Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 32:2 (2019) ► pp.573–589

On the cognitive grounding of agent-deprofiling constructions as a case of pretense constructions

 | University of La Rioja
 | University of La Rioja
Agent-deprofiling constructions have the function of drawing the language user’s attention to the non-agentive elements of a predication, while endowing one of these elements with agent-like qualities. Members of this family are the inchoative, middle, instrument-subject, location-subject, and cause-subject constructions. These constructions have been discussed in the literature, especially in projectionist accounts of language, without adequately accounting for their relatedness, which in our view can best be done by investigating their grounding in cognition. The present article addresses this issue by considering agent-deprofiling constructions as belonging to the class of what we term pretense constructions. Pretense constructions provide non-descriptive, or re-construed, representations of states, situations, or events. Because of their re-construed nature, which involves metaphor and/or metonymy, in these configurations there is no one-to-one match between the semantic and syntactic functions of their elements. We discuss how this reorganization of the semantic and syntactic function of constructional elements produces specific meaning implications that can be motivated by underlying metaphoric and metonymic shifts, sometimes working in cooperation.
Keywords: agent-deprofiling constructions, constructional family, pretense constructions, metaphor, metonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is not a pretense construction
  • 3.The inchoative and middle constructions
  • 4.The instrument-subject construction
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 5 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17006.men
References (43)
References
Broccias, C. (2003). The English change network. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The cognitive basis of adjectival and adverbial resultative constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 103–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Towards a history of English resultative constructions: the case of adjectival resultative constructions. English Language and Linguistics, 12(1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S., & F. Gonzálvez. (2014). Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1980). Studies in Functional Grammar. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1997). [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)] The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (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 to language. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & R. Jackendoff. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez, F. (2009). The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 311, 663–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1967). Some Universals of Grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 73–75). London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd revised edition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Iwata, S. (2008). Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kageyama, T. (1997). Denominal verbs and relative salience in lexical conceptual structure. In T. Kageyama (Ed.), Verb semantics and syntactic structure (pp. 45–96). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. 2nd edition (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1998). Morphology and lexical semantics. In A. Zwicky, & A. Spencer (Eds.), Handbook of morphology (pp. 248–271). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2003). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, M. S. (2015). A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs. Linguistics, 53(6), 1247–1302.Google Scholar
(2016). Cognitive mechanisms underlying fake reflexive resultatives. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 36(4), 502–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (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 and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2017b). Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 30(1), 297–322.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google 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
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & 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
(2016). Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 81, 32–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Cognitive model types and the constructicon. Antares, 10(20), 50–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., Luzondo, A., & Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2017). Constructing families of constructions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Peña, S. (2008). Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish. In M. A. Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie, & E. M. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 251–280). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 107–138). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse and cognition. In M. Hickmann, & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in language: linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 60–81). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a Cognitive Semantics. 21 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1980). On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua, 501, 303–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: an introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Amaral, Luana, Fernando Oliveira & Cândido Oliveira
2023. The Meaning of Inchoative se in Brazilian Portuguese: A Replication of Lundquist et al.’s (2016) Experiment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 52:6 ► pp. 2567 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.