Chapter I Introduction
1.1 Research Motivation
The cause-to-move construction1is pervasive in human language. It is not only alinguistic concept, but an embodied experience of human beings as well. Before a child canspeak, he is able to make some simple actions, such as grasp, give, push, knock and so on.Then later, he can realize causative relations primarily. When he pushes a toy, he knows hecan change its location. If he does not need the toy, he will give it to others and then itspossession changes. The child constructs a primary concept of action earlier, and then theconcept of causation.The cause-to-move construction represents the relationship that the object has thetendency of moving from its original location along some certain path because of the action ofthe causer. As a construction which is associated with our embodied experience, thecause-to-move construction is worthwhile for us to study. As Shibatani says, “One simplereason causative constructions have been the subject of many recent linguistic controversies isthat they have quite a few important theoretical implications and that they have beeninstrumental in the development of new grammatical theories” (Shibatani 1976: 3). Althoughmany studies have been conducted on English cause-to-move construction, there are stillsome untouched regions left for us.
……..
1.2 A Brief Introduction to the Cause-to-Move Construction
According to Goldberg (1995: 4), “a distinct construction is defined to exist if one ormore of its properties are not strictly predictable from knowledge of other constructionsexisting in the grammar”.As one of the causative constructions, the cause-to-move construction bears somefeatures of the causative constructions and has its own features as well. Shibatani (1976)notices that “defining the causative construction is not an easy matter” (Shibatani 1976: 1).The easiest way to define the causative construction is “perhaps by way of characterizing thesituation, which may be called the causative situation that the construction expresses”(Shibatani 1976: 1). Two events can be said to constitute a causative situation: “a. The relation between the two events is such that the speaker believes thatthe occurrence of one event, the ‘caused event’, has been realized at t2, which isafter t1, the time of the ‘causing event’.b. The relation between the causing and the caused event is such that thespeaker believes that the occurrence of the caused event is wholly dependent on theoccurrence of the causing event; the dependency of the two events here must be tothe extent that is allows the speaker to entertain a counterfactual inference that thecaused event would not have taken place at that particular time if the causing eventhad not taken place, provided that all else had remained the same” (Shibatani 1976:1-2).
…………
Chapter II Literature Review
2.1 Studies of English Cause-to-Move Construction at Home
In most of the linguistic studies conducted by Chinese scholars, Chinese cause-to-moveconstruction is usually treated as their analyzing subjects. That is to say, Chinesecause-to-move construction includes ba-construction with directional complements such as“chu (出), jin (进), lai (来), qu (去), xiang (向) and wang (往)”, and some of the permissivecausative construction taken with “shi (使), jiao (叫), rang (让)”, is usually analyzed in theirstudies (范晓 2000；陈昌来 2001；潘艳艳、张辉 2005). However, English cause-to-moveconstruction is also discussed by some linguists in China.Under the influence of cognitive studies, the domestic studies of English cause-to-moveconstruction are mainly conducted from a cognitive perspective. For example, Chen Junfang(2009) points out that the syntactic structure of English cause-to-move construction is asingle-verb structure, and only one event is involved in typical English cause-to-moveconstruction. Chen Quanxian (2007) puts forward that the cause-to-move constructionoriginates from the driven-motion schema, and the driven-motion schema consists of thecausing sub-event and the caused sub-event from event-structure perspective. Xiong Xueliangand Liang Xiaobo (2003) state that on syntactical level, the agent in a cause-to-moveconstruction is schematized as the Subject, the causative action is schematized as thecausative verb, and the patient is schematized as the direct Object. Li Qiuzhi (2007) analyzesthe prototype of the concept of caused-motion, which make some efforts to understandEnglish cause-to-move construction. She claims that the prototypical notion of caused-motionis that a human Causer carries out a physical and perceptible change of location in aninanimate physical object Theme by means of direct manipulation, whereas in thenonprototypical concept of caused-motion the Theme’s change of location happens innonphysical world.
………
2.2 Studies of English Cause-to-Move Construction Abroad
Many linguists abroad have analyzed English cause-to-move construction. Most of thesestudies are based on cognitive theories. The cognitive studies of English cause-to-moveconstruction are mainly conducted from three perspectives, namely Image Schema,Conceptual Semantics, and Construction Grammar. The first part of this section will beginwith the Force-Dynamic Schema proposed by Talmy (1985). Talmy (1985) puts forward the Force-Dynamic Schema and discusses the relationsbetween semantic elements and surface elements in a motion event. A motion event has fourinternal components and two external components. The four internal components of a motionevent are named as Figure, Ground, Path, Motion, and the two external ones are named asManner and Cause.Talmy (1985) also states that in a motion-sentence pattern, the verb expresses both themotion and its manner or its cause, and divides the motion into “Move + Manner” and “Move+ Cause” patterns. For example, “The rock rolls down from the top of the hill” is an instanceof the “Move + Manner” pattern, and “I threw the ball into the net” belongs to the “Move +Cause” pattern. Talmy (1985) also claims that a single verb can be used either with or withoutthe conception of motion. For example, if the meaning of kick in “I move the ball across thefield, by kicking it” is kick1, and the meaning of kick in “I kick the ball across the field” iskick2, then kick2= move + by kicking1.
……….
Chapter III Theoretical Framework .... 15
3.1 The Principles of the Cognitive Functional Model .......... 15
3.2 Relational Networks........ 17
3.3 The Components of Relational Networks of the Cognitive Functional Model.......... 24
3.4 Summary .... 31
Chapter IV An Analysis of English Cause-to-Move Construction ..... 33
4.1 The Components of the Relational Networks of English Cause-to- MoveConstruction ...... 33
4.2 The Relational Networks of English Cause-to-Move Construction...... 38
4.3 Semantic Properties of English Cause-to-Move Construction....... 47
4.4 The Operational Process of English Cause-to-Move Construction....... 50
4.5 The Alternative Variants of English Cause-to-Move Construction....... 54
4.6 Presupposition and Inference ........ 57
4.7 Summary .... 59
Chapter V Conclusion....... 61
5.1 Major Findings ......... 61
5.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies ...... 63
Chapter IV An Analysis of English Cause-to-Move Construction
4.1 The Components of the Relational Networks of English Cause-to-Move Construction
To have a better understanding of English cause-to-move construction, the componentsof the relational network of English cause-to-move construction should be analyzed. Thismeans that the conceptual frame, the argument structure and the lexicogrammatical structureshould be investigated separately and then analyzed as a whole. First, the author will beginwith the conceptual frame of English cause-to-move construction, which is a fundamentalcomponent in the relational network of the cause-to-move construction. According to the Force-Dynamic Schema of Talmy (1985), there are several parametersin the conceptual frame of English cause-to-move construction. Talmy (1985) puts forwardthat the standard notion of causation can be decomposed into a number of features, and eachof which is subject to parametric variations. Changing the values of the parameters yields aset of concepts related to causation such as hindering, overcoming, letting, helping andresisting.
………..
Conclusion
Firstly, based on the model, the definition of English cause-to-move construction isspecified. In the Cognitive Functional Model, English cause-to-move construction is analyzedaccording to the semiotic relations among the conceptual frame, the argument structure andthe lexicogrammatical structure. The conceptual frame of English cause-to-move constructionis composed by a conflation of the conceptual structures of action and causation. Theconceptual structure of action is defined as Actor + Object + Directed, and the conceptualstructure of causation is defined as Causer + Cause +causative tendency[Object + [Source + Path +Goal]]. So the conflation of the conceptual structures of English cause-to-move constructionwill be: Causer + Cause-to-Move + Object + [Source + Path + Goal]. The argument structureof English cause-to-move construction is defined as Agent + Predicate + Theme + Source +Path + Goal. The lexicogrammatical structure of English cause-to-move construction isdescribed as NP1– VP – NP2– PP. The participants in conceptual structures are realized byarguments, and the arguments can construe these participants. In the conceptual structure ofEnglish cause-to-move construction, the Causer can be an animate agent or an inanimatenatural force, but not an instrument. According to the causal force conducted by the Causer,the results are different. If the causal force assists to the motion of the Object, or the causalforce conducted by the Causer prevents the motion of the Object, the motion of the Object isdefinitely determined.#p#分页标题#e#
..........
Reference (omitted)
