Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English

<span class='sc'>abstract</span>

This paper investigates the role played by motion in the conceptualization of result in the English resultative and caused-motion constructions. We argue that there is a strong preference for the figurative use of caused motion to express a state change when the affected entity experiences a complete transformation. However, if the affected entity acquires a new property but retains its essence, an adjectival phrase is preferred. Another category encompasses figuratively exploited resultatives that formally employ the caused-motion construction, but semantically do not codify the same kind of change. The paper also discusses the motivating role of the metaphor A CHANGE OF STATE IS A CHANGE OF LOCATION to express result, and proposes the additional activity of other high-level metaphors and metonymies.

Corresponding author
*Addresses for correspondence: and
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

G. M. L. Bencini , & A Goldberg . (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640651.

H Boas . (2005). Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: a reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language, 81(2), 448464.

H Boas . (2008). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113144.

H Boas . (2011). Coercion and leaking argument structure in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 12711303.

M. Fried , & J.-O Östman . (2004). Construction Grammar: a thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 1186). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

A Goldberg . (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219224.

A. Goldberg , & R Jackendoff . (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532568.

F. Gonzálvez-García , & C Butler . (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 3996.

J Grady . (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267290.

S Iwata . (2006). Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a lexical constructional account: the case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases. Language Sciences, 28(5), 449496.

Z. Kövecses , & G Radden . (1998). Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 3777.

G Lakoff . (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

G Lakoff . (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

R. W Langacker . (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

R. W Langacker . (2009). Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 167176.

A Luzondo . (2014). Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 3063.

S Peña . (2008). Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 10411066.

S. Peña , & F Ruiz de Mendoza . (2009). The metonymic and metaphoric grounding of two image-schema transformations. In K. Panther , L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339361). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

F Ruiz de Mendoza . (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes , A. Barcelona , & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: towards a consensus view (pp. 103124). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

F Ruiz de Mendoza . (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. 231270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

F. Ruiz de Mendoza , & R Mairal . (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. 3349). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

F. Ruiz de Mendoza , & S Peña . (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. 251280). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

F. Ruiz de Mendoza , & L Pérez . (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321357.

A. Stefanowitsch , & S Gries . (2003). Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209243.

R. Van Valin , & R LaPolla . (1997). Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 34 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 151 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.