Academic Scientific JournalsLexical factors in non-finite complementation of continue
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26881/bp.2022.1.02Keywords:
non-finite complementation, aspectual verbs, construction grammar, lexical aspect, distinctive collexeme analysisAbstract
The study examines the usage of two non-finite complements of the verb continue: the -ing form and the to-infinitive, arguing for the importance of low level generalizations in accounting for the complement choice. The semantic import of complement constructions may vary with specific lexeme classes of both the matrix verb and the complement verb, as well as be conditioned by more general features associated with the verbs’ lexical aspect. The determinants of complement choice are characterized in terms of the aspectual construal of the complement event imposed by the two alternative constructions: conceptual proximity and distance associated respectively with the -ing form and the to-infinitive. The study relies on distinctive collexeme analysis: a statistical technique which compares the lexemes distinctive for the two constructions in order to describe the semantics of the construction by examining its most characteristic collocates.
Downloads
References
Croft, William (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, Mark (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 410+million words, 1990-present. Available at http://www.americancorpus.org
De Smet, Hendrik (2013). Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. New York: OUP.
Duffley, Patrick J. (2006). The English Gerund-participle: A Comparison with the Infinitive. New York: Peter Lang.
Duffley, Patrick, Ryan Fisher (2021). “To-infinitive and gerund-participle clauses with the verbs dread and fear”. Studia Linguistica 75/1: 72–96.
Egan, Thomas (2008). Non-finite Complementation. A Usage-based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi.
Givon, Talmy (1993). English Grammar. A Function-based Introduction. Vol 2. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Glynn, Dylan (2014). “Techniques and tools. Corpus methods and statistics for semantics”. In Dylan Glynn, Justyna A. Robinson (eds.). Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 307–341.
Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.
Gries, Stefan Th. (2014). Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute collostructional analyses.
Gries, Stefan Th., Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004). “Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on 'alternations'”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9/1: 97–129.
Hamawand, Zeki (2004). “Determinants of complement clause variation in English”. English Studies 5: 451-464.
Hilpert, Martin (2014). “Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements”. In Dylan Glynn, Justyna A. Robinson (eds.). Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 391–404.
Hilpert, Martin (2021). Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Kaleta, Agnieszka (2014). English Sentential Complementation. A Usage-based Approach. Piotrków Trybunalski: Naukowe Wydawnictwo Piotrkowskie.
Langacker, Ronald (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Noël, Dirk (2003). “Revisiting the passive of infinitival perception verb complements”. Studia Neophilologica 75: 12–29.
Perek, Florent (2014). “Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction”. In Dylan Glynn, Justyna A. Robinson (eds.). Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 61–86.
R Core Team (2018). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at https://www.R-project.org/
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, Stefan Gries (2003). “Collostructions: investigating the interaction between words and constructions”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8/2: 209–243.
Vendler, Zeno (1957). “Verbs and times”. The Philosophical Review 66/2: 143–160.
Verspoor, Marjolijn (1997). “The story of -ing: A subjective perspective”. In Martin Pütz, Rene Dirven (eds.) The Construal of Space in Language and Thought. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 417–454.
Verspoor, Marjolijn (1999). “To infinitives”. In Leon de Stadler, Christoph Eyrich (eds.) Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: 1993 Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 505–526.
Verspoor, Marjolijn (2000). “Iconicity in English complement constructions: Conceptual distance and cognitive processing levels”. In Kaoru Horie (ed.), Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 199-225.
