構(gòu)式構(gòu)式語法經(jīng)典名著ConstructionsAConstructionGrammarApproachtoArgumentStructure

1、構(gòu)式 - 構(gòu)式語法經(jīng)典名著 Constructions - A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure 1995C o n s t r u c t i o n s Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture A series edited by Gillcs Fauconnier. George Lakoff, and Eve Sweetser C o n s t r u c t i o n s A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Struc

2、ture Adele E. Goldberg The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London A dele E. G oldberg is assistant professor o f linguistics at the University or California, San Diego. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London K 1995 by The University of Ch

3、icago All rights reserved. Published 1995 Printed in the United Stales of America 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 95 5 4 3 2 1 ISBN cloth : 0-226-30085-4 ISBN paper : 0-226-30086-2 Library of Congress Cataloging- in-Publication Data Goldberg, Adele E. Constructions : a construction grammar approach to ar

4、gument structure / Adele E. Goldberg. p. cm. Cognitive theory of language and culture Originally presented as the author's thesis Ph.D. University of California, 1992. Includes bibliographical references p. and index. ISBN 0-226-30085-4 cloth . ISBN 0-226-30086-2 pbk. I. Grammar, Comparative and

5、 general Syntax. 2. Semantics. 3. Generative grammar. 1. Title. II. Series. P29I.G65 1995 4 15 dc20 94-20705 CIP ? The paper used in this publication meets he minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Scicnccs Pcrmancncc of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.4

6、8-1984. This book is printed on acid-free paper. ToAli Contents Acknowledgments ix t Introduction 1.1 T he C oncept o f C on stru ctio n s I 1.2 A B rief In troduction to C o n stru ctio n G ram m ar 6 1.3 A n A lternative A ccount: L exico sem an tic R ules 7 1.4 A dvantages o f the C onstruction A

7、 ccount 9 1.5 T raditional M otivations for L exical R ules 21 2 The Interaction between Verbs and Constructions 24 2.1 Fram e sem antics 25 2.2 T he N ature o f V erb M eaning 27 2.3 T he N ature o f C onstru ctio n al M eaning 31 2.4 T he Integration o f Verb and C o n stru ctio n 43 2.5 Possible

8、R elations betw een V erbs and C o n stru c tio n s 59 2.6 C onclusion 66 3 Relations am ong Constructions 67 3.1 R elevant P sychological P rin cip les o f L ang u ag e O rg an izatio n 67 3.2 M otivation 69 3.3 R epresenting M otivation by Inheritan ce 72 3.4 R elating P articular C o n stm ctio n

9、 s 81 3.5 M ultiple Inheritance 97 3.6 In heritance w ithin C o n stru c tio n s 98 3.7 C onclusion 99 4 On Linking 10 4.1 T ran sfo rm atio n al A ppro ac hes o f A rgum ent S tructure 101 4.2 G eneralizatio n s acro ss C on stru ctio n s 108 4.3 C o nclusion 119 5 Partial Productivity 120 5.1 Intr

10、oduction 120 5.2 Indirect N egative E vidence 122 5.3 C ircu m scrib in g V erb C lasses 125 5.4 E xceptions 129 5.5 A ccounting for the E xceptions: A U sage-based A ccount 133 5.6 C onclusion 139 v ii viii Contents 6 The English Ditransitive Construction 14 I 6.1 Introduction 141 6.2 The Existence

11、 of the Construction 141 6.3 The Semantics 142 6.4 Conclusion 151 7 The English Caused-Motion Construction 152 7.1 Introduction 152 7.2 The Existence of the Construction 153 7.3 The Various Interpretations 161 7.4 Semantic Constraints 164 7.5 The Load/Spray Alternation 17 7.6 Conclusion 179 8 The En

12、glish Resultative Construction 180 8.1 Introduction 180 8.2 The Status of the Postverbal NP 182 8.3 Middle Formation 183 8.4 Other Accounts 18 8.5 The Existence of a Resultative Construction 188 8.6 Constraints on the Resultative Construction 193 8.7 Conclusion 198 9 The Way Construction 199 9.1 Int

13、roduction 199 9.2 The Existence of the Construction 199 9.3 The Semantics of the Way Construction 202 9.4 Semantic Constraints 212 9.5 The Lexical Complex Predicate Approach 214 9.6 Relation to Resultatives 21 9.7 Conclusion 217 10 Conclusion 219 10.1 Other Constructional Approaches 219 10.2 Summary

14、 224 Notes 229 Bibliography 243 Index 261 Acknowledgments This book grew out of my Ph.D. thesis Goldberg 1992b , which was completed at the University of California, Berkeley. An enormous debt is owed to my advisor, George Lakoff, for his wisdom, enthusiasm, and encourage- ment, his ever-ready examp

15、le and counterexample, and for sharing his time and his deep insights with incredible generosity. I'd like to thank Charles Fillmore for instilling in me a deep respect for the complexities of the data, and for sharing his wisdom. His enduring insights have profoundly influenced this work in inn

16、umerable ways. I m also grateful for his spearheading the development of the theory of Construction Grammar, on which the present work is based. Work in Construction Grammar includes, for example, Fillmore, Kay and O 'C onnors analysis of the let alone and the more, the m errier constructions 19

17、88 , Brugmans analysis o f have constructions 1988 , Kays work on even 1990 , the “ What, me worry?” construction of Lambrecht 1990 . and Sweet- sers analysis of modal verbs 1990 . Construction Grammar is also developed in Rllm ore 1985b, 1987. 1988. 1990 , Fillmore & Kay 1993 , Filip 1993 , Jur

18、afsky 1992 , Koenig 1993 , and Michaelis 1993 . The present work owes its greatest debts to Lakoff's in-depth study of there constructions 1984 and to Fillmore 1987 , who suggested that the meaning of an expression is arrived at by the superimposition of the meanings of open class words with the

19、 mean- ings of grammatical elements. Im grateful to Dan Slobin for his encouragement and guidance, and for providing a reality check on the plausibility of psychological claims. In the final stages of writing my dissertation, I was fortunate enough to work closely with Annie Zaenen. 1 am immensely g

20、rateful for her advice, her many leads to relevant literature, and for our many interesting and helpful discussions, which have deeply influenced my work. Other members of the Berkeley faculty contributed in countless ways to my education. Eve Sweetser tirelessly read and offered valuable comments o

21、n many papers; Paul Kay provided much helpful input, and was consistently will- ing to lend an ear and a critical eye; Robert Wilensky offered many helpful discussions and some wonderful data. Len Talmy was always willing to discuss all manner of ideas. Visitors Don Forman, Knud Lambrecht, M inoko N

22、akau, IX x Acknow ledgm ents Frederika Van der Leek, and Robert Van Valin offered different perspectives and very helpful discussions. Id like to offer personal thanks to Claudia Brugman. Michele Emanatian, Hana Filip, Jean-Pierre Koenig, and Laura Michaelis for support o f every kind, including cou

23、ntless enlightening discussions on topics related to almost every aspect of this monograph. Im also grateful to Jess Gropen, Beth Levin. Steve Pinker, and Ray Jackendoff, for theirown inspirational work and for their help- ful feedback and discussion. During the writing and rewriting of this manuscr

24、ipt, I was able to spend a good deal of time at Berkeley, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Stanford, and the University of California. San Diego, so there are many people to thank for very helpful suggestions and discussions, including Farrell Ackerman, Joan Bresnan, Tony Davis, Jane Espenson, Gille

25、s Fauconnier. Joe Grady, Marti Hearst, Kyoko Hirose, Rolf Johnson, Dan Jurafsky. Suzanne Kemmer, Yuki Kuroda, Ron Langacker, Maarten Lemmens, John Moore, Terry Regier, Hadar Shem-Tov, Eve Clark, Cleo Condoravdi, Mark Gawron, Jess Gropen, Geoff Nunberg, Ivan Sag, Tom Wasow, Ali Yazdani, and Sandro Zu

26、cchi. Several UCSD students carefully read the manuscript and made very helpful sugges- tions, particularly Kathleen Ahrens, Michael Israel, and Bill Morris. For help preparing the manuscript I would like to thank Kathleen Ahrens, Bill Byrne, and Nitya Sethuraman. Finally, for editorial assistance I

27、 thank Geoff Huck and Karen Peterson, and for the most careful, well-informed copy-editing 1 could have imagined, I thank Christine Bartels. Excerpts o f this book first appeared, in different form, as articles or book chapters. I thank the publishers for permission to include revised material from:

28、 “The Inherent Semantics of Argument Structure: The Case o f the English Ditransitive Construction,” Cognitive Linguistics 3 l :3 7 -7 4 , 1992; “A Se- mantic Account o f Resultatives,” Linguistic Analysis 2 1 :6 6 -9 6 , 1991; “ It Cant Go Down the Chimney Up: Paths and the English Resultative,” BL

29、S 17; “ M aking O nes Way Through the Data,” in A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, and P. Sells eds. , Complex Predicates, CSLI Publications, forthcoming; “Another Look at Some Learnability Paradoxes,” in Proceedings o f the 25th Annual Stanford Child Language Research Forum. CSLI Publications. For providing fi

30、nancial support, comfortable offices, and stimulating envi- ronments, Id like to thank the Sloan Foundation, who funded the Cognitive Science Institute at Berkeley, the International Computer Science Institute 1CSI , the Center for the Study of Language and Information CSLI , and Xerox PARC. A cruci

31、al debt is owed to my family: my mom, Ann Goldberg, for being a voice of reason on topics related to this monograph and on all others; my sib- Acknow ledgm ents xi lings, Ken Goldberg and Elena Goldberg Man, and my grandparents. Harry and Birdie Goldberg and Rose Wallach, for their consistent loving

32、 support, and just for being themselves. I am also deeply grateful to the memory of my father, Melvin Goldberg, for his unparalleled courage, curiosity, and compassion. Finally, I am immensely grateful to Ali Yazdani, for always being there, even though there have been many miles between us. This bo

33、ok is dedicated to him. 1 Introduction i.i Th e C o n c e p t o f C o n s t r u c t io n s What is it children learn when they learn to speak a language? What is the nature of verb meaning and what is its relation to sentential meaning? How and 10 what extent are novel utterances based on previously

34、 learned utterances? Those questions are addressed here through a study of basic sentence typc.s the “ simple sentences” of traditional grammarians. A central thesis of this work is that basic sentences of English are instances o f constructions form -m eaning correspondences that exist independentl

35、y of particular verbs. Fhat is. it is argued that constructions themselves carry meaning, indepen- dently of the words in the sentence. The notion construction has a time-honored place in linguistics. Traditional grammarians have inevitably found it useful to refer to properties of particular constr

36、uctions. The existence of constructions in the gram m ar was taken to be a self-evident fact that required little commcnt. In the early stages of transfor- mational grammar Chomsky 1957, 1965 , constructions retained their central role, construction-specific rules and constraints being the norm. In

37、the past two decades, however, the pretheoretical notion of construction has come under attack. Syntactic constructions have been claimed to be epiphenomenal, arising solely from the interaction of general principles Chomsky 1981, 1992 ; the rejection of constructions in favor o f such general princ

38、iples is often assumed now to be the only way to capture generalizations across patterns. At the same time, the rising tide of interest in semantic and pragmatic prop- erties has led to a renewed focus on the idiosyncratic properties of particular sentence patterns cf. Levin 1993, for example . In o

39、rder to reconcile the theo- retical desire for construction-independent principles with the empirical neces- sity of recognizing pattern-specific properties, all such idiosyncratic properties have been attributed to individual lexical items, lexical entries being the last refuge of the idiosyncratic

40、. There is no question that a large amount of information is contributed by individual lexical items cf. chapters 2 and 5 . However, in this work it is ar- gued that an entirely lexically-based, or bottom-up, approach fails to account for the full range of English data. Particular semantic structure

41、s together with their associated formal expression must be recognized as constructions inde- pendent of the lexical items which instantiate them. i 2 Chapter O ne This monograph thus represents an effort to bring constructions back to their rightful place on center stage by arguing that they should

42、be recognized as theoretical entities. Single-clause patterns hold a special interest because these cases clearly lie at the heart o f any theory o f grammar. If it can be shown that constructions are essential to a description of the domain of simple clauses, then it must be recognized that constru

43、ctions are crucial to the description of lan- guage. Chapters 3 and 4 argue that empirical generalizations across construc- tions can in fact naturally be captured within a construction-based framework. Another goal of this monograph is to explicate the semantics associated with particular clausal p

44、atterns. The semantic properties to be discussed must be accounted for by any framework, regardless of where the semantics is encoded or what ones assumptions about the lexicon and syntax are. It has long been recognized that differences in complement configuration arc often associated with differen

45、ces in meaning. For example, the dilransitive re- quires that its goal argument be animate, while the same is not true of para- phrases with to: 1 a. I brought Pat a glass of water, ditransitive b. I brought a glass of water to Pat. 2 a. *1 brought the table a glass o f water, ditransitive b. I brought a glass of water to the tabic. Partee 1965:60 Fillmore 1968, fn. 49 noted that sentences such as the following differ i