Mariana Neagu University of Galaţi HIGH LEVEL METAPHOR AS A MOTIVATING FACTOR IN THE CAUSED-MOTION CONSTRUCTION Mariana Neagu University of Galaţi The XII th International Conference Cognitive Modeling in Linguistics, Dubrovnik, Croatia, September 7-14, 2010

CONTENTS (I) Introduction 1. Constructions: definition, characteristics, types 2. The caused-motion construction: form and semantics 3. Related senses associated with the caused-motion construction

CONTENTS (II) 4. The issue of ‘fusion’ 4.1. Goldberg’s approach 4.2. The Lexical Constructional Model (LCM ) approach 5. High level metaphors in grammar Conclusions

Introduction I Aim to examine sentences that illustrate metaphorical uses of the caused-motion construction in English. to use the analytical and explanatory tools developed by The Lexical Constructional Model (Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal, 2007; Mairal and Ruiz de Mendoza 2008, 2009) in the analysis of the integration of lexical items within the caused motion construction

Introduction II Motivation 1. Figurative uses of the caused-motion construction are not discussed extensively and systematically in the literature. 2. Learners of typologically different languages (e.g. English and Romanian) often fail to make frequent & good use of the caused-motion construction (probably because constructions in L2 can be obscured by constructions existing in L2)

1. Constructions: definition, characteristics, types (I) - the term ‘construction’ in Construction Grammar: a broadening of the traditional notion - the basic unit of linguistic knowledge - the non-predictability criterion

1. Constructions: definition, characteristics, types (II) “Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction as long as some aspect of its form or function is not strictly predictable from its component parts or from other constructions recognized to exist.” (Goldberg, 2003: 219) - constructions are language-specific (Croft, 2001) ->they must be learned

1. Constructions: definition, characteristics, types (III) Cognitive Grammar theories sustain that constructions are the basic language units that children acquire when learning how to speak a language

Constructions: definition, characteristics, types (IV) Types of constructions: In terms of schematicity/abstractness, constructions can be: - fully lexicaly filled (e.g. idioms) - partialy lexically filled (e.g. the let alone construction) - fully schematic (the caused-motion construction)

1. Constructions: definition, characteristics, types (V) Goldberg’s (1999) classification of argument structure constructions: Intransitive: Pat sneezed. Cognate object: Pat sneezed a a terrible sneeze. Resultative: She sneezed her nose red. Caused-motion: She sneezed the foam off the capuccino. Way construction: She sneezed her way to the emergency room.

2. The Caused-Motion Construction: form and semantics (I) - a construction common to satellite-framed languages but almost inexistent in verb-framed languages - its form: [SUBJ [V OBJ OBL]] (Goldberg (1995). OBL->a directional prepositional phrase (1) They laughed the poor guy out of the room. (2) Frank sneezed the tissue off the table. (3) Mary urged Bill into the house. (4) They sprayed the paint onto the wall. (5)Lily coaxed George under the table.

2. The caused-motion construction: form and semantics (II) X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z : the basic sense The causer argument (X) causes the theme argument (Y) to move along a path indicated by the directional prepositional phrase (Z) (6) The cow shouldered Sam to the ground. (7) She blew the dust off the picture. (8) The wind blew Mary’s hair into her eyes. (9) George tickled Jane off the sofa (with a feather duster) (10) *The feather duster tickled Jane off the sofa.

2. Extended senses from the basic sense (I) 1. Conditions of satisfaction entail ‘X causes Y to move Z’: (11) Sally implored Jane into the shop. 2. ‘X enables Y to move Z’ (12) They let Allen into their hotel room.

2. Extended senses from the basic sense (II) 3. ‘X prevents Y from moving Comp(Z)’ (13) Lily barricaded him into the kitchen. 4. ‘X helps Y to move Z’ (14) Helen guided Allen through the cold empty streets.

4. The issue of ‘fusion’ (I) Fusion = the process whereby a verb’s participant roles are integrated with a construction’s argument roles Goldberg’s approach - > the conditions that the construction imposes on lexical meaning for a lexical predicate to be a candidate for incorporation into the caused-motion construction.

4. The issue of fusion (II) The Lexical Constructional Model (LCM) approach (Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal, 2008) fusion = a cognitive process, regulated by: Internal constraints: metalinguistic units encoded in a lexical representation External constraints: high-level metaphors and metonymies A high level metaphor accounts for the adaptation of the lexical meaning of the verb to the constructional meaning

5. High-level metaphor in grammar (I) Grammatical phenomenon Example Metaphor Change of transitivity type He talked me into business COMMUNICATIVE ACTION IS EXPERIENTIAL ACTION Nominalization We couldn’t prevent the destruction of the town by the enemy EVENTS ARE OBJECTS Conversion of a verb into an idiomatic phrase They gave the thug a big beating ACTIONS ARE TRANSFERS

5. High level metaphor in grammar (II) Grammatical phenomenon Example Metaphor Use of the object construction to express states She has a lot of fear STATES ARE POSSESSIONS

5. 1 Real motion without motion verbs (I) (15) They laughed the poor guy out of the room.   (16) Sam frightened Bobby under the bed. (17) The students shouted him out of the lecture hall. (18) She winked him into her bedroom.

5. 1 Real motion without motion verbs (II) (19) a. The firefighters coaxed the man down from the roof. b. Sam lured him into the room. c.*Sam convinced/persuaded him into the room. d. Sam convinced/ persuaded me to go into the room.

5.2 Figurative motion indicating a change of state (20) He drank himself into a stupor. (21) Peter loved Mary back into life. (22) She drove me into a depression. (23) How will he get us out the quagmire of war?

5.3 METAPHORICAL MAPPINGS IN THE CAUSED-MOTION CONSTRUCTION (I) AN EXPERIENTIAL ACTION IS EFFECTUAL ACTION (24) a. They kicked the poor guy out of the room. (kick = an instrumental predicate) b. They laughed the poor guy out of the room. (laugh = a goal-oriented activity predicate) The ‘instrumental’ element in the SOURCE corresponds to the ‘manner’ element in the TARGET - > the Correlation Principle (Ruiz de Mendoza and Santibanez, 2003) (25) The boss scorned the employee into a depression.

5.3 METAPHORICAL MAPPINGS IN THE CAUSED-MOTION CONSTRUCTION (II) COMMUNICATIVE ACTION IS EFFECTUAL ACTION (26) He talked me out of the room. (subcategorial conversion of the verb ‘talk’) (27) The firefighters coaxed the man down from the roof. (the receiver of the message = the affected entity)

5.3 METAPHORICAL MAPPINGS IN THE CAUSED-MOTION CONSTRUCTION (III) AN ACTIVITY IS AN EFFECTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENT (28) He drank himself into a stupor. He drank her under the table. AN EMOTIONAL STATE IS AN EFFECTUAL ACTION (29) Peter loved Mary back into life. (30) He loved him into death.

Conclusions (I) 1. Figurative uses of the caused-motion construction: motion involved only when the conditions of satisfaction of the predicate are met literal, actual motion without motion verbs metaphorical motion

2. Arguments of the caused-motion construction: Conclusions (II) 2. Arguments of the caused-motion construction: the causer argument ( the X element) -> the subject’s “force-emitting” properties. the theme argument (the Y element): linguistically realized as a human entity in most cases. the path argument (the Z element) tends to be axiologically negative when the lexical semantic information attached to the verb contains indications of specific negative aspects

4. High level metaphors operate at the lexico-grammatical level. Conclusions (III) 3. Lexical constructional integration of non-motion verbs - constrained by high level metaphors. 4. High level metaphors operate at the lexico-grammatical level. 5. High level metaphor is the motivating factor underlying the following types of conversion:

Conclusions IV a. an activity predicate into a causative accomplishment predicate (e.g. laugh) b. an intransitive verb to a goal-directed verb (e.g. talk) c. a state predicate into an activity predicate (e.g. love)

Selected References (I) Boas, Hans Christian. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford CSLI publications. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Mairal, Ricardo and Pamela Faber. 2007. Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics (5), 137- 172.

Selected References (II) Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Ricardo Mairal Uson. 2007. High level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In Radden, G., Kopcke K., Berg T. and P. Siemund. eds. Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 33-51 Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José and Ricardo Mairal Usón. 2008. Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model.” Folia Linguistica vol. 42(2), 355-400.

THANK YOU!