Pretense constructions in English and Urdu: The case of the inchoative and middle constructions
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article compares the inchoative and middle constructions in two typologically separate languages, English and Urdu. These constructions, which are closely related, have been discussed in formal and functional accounts of language, mainly with respect to English. They have not received much attention in Cognitive Linguistics, much less in cross-linguistic terms. In this regard, the present article shows that the cognitive and cross-linguistic perspectives can combine fruitfully to cast additional light on the usage constraints of these constructions, which determines their meaning potential. The choice of Urdu and English is significant. English is an accusative language, whereas Urdu is a split-ergative language that combines features of ergative and accusative languages. This difference definitely affects the way in which the inchoative and middle constructions are handled by language users. In addition, understanding the motivation behind this aspect of language use is central to our understanding of the nature of these constructions and how they relate. The inchoative and middle constructions are a type of pretense constructions, i.e., those involving the re-construal of states, situations, and events (Ruiz de Mendoza & Miró, 2019), which are often motivated by such phenomena as metaphor and metonymy. The crosslinguistic study of the examples in both languages has allowed us to search for the principles that underlie the expressions. The analysis, besides contributing to the understanding of conceptual differences between English and Urdu, has identified and accounted for relevant constraining factors that stem from typological differences (e.g., use of light verbs in Urdu) and grammatical constraints (e.g., promotion of an element depends on the prominence of its enabling condition in Urdu). The point of convergence has always been the pretense nature of the constructions.
Downloads
Article Details
An open-access CREATIVE COMMONS copyright license is used. Those authors whose works are published by this journal, accept the following terms:
- Authors will retain their copyright and guarantee the Journal the right to first publish their work, which will simultaneously be subject to the Creative Commons Recognition License CC BY SA that allows third parties to share the work, provided that its author and first publication is indicated.
- Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the published version of the work (e.g., deposit it in an institutional telematics file or publish it in a monographic volume) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
- Authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work over the Internet (e.g. in institutional telematics files or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase quotes of the published work.
Funding data
-
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
Grant numbers PID2020-118349GB-I00
References
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer (2006). The properties of anti-causatives crosslinguistically. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (pp. 187-211). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.4.187
Barcelona, Antonio (2008). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In C. Alm-Arvius, N. Johannesson, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival (pp. 3-42). Stockholm University Press.
Barcelona, Antonio (2009). The motivation of construction meaning and form. The roles of metonymy and inference. In K-U Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 363-401). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.22bar
Boas, Hans Charles. (2010). The syntax–lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 54-82. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.24.03boa
Butt, Miriam (1993). The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. [Unpublished dissertation]. Stanford University.
Butt, Miriam & Wilhem Geuder (2001). On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs. In N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The function of content words and the content of function words (pp. 323-370). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874006.323
Chierchia, Gennaro (2004). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 22-59). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002
Coon, Jessica (2013). Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858743.001.0001
Davidse, Kristin & Liesbet Heyvaert (2007). On the middle voice: An interpersonal analysis of the English middle. Linguistics, 45(1), 37-83. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.002
Dik, Simon (1997). The theory of functional grammar: The structure of the clause. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218367.fm
Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896
Enghels, Renata & Marie Comer (2018). Evaluating grammaticalization and constructional accounts: The development of the inchoative construction with put verbs in Spanish. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 107-136). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c5
Fagan, Sarah (1988). The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 181-203. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178586
Fagan, Sarah (1992). The syntax and semantics of middle constructions. Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327-356. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022
Goldberg, Adele (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser (1988). Explaining and constraining the English middle. In C. Tenny (Ed.), Studies in generative approach to aspect. Lexicon Project Working Papers (pp. 41-57). Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Halliday, Michael & Christina Matthiessen (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd revised edition). Edward Arnold. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771
Haspelmath, Martin (1993). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. Causatives and transitivity, 23, 87-121. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.23.05has
Haspelmath, Martin (2016). Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale. Lingua Posnaniensis, 58(2), 33-63. https://doi.org/10.1515/linpo-2016-0009
Haspelmath, Martin (2019). Ergativity and depth of analysis. Rhema Рема, 4, 108-130. 10.31862/2500-2953-2019-4-108-130
Hook, Peter (1991). Emergence of perfective aspect in Indo-Aryan languages. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 59-89). John Benjamins.
Kachru, Yamuna (2006). Hindi. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.12
Keyser, Samuel Jay & Thomas Roeper (1984). On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic inquiry, 15(3), 381-416.
Kemmer, Suzzane (1993). The middle voice. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 77-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9058-9
Kövecses, Zoltán & Günter Radden (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37-77. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed pp. 202-251). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books.
Levin, Beth (1993). English verb classes and alternations. The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth (2015). Semantics and pragmatics of argument alternations. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 63-83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport-Hovav (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax lexical-semantics interface. MIT Press.
Luzondo, Alba (2011). English resultative constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model: Implications for constructional modeling within a lexical conceptual knowledge base [Unpublished dissertation] Universidad de La Rioja, Spain.
Mahajan, Anoop (2017). Accusative and ergative in Hindi. In J. Coon, D. Massam, & L. D. Travis (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford University Press.
Masica, Colin (1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge University Press.
Maldonado, Ricardo (2009). Middle as a basic voice system. In L. Guerrero S. Ibáñez, V. Belloro (Eds.), Studies in role and reference grammar. Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, México, UNAM.
http://ricardomaldonado.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/6/3/2763410/maldonado-rrg2007_final_review.pdf [retrieved online 29 July 2021].
McGregor, William (2009). Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 480-508. 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00118.x
Mohanan, Tara (1994). Argument structure in Hindi. CSLI Publications.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333-360). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, & Günter Radden (Eds.) (2011). Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27
Peña, Sandra (2015). A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs. Linguistics, 53(6), 1247-1302. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0032
Piñón, Chirstopher (2001). A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), SALT Xl (pp. 346-364). Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v11i0.2858
Polinsky, M. (2016). Deconstructing ergativity: Two types of ergative languages and their features. Oxford University Press.
Radden, Günter, & René Dirven (2007). Cognitive English grammar. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin (2012). Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In M. Everaert, M. Marelj & T. Siloni (Eds.), The Theta system: Argument structure at the interface (pp. 150-76). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0006
Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2014). Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua, 141, 8-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.006
Rosca, Andreea (2012). How conceptual structure impinges on constructional behavior: The case of "give" verbs. Revista de Filología Inglesa, 33, 301-320.
http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/17256
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José (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). John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Lorena Pérez (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321-357. 10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Lorena Pérez (2004). High-level modal metonymies in English and Spanish. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 103-120.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Olga Díez (2004). High-level action metonymies in English and Spanish. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 121-138.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José, & Ricardo Mairal (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.05rui
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José, & Annalisa Baicchi (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95-128). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198843
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Sandra Peña (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). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.15rui
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Alicia Galera (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Alba Luzondo (2016). Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 8, 32-58. 10.1017/langcog.2014.41
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Ignasi Miró (2019). On the cognitive grounding of agent-deprofiling constructions as case of pretense constructions. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 573-589. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17006.men
Sweetser, Eve (1988). Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 389-405. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774
Van Valin, Robert (1980). On the distribution of passive and anti-passive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua, 50, 303-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90088-1
Yoshimura, Kimihiro & John Taylor (2004). What makes a good middle? The role of qualia in the interpretation and acceptability of middle expressions in English. English Language and Linguistics, 8(2), 293-321. 10.1017/S136067430400139X