Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Fake Reflexive ResultativesFootnote^*

* We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their feedback. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [Grants numbers FFI2011-29798-C02-01 and FFI2013-43593-P].

References

• Aaarts B et al 2004 Fuzzy Grammar: a reader Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baicchi A 2007 ‘The high-level metaphor in the caused-motion construction’ Paper presented at the workshop ‘Bridging the gap between functionalism and cognitivism. The Lexical Constructional Model’ Societas Linguisticae Europea. University of Joensuu, 28 August.
   Google Scholar
• Bergh G & E Zanchetta 2008 ‘Web linguistics’ in A Lüdeling & M Kytö (eds) Corpus Linguistics: an international handbook Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 309–327.
   Google Scholar
• Boas HC 2000 Resultative constructions in English and German PhD thesis, University of North Carolina.
   Google Scholar
• Boas HC 2003 A Constructional Approach to Resultatives Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Boas HC 2005 ‘Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: a reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff’ Language 81(2): 448–464. doi: 10.1353/lan.2005.0050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boas HC 2010 ‘The syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: a case study of English communication verbs’ Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24: 54–82. doi: 10.1075/bjl.24.03boa
   Google Scholar
• Boas HC 2011 ‘A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: the case of build verbs’ in P Guerrero (ed.) Morphosyntactic Alternations in English London: Equinox. pp. 207–234.
   Google Scholar
• Broccias C 2003 ‘Quantity, causality and temporality in change constructions’ in PM Nowak et al (eds) Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: general session and parasession on phonetic sources of phonological patterns Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society. pp. 67–78.
   Google Scholar
• Broccias C 2004 ‘The cognitive basis of adjectival and adverbial resultative constructions’ Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2: 103–126. doi: 10.1075/arcl.2.04bro
   Google Scholar
• Christie E 2011 ‘Investigating the differences between the English way-construction and the fake reflexive resultative construction’ in L Armstrong (ed.) Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association Available at http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2011/Christie_2011.pdf accessed 24 November 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Díez OI 2002 ‘Body part metonymies in action and perception frames: a cognitive analysis’ EPOS XVIII: 309–323.
   Google Scholar
• Dik SC 1997 The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: the structure of the clause K Hengeveld (ed.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Eggins S 2004 An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics London & New York: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg A 1995 A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg A 2006 Constructions at Work: the nature of generalization in language Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg A 2013 ‘Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates’ Mind and Language 28(4): 435–465. doi: 10.1111/mila.12026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg A & R Jackendoff 2004 ‘The English resultative as a family of constructions’ Language 80(3): 532–568. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzálvez-García F 2009 ‘The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: towards a usage-based constructionist analysis’ Language Sciences 31(5): 663–723. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grône M 2014 Les resultatives de l’anglais: une étude de leur syntaxe et de leur productivité à l'aune de la sémantique lexicale et de la pragmatique PhD thesis, University of Paris 7, Diderot.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday MAK 1967 ‘Notes on transitivity and theme in English, 2’ Journal of Linguistics 3(2): 199–244. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700016613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday MAK 1994[1985] An Introduction to Functional Grammar 2nd edition London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday MAK & C Matthiessen 2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Hasan R 1987 ‘The grammarian’s dream: lexis as most delicate grammar’ in MAK Halliday & RP Fawcett (eds) New Developments in Systemic Linguistics: theory and description London: Pinter. pp. 184–211.
   Google Scholar
• Hopper P 1988 ‘Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate’ in D Tannen (ed.) Linguistics in Context: connecting observation and understanding Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp. 117–134.
   Google Scholar
• Iwata S 2006 ‘Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a Lexical Constructional Account: the case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases’ Language Sciences 28: 449–496. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehoe A & M Gee 2007 ‘New corpora from the web: making web text more “text-like”’ Volume 2 Towards Multimedia in Corpus Studies Available at http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/02/kehoe_gee/ accessed 17 July 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kilgarriff A & G Grefenstette 2003 ‘Introduction to the special issue on the Web as corpus’ Computational Linguistics 29(3): 333–347. doi: 10.1162/089120103322711569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff G 1993 ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’ in A Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought 2nd edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 202–251.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff G 1996 ‘Sorry, I’m not myself today: the metaphor system for conceptualizing the Self’ in G Fauconnier & E Sweetser (eds) Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 91–123.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker RW 1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: theoretical prerequisites Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker RW 2005 ‘Construction grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so’ in FJ Ruiz de Mendoza & MS Peña (eds) Cognitive Linguistics: internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 101–159.
   Google Scholar
• Levin B 1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations: a preliminary investigation Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levin B 2006 English object alternations. A unified account Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Levin B & M Rappaport 1990 ‘Wiping the slate clean: a lexical-semantic exploration’ Cognition 41: 123–151. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90034-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin B & M Rappaport 1995 Unaccusativity: at the syntax-lexical semantics interface Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levin B & M Rappaport 2005 Argument Realization Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levin B & M Rappaport 2006 ‘Constraints on the complexity of verb meaning and VP structure’ in HM Gaertner et al (eds) Between 40 and 60 Puzzles for Krifka Berlin: ZAS. Available at http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/material/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka/pdf/levin_and_rappaport.pdf accessed 25 May 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Luzondo A 2011 English resultative constructions in the lexical constructional model: implications for constructional modeling within a lexical conceptual knowledge base Unpublished PhD thesis, University of La Rioja, Logroño.
   Google Scholar
• Matthiessen C 2014 ‘Extending the description of process type within the system of transitivity in delicacy based on Levinian verb classes’ Functions of Language 21(2): 139–175. doi: 10.1075/fol.21.2.01mat
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaelis L 2003 ‘Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning’ in H Cuykens et al (eds) Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 93–122.
   Google Scholar
• Mondorf B 2011 ‘Variation and change in English resultative constructions’ Language Variation and Change 22: 397–421. doi: 10.1017/S0954394510000165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morley B 2006 ‘WebCorp: a tool for online linguistic information retrieval and analysis’ in A Renouf & A Kehoe (eds) The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 283–296.
   Google Scholar
• Müller S 2002 Complex Predicates: verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German Stanford, California: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Panther KU & L Thornburg 2000 ‘The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar’ in A Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 215–232.
   Google Scholar
• Peña MS 2009 ‘Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction’ Language Sciences 31: 740–765. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2009.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez L 2009 ‘Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla’ Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 40: 62–92.
   Google Scholar
• Pérez L & MS Peña 2009 ‘Pragmatic and cognitive constraints on lexical-constructional subsumption’ ATLANTIS 31(2): 57–73.
   Google Scholar
• Rappaport M & B Levin 1998 ‘Building verb meanings’ in M Butt & W Geuder (eds) The Projection of Arguments Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. pp. 97–134.
   Google Scholar
• Rappaport M & B Levin 2001 ‘An event structure account of English resultatives’ Language 77: 766–797. doi: 10.1353/lan.2001.0221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rappaport M & B Levin 2010 ‘Reflections on manner/result complementarity’ in E. Doron et al (eds) Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 21–38.
   Google Scholar
• Renouf A 2003 ‘WebCorp: providing a renewable data source for corpus linguists’ in S Granger & S Petch-Tyson (eds) Extending the Scope of Corpus-based Research: new applications, new challenges Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 39–58.
   Google Scholar
• Renouf A et al 2004 ‘The accidental corpus: some issues in extracting linguistic information from the web’ in K Aijmer & B Altenberg (eds) Advances in Corpus Linguistics: papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23) Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 403–419.
   Google Scholar
• Renouf A et al 2007 ‘Webcorp: an integrated system for web text search’ in M Hundt et al (eds) Corpus Linguistics and the Web Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 47–68.
   Google Scholar
• Rosca A 2012 Bases for the development of ontological semantics within the conceptual domains of change and possession. Implementations and implications for the lexico-syntactic-cognition interface and the development of intelligent agents Unpublished PhD thesis, University of La Rioja, Logroño.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ 2008 ‘Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: the case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions’ in S De Knop & T De Rycker (eds) Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 121–152.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & OI Díez 2004 ‘High-level action metonymies in English and Spanish’ Jesikoslovlje 4: 121–138.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & A Luzondo 2012 ‘Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English’ in M Brdar et al (eds) Cognitive Linguistics between Universality and Variation Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 117–136.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & R Mairal 2008 ‘Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model’ Folia Linguistica 42(2): 355–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & R Mairal 2011 ‘Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model’ in P Guerrero (ed.) Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: functional and cognitive perspectives London/Oakville: Equinox. pp. 62–82.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & L Pérez 2001 ‘Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints, and interaction’ Language and Communication 21: 321–357. doi: 10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson J 1983 ‘Resultatives’ in L Levin, M Rappaport & A Zaenen (eds) Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. pp. 143–158.
   Google Scholar
• Van Valin RD Jr 2005 Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler S 2005 ‘Resultatives under the event-argument homomorphism model of telicity’ in N Erteschik-Shir & T Rapoport (eds) The Syntax of Aspect: deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 255–273.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler S 2015 Word Meaning and Syntax: approaches to the interface Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar