1、 本科毕业论文 （ 20 届） The study of V-O-V structure 所在学院 专业班级 英语 学生姓名 学号 指导教师 职称 完成 日期 年 月 0 Contents Abstract.1 Introduction.3 1. Construction Grammar.3 1.1 Goldbergs Construction Grammar.4 1.2 Langackers Cognitive Grammar.6 1.3 Forces Dynamics in Language.7 1.3.1 Talmys Version of Force Dynamics.7 1.3.2
2、Crofts Version of Dynamic Forces.11 1.4 Summary.12 2. The Meaning of V-O-V Construction and Serial Causation.12 2.1 Intentional Agentive Causation.12 2.2 Experience Event in VOV Construction .18 Conclusion.18 Reference.19 1 摘要 在英语和汉语中存在轴心结构（ VOV）例如买酒喝， let me know。这种结构的典型特征是两个动词和共享某个论元。但这种结构的构式地位并没有
3、确定。构式语法认为构式是语言的基本单位。本研究就是意图说明 VOV 结构可以被看作是一个独立结构。本研究包括四个部分。首先介绍研究的背景框架和研究的问题。 其次，回顾构式语法方案，如 Goldberg 的构式， Langacker 的认知语法和 William Croft 和 Talmy 的动态力语义框架。 之后，从构式语法和动态力概念框架对轴心结构进行分析。 最后得出结论， VOV 是表达施事致使链概念关系的复合构式。 【 关键词 】认知语法；轴心构式；动态力 2 Abstract In Mandarin Chinese and English, Pivotal construction (
4、VOV) such as 买酒喝 , let me know, is a typical structure in Chinese and English. The typical features of VOV structure consist of two verbs and shared argument. According to Construction grammar, construction is the basic component. However in the classical literature of Construction Grammar, VOV patt
5、ern is less treated. This research focuses on how VOV structure works as an independent structure in a Construction Grammar perspective. The first part will introduce the background, outline and research question. In the second part, Goldbergs Construction Grammar, Langackers Cognitive Grammar and C
6、roft and Tamlys force dynamics in language will be introduced. The key point is that construction in itself indicates the conceptual meaning. In the third part, VOV structure will analyzed. It mainly involves what verbs tend to appear in the VOV structure, and in what way VOV structure can be descri
7、bed in terms of Construction Grammar. In the fourth part, the conclusion will be made. The VOV structure is a complex construction which indicates the agentive serial causation. Key Words construction grammar; pivotal construction; force dynamics 3 The Study of V-O-V Structure Introduction In Constr
8、uction Grammar, the criteria of construction or the independent component of language is unpredictable, highly frequent and general(Goldberg 2003). According to this criteria, VOV structure should be regarded as a construction. However, In the Goldbergs literature, VOV structure is not explained in
9、a very clear way. Consider the following examples: (1) 买酒喝 (2) 借钱花 (3) Let me leave. (4) Have your hair cut. In the examples, we can find that VOV structure consists of two verbs and shared argument. However, the shared argument does not play the same role in different verb expressions. In 1), 2) an
10、d 4), shared argument is the patient in two verbs. However, in 3) the shared argument is the patient while it is the agent in the second verb. Then the question emerges. How does shared argument in VOV structure behave? Besides, In a VOV structure there are two verbs. In 1) and 2) the event expresse
11、d by two verbs show the time gap. That is to say, the first verb events temporally appears before the second verb event. However, in 3) and 4) the second verb is the content of the first verb event. The temporal concept does not work here. Then the second question is: what relation is formed between
12、 two verbs in the VOV structure. This thesis consists of four parts. The second part will review the Cognitive Grammar approach. In the third part, the VOV structure will be analyzed in order to make clear how shared argument behave and how two verbs are combined. In the fourth part, the conclusion
13、is made. VOV construction indicates the temporal concept in a typical way. However, atypical example is also found. 1. Construction Grammar 4 Construction grammar can be understood in two ways. The small letters version such as construction grammar refers to all the linguistic theoretical framework
14、which presume that form and function paring is basic unit of language. This type of construction includes Cognitive Grammar(Langacker 1987; 1991; 1999; 2009), Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001), Kay and Fillmores(1999) Grammatical Construction. The capital-letter version such as Construction
15、Grammar refers to Goldbergs Construction. 1.1 Goldbergs Construction Grammar Construction Grammar is proposed by Goldberg (1995; 2003; 2006). According to Goldberg, construction is the basic linguistic unit of language. Goldberg (2003) define construction as stored pairings of form and function, inc
16、luding morphemes, words, idioms, partially lexically filled and fully general linguistic patterns, as is shown in the following table. Table1. Examples of constructions, varying in size and complexity; form and function are specified if not readily transparent Construction Form/Example Function Morp
17、heme e.g. anti-, pre-, -ing Word e.g. Avocado, anaconda, an Complex word e.g. Daredevil, shoo-in Idiom (filled) e.g. Going great guns Idiom (partially filled) e.g. Jog ksomeonesl memory Covariational-Conditional The Xer the Yer (e.g. The more you think about it, the less you understand) linked indep
18、endent and dependent variables Ditransitive SubjVObj1(double-object) Obj2 (e.g. He gave her a Coke; He baked her a muffin) transfer (intended or actual) Passive Subj aux VPpp (PPby) to make undergoer topical 5 (e.g. The armadillo was hit by a car) and/or actor nontopical Construction varies in size
19、and complexity. Therefore we can find that in Table 1, morpheme, word and idiom can be treated as construction. In terms of form, morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning while the ditransitive consists of at least four words which is a pattern. The reason that all of them are treated in the same wa
20、y is the criteria proposed by Goldberg. The criteria on construction is general, highly frequent and unpredictable. general means that the construction does not refer to any concrete thing in reality but category. Take the word dog for example. Generally speaking, it can be used to refer to all kind
21、s of dogs. highly frequent means that work is used in language use in the frequent way. frequent is correspondent with general. Take the ditransitive construction for example. This construction is very popular in English so that many verbs can get access to it. unpredictable refer to the meaning of
22、construction cannot be the complete result of the combination of the other two units. Take the idiom kick the bucket for example. In fact, when we see the idiom in the first time, we cannot predict its meaning die. One of the most influential proposals of Construction Grammar is that construction as
23、 a formal pattern indicates the abstract meaning. Consider the following example: (5) a. Liza bought a book for Zach. b Liza bought Zach a book. (6) a. Liza sent a book to storage. b. Liza sent Stan a book. c. ?Liza sent storage a book. In (5a), for indicates that Zach is the recipient of a book. Ho
24、wever in (5b), although we understand it in the same way, there does not exist the for word which is used to indicate who is the recipient. The reality indicates that the ditransitive pattern in itself indicates the transfer meaning. Similarly, in (6a), to indicates entity moves to the place. In (6b
25、), the motion is indicated by the ditransitive pattern. (6c) indicates that only SVO1O2 is acceptable while SVO1O2 is unacceptable. However, once it is proposed 6 that structural construction indicates meaning, the theory has to explain how words and structural meaning correspondent with each other
26、in the sentence production and comprehension. 1.2 Langackers Cognitive Grammar Different from Construction Grammar, Langackers Cognitive Grammar treats language in terms of encyclopedic knowledge, which domain is used to refer to. Domain is the whole experiential gestalt which is not the combination
27、 of its components. Figure 1: Edgar Rubins facevase illusion In Figure 1(cf. Kaul & Bahrami, 2008), we can recognize the alternative pictures of face and vase. In this condition, the figure in itself does not change. What dives us to the alternative understanding of the identical picture is our mind
28、. In this case, the different pictures come from attention differences. When the figure turns out to be vase, we pay attention to the black part. When the figure turns out to be two faces, we pay attention to the white parts in the figure. Talmy(2000: 312) defined the attention or figure-ground shif
29、t as follows: “The figure is a moving or conceptually movable entity whose path, site, or orientation is conceived as a variable, the particular value of which is the relevant issues. The ground is a reference entity, one that has a stationary setting relative to a reference frame, with respect to w
30、hich the Figures path, site, or orientation is characterized The attention shift or figure-ground shift can be reflected in the linguistic components and categories. Consider the following example: (7) a. Rocks filled the box. b. The river flowed alongside the mountain range. In (7a), rocks function
31、s as the figure while the box functions as the ground. The 7 reason is rocks move while the box keeps static. In (8a) the river functions as the figure while (7b) functions as the ground. The reason is the same. In Cognitive Grammar, attention is treated as general ability which is used to interpret
32、 how linguistic categories are formed. Consider the following examples: (9) a. Yellow is a warm color (noun) b. the yellow paper (adjective) c. The paper yellowed (verb) d. The yellowed paper (particle) In (9a), yellow is profiled as a particular kind of thing, which is captured by our visual sensat
33、ion. In (9b), yellow works to establish and profile the relation between a thing and the color space. In (9c), yellow profiles a process in which a thing gradually changes and enters into the active zone. In (9d), although yellow profiles the same process with that in (9c), finally what is profiled
34、is the relation between the thing and the color space. In the definition of linguistic categories, we can find that the different categories refer to the same content. What is different only lies on different construals. However, in the interpretation of linguistic, we not only face the vision exper
35、ience but also the somatic motion and physical movement. That is to say, what encyclopedic knowledge is construed by verb should be explained. Dynamic force is one of the theories which applies to the explanation for argument structure dominated by verbs. 1.3 Forces Dynamics in Language In argument
36、structure, the core issue is how the entity interaction is expressed in language. In Cognitive Linguistics, force dynamics is applied to explain how entities interact in terms of force (Talmy, 2000: 413). There are two versions of dynamic forces framework for explaining the argument structure. They
37、are respectively Talmys (2000) and Crofts (in press) versions. 1.3.1 Talmys Version of Force Dynamics In Talmys version of force dynamics, there are two force entities: agonist and antagonist. The two force entities operate in two forces tendency: toward action and toward rest. In dynamic processes,
38、 the force impinged by the two entities varies according to the situation. The comparative relation of two entities are stronger and 8 weaker entities. Figure 2: Illustration of force dynamics (Talmy, 2000: 414) The interactional result of two shows either action or rest. The physical force can be t
39、reated as a basic event template, which can be reflected in linguistic expressions. Consider the following examples (Talmy, 2000: 416): (10) a. The ball kept rolling because of the wind blowing on it. b. The shed kept standing despite the gale wind blowing against it. c. The ball kept rolling despit
40、e the stiff grass. d. The log kept lying on the incline because of the ridge there. In (10a), the wind drives the ball to move. The wind is agonist while the wind is antagonist. The force impinged on the ball by the wind is stronger than the blockage from the ground impinged on the ball. Therefore the resultant effect shows action, as is illustrated in Figure 3 (Talmy, 2000: 415)
