Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:31:37.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Richard met CG: reference-point and English copy-raising*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2016

CHONGWON PARK  and
DANIEL TURNER
CHONGWON PARK
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota Duluth
DANIEL TURNER
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota Duluth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop a Cognitive Grammar-based analysis of English Copy-raising (CR) constructions such as Richard seems like he is dancing. We argue that the notion of reference-point plays a crucial role in licensing the matrix-subject of the construction. In CR, with the epistemic verbs seem and appear, the matrix-subject functions as a reference-point in relation to the pronominal copy (if a copy exists) in the embedded clause. The aboutness topicality of the matrix-subject in CR is expected, owing to its reference-point property. The epistemic CR construction is acceptable without a pronominal copy if the matrix-subject functions as a reference-point in relation to the complement clause. The same type of analysis is applied to the CR construction with perceptual resemblance (PR) verbs – sound, look, feel, and smell – leading to the conclusion that the strong dichotomy between epistemic and PR verbs is illusory. It is further demonstrated that expletive there-raising in CR is motivated by the same reference-point phenomenon. The difference between there-raising and other CR examples stems from the role of there as a setting subject. Our reference-point-based analysis predicts a metonymic interpretation of the matrix-subject, which we attribute to the connection between reference-point and metonymy.

Keywords

Cognitive Grammarcopy-raisingperceptual resemblance verbsperceptual sourcereference-point
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 473 - 500
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Asudeh, A. (2002). Richard III. In Andronis, M., Debenport, E., Pycha, A., & Yoshimura, K. (Eds.), CLS 38: the main session vol. 1 (pp. 31–46). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. (2005). Control and semantic resource sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 41(3), 465–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, A. (2012). The logic of pronominal resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, A., & Toivonen, I. (2006). Expletives and the syntax and semantics of copy-raising. In Butt, M. & King, T. H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference (pp. 13–29). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A., & Toivonen, I. (2007). Copy-raising and its consequences for perceptual reports. In Zaenen, A., Simpson, J., King, T. H., Grimshaw, J., Maling, J., & Manning, C. (Eds.), Architectures, rules, and preferences: variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan (pp. 49–67). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A., & Toivonen, I. (2012). Copy-raising and perception. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30(2), 321–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In Barcelona, A., Benczes, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: toward a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds.) (2011). Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: toward a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, E., & Flickinger, D. (1999). Diachronic evidence for extended argument structure. In Bouma, G., Hinrichs, E. W., Kruijff, G.-J. M., & Oehrle, R. T. (Eds.), Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and semantics (pp. 3–19). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1978). Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darzi, A. (1996). Word order, NP-movements, and opacity conditions in Persian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D., & Dubinsky, S. (2004). The grammar of raising and control: a course in syntactic argumentation. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déprez, V. (1992). Raising constructions in Haitian creole. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10, 191–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, T. (2005). Cycle, linearization of chains, and multiple case checking. In Blaho, S., Vicente, L., & Schoorlemmer, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of Console XIII (pp. 39–65). Leiden: Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Fujii, T. (2007). Cyclic chain reduction. In Corver, N. & Nunes, J. (Eds.), The copy theory of movement (pp. 291–326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Peirsman, Y. (2011). Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy. In Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C. (1994). Layers of predication. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1981). A pragmatic approach to certain ambiguities. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 321–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A. (2011). Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 359–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (2008). Quantitative methods in linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Kaplan-Myrth, A. (2000). The movement rule formerly known as Richard. Unpublished ms, Yale University.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-B. (2014). English copy-raising constructions: argument realization and characterization condition. Linguistics, 52(1), 167–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumashiro, T., & Langacker, R. W. (2003). Double-subject and complex predicate constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K., & Michaelis, L. (1998). Sentence accent in information questions: default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21(5), 477–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2009). This construction looks like a copy is optional. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 343–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2011). Predication vs. aboutness in copy-raising. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29(3), 779–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991a). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991b). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1995). Raising & transparency. Language, 71(1), 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). Concept, image and symbol. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2011). On the Subject of Impersonals. In Brdar, M., Gries, S. Th., & Fuchs, M. Ž. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: convergence and expansion (pp. 179–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S. (1984). Predication and raising. In Jones, C. & Sells, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 14 (pp. 236–252). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Mack, J. E. (2010). Information structure and the licensing of English subjects. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J., & Sells, P. (1988). Control and A-chains in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 143–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. (1998). Turkish copy-raising and A-chain locality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16(1), 149–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, C. (2011). The role of metonymy in the interpretation of Korean multiple subject constructions, Language Sciences, 33(1), 206–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1974). On raising: one rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1988). Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 635–679.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E., & Runner, J. T. (2001). Richard returns: copy-raising and its implications. In Andronis, M., Ball, C., Elston, H., & Neuvel, S. (Eds.), CLS 37: the main session vol. 1 (pp. 453–468). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. (1971). Three kinds of physical perception verbs. In Adams, D., Campbell, M. A., Cohen, V., Lovins, J., Maxwell, E., Nygren, C., & Reighard, J. (Eds.), Papers from the seventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 206–222). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. (1972). Another look at flip perception verbs. In Levi, J. N., Peranteau, P. M., & Phares, G. C. (Eds.), Papers from the eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 303–315). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. (1973). Physical perception verbs in English: a study in lexical relatedness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. (1974). A transderivational constraint on Richard? In La Galy, M. W., Fox, R. A., & Bruck, A. (Eds.), Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 551–558). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Barcelona, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: toward a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2010). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: an informal synopsis. In Boas, H. and Sag, I. A. (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psycholinguistics: introduction to its perceptual, neuronal, and social prospects. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1996). Possessives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ura, H. (1998). Checking, economy and copy-raising in Igbo. Linguistic Analysis, 28(1/2), 67–88.Google Scholar
van Hoek, K. (1995). Conceptual reference-points: a cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 11(2), 310–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hoek, K. (1997). Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar