Effect Before Cause

How Content Affects Form

in Cognitive Semantics
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

In the present study, I look at a regularity first observed in Talmy (2000: 483), who showed that in sentences describing sequences of events of the cause-and-effect type, effect events take precedence over causes. They tend to be mentioned first in a sentence, and grammatical patterns exist where cause events cannot be expressed before effects. I use Talmy’s observation to argue against an excessive emphasis on idiosyncrasy of grammatical constructions. Specifically, I will show that the effect-over-cause precedence visible at sentence level, applies especially well, on a smaller scale, to clauses, constraining the range of forms that constructions can take. Thus, the form of constructions is determined by factors like viable arrangements of events within a clause and the metaphoric grounding of meanings that a given construction conveys. Such constraints result in striking convergences between constructions in different languages.

Effect Before Cause

How Content Affects Form

in Cognitive Semantics

Sections

References

BlažekV.2001. Indo-European Prepositions and Related Words. In Sborník prací Filosofické fakulty Brněnské university1532. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

BoileauD.1840. The Nature and Genius of the German Language Displayed In a More Extended Review of Its Grammatical Forms Than Is To Be Found in any Grammar Extant. London: Jonathan Wacey.

BrozV.2013. Aspectual properties of the verbal prefix a- in Old English with reference to Gothic. In DiewaldG.Kahlas-TarkkaL. & Wischer I.(eds.) Comparative Studies in Early Germanic Languages: With a focus on verbal categories. Volume 138 of Studies in Language Companion Series. 235262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

GoldbergA. E.1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

GoldbergA. E.2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. trends in Cognitive Sciences7219224.

GoldbergA. E.2006. Constructions At Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GoldbergA. E. & JackendoffR.2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions . Language80: 532–568.

GötzingerM. W.1839. Die deutsche Sprache und ihre Literatur. Stuttgart: Hoffmann’sche Verlag-Buchhandlung.

HartmannS. & HölzlA. (to appear). Prefixation and Force Dynamics: A Usage-Based Approach to German Prefix Constructions. Selected Papers from the 5th uk-cla Conference.

HeineB.2001. Ways of explaining possession. In I. Baron M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.) Dimensions of possession. 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

HewsonJ. & BubenikV. 2006. From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

JackendoffR.1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press.

JackendoffR.2002. English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In DehéN.JackendoffR.McIntyreA. & UrbanS. (eds.) Verb-Particle Explorations.6794. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

KolbeC. W.1818. Über den Wortreichtum der deutschen und französischen. Sprache und beider Anlage zur Poësie nebst anderen Bemerkungen Sprache und Litteratur betreffend. Zweite ganz umgearbeitete Ausgabe. Berlin: In der Realschulbuchhandlung.

KraheH.1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. iii Wortbildungslehre.Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

LakoffG. & JohnsonM. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

LampertG. (to appear). Cognitive semantics between composition and emergence: A cognitive semantics re-reading of the way-construction. Cognitive Semantics.

LevinB. & Rappaport HovavM.1994. Unaccusativity At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

LiF.DuJ. & WolffP.2015. The linguistic representations of causing events and caused events in narrative discourse. Cognitive Semantics14576.

PiagetJ. 1954. The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic.

PinkerS.1995. Language Acquisition. In GleitmanL. R. & Liberman (eds.)M.An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Language (Volume 1).135182. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

RaddenG.2003. How metonymic are metaphors? In BarcelonaA. (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective.93108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

SenghasA.KitaS. & ÖzyürekA.2004. Children creating core properties of language: evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305: 17791783.

SonnenhauserB.2012. Zirkumstantielle modalität im Bairischen: das verbale präfix der-. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 79: 6588.

SzcześniakK.2008. Manner of obtainment as a relative in a family of resultative constructions. Constructions 1: 131.

SzcześniakK.2013. You can’t cry your way to candy: Motion events and paths in the x’s way construction. Cognitive Linguistics 24: 159194.

SzcześniakK.2014. The Meaning of Constructions. The Cognitive Denial of the Lexicon-Syntax Division. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

TalmyL.2000. Toward A Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

TraugottE. C. & TrousdaleG.2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WierzbickaA. 2006. English. Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 18 18 5
Full Text Views 12 12 9
PDF Downloads 2 2 1
EPUB Downloads 3 3 1