcciones en el espacio cognitivo-funcional del siglo XXI. In V. Álvaro, J. Francisco, & M. C. Horno Chéliz (Eds.), La gramática del sentido: Léxico y sintaxis en la encrucijada. Conocimiento, lenguaje y comunicación, 3 (pp. 123–152). Zaragoza : Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza .Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. (1989). Semantic primitives from the viewpoint of the Meaning-Text linguistic theory. Quaderni di Semantica , 10(1), 65– 102.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I., Clas, A., & Polguère, A. (1995). Introduction à la lexicologie explicative et combinatoire . Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Meyer, C. (2006). Corpus Linguistics, the World Wide Web, and English language teaching. Ibérica , 121, 9–21.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2005). Resultative constructions: Syntax, world knowledge, and collocational restrictions. Studies in Language , 29(3), 651–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2003). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, 
R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). 
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, S. (2009). Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences , 31(6), 740– 765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Periñán, C. (2013). Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural language understanding. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 205–230). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments (pp. 97–134). CSLI Publications: Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Richter, M., & van Hout, R. (2010). Why some verbs can form a resultative construction while others cannot: Decomposing semantic binding. Lingua , 120 (8), 2006–2021. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2001). Lingüística cognitiva: Semántica, pragmática y construcciones. Clac , 8 1[online]. Available at: [URL].  Google Scholar
2007). High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Luzondo, A. (2012). Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Zic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Between universality and variation (pp. 117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: 
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp. 33–49). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica , 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London, UK/ Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, S. (2008). Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish. In M. A. Gómez González, J. L. Mackenzie & E. M. González-Álvarez 
(Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 251–280). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication , 211, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor & Symbol , 26(3), 1–25.Google Scholar
Saurenbach, H. (2008). Secondary-predicate constructions in English: From a critique of small clauses to a construction-grammar Account . VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. (2005). The syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: An introduction to Role and Reference Grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R., & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function . Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1955). Philosophical investigations . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2017. Chapter 5. Exploring inter-constructional relations in the constructicon. In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Peña Cervel, María Sandra
2017. Chapter 6. Revisiting the English resultative family of constructions. In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José, Alba Luzondo Oyón & Paula Pérez Sobrino
2017. Introduction. In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gyselinck, Emmeline & Timothy Colleman
2016. Tracking shifts in the literal versus the intensifying fake reflexive resultative construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
RUIZ DE MENDOZA-IBÁÑEZ, FRANCISCO & ALBA LUZONDO-OYÓN
2016. Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition 8:1 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Luzondo-Oyón, Alba & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez
2015. Argument structure constructions in a Natural Language Processing environment. Language Sciences 48 ► pp. 70 ff. DOI logo
Mairal-Usón, Ricardo
2015. Constructional meaning representation within a knowledge engineering framework. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.