scieee AI-readable full text Open interactive document viewer

A diachronic study of the conative alternation construction in english

Esteban-Segura, María Laura,Salles-Bernal, Soluna

Abstract

The conative alternation is a subtype of transitivity alternation in which there is a transitive variant and an intransitive one represented with an at-construction. From a syntactic point of view, it occurs with transitive verbs and is therefore referred to as a case of preposition insertion (the preposition at is inserted before the direct object). From a semantic perspective, it can be described as a “detransitivizing” construction, since there is a contrast between conative uses of transitive verbs and their transitive counterparts (Perek 2015: 90). Accordingly, the argument can be direct (subject, direct object or indirect object) or oblique. (1) a. Kim cut the pie. b. Kim cut at the pie (drunkenly) (Beavers 2006: 6). The patient (“the pie”) can have two realizations: as the direct object (1a) or as an oblique signalled by the preposition at (1b). Here we find a semantic contrast: in the transitive variant the patient is known to have been affected in some way, whereas in the one with the at-construction this is not necessarily the case; thus, the action denoted by the verb may or may not have been completed and the alternation may convey “a reduced a degree of effectiveness” (Riemer 2010: 354), as seen in example (2b) below, which implies that the action was not completely successful: (2) a. The zombies slashed my face. b. The zombies slashed at my face. Although the construction has been studied before (van der Leek [1996], Broccias [2001, 2003], Beavers [2010], Perek and Lemmens [2010], Guerrero-Medina [2011], Perek [2015]), it remains scarcely investigated from a diachronic point of view. Therefore, our main objective is to research on the origin and development of the conative construction in English by looking at its occurrence in several historical corpora. For the purpose, we have first made a comprehensive list of verbs which allow the construction and then selected the verbs under study. A collostructional analysis, which “investigates which lexemes are strongly attracted or repelled by a particular slot in the construction (i.e. occur more frequently or less frequently than expected)” (Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003: 214), has been carried out as it can help to establish which verbs favour the construction over others in the different corpora. Some of our preliminary results show that the construction was already present in Old English and that in most instances the subject is agentive or animate.

Full text

Esteban-Segura, Laura and Salles-Bernal, Soluna Universidad de Málaga A Diachronic Study of the Conative Alternation Construction in English Keywords: conative alternation; verb alternation; history of English; collostructional analysis The conative alternation is a subtype of transitivity alternation in which there is a transitive variant and an intransitive one represented with an at-construction. From a syntactic point of view, it occurs with transitive verbs and is therefore referred to as a case of preposition insertion (the preposition at is inserted before the direct object). From a semantic perspective, it can be described as a “detransitivizing” construction, since there is a contrast between conative uses of transitive verbs and their transitive counterparts (Perek 2015: 90). Accordingly, the argument can be direct (subject, direct object or indirect object) or oblique. (1) a. Kim cut the pie. b. Kim cut at the pie (drunkenly) (Beavers 2006: 6). The patient (“the pie”) can have two realizations: as the direct object (1a) or as an oblique signalled by the preposition at (1b). Here we find a semantic contrast: in the transitive variant the patient is known to have been affected in some way, whereas in the one with the at-construction this is not necessarily the case; thus, the action denoted by the verb may or may not have been completed and the alternation may convey “a reduced a degree of effectiveness” (Riemer 2010: 354), as seen in example (2b) below, which implies that the action was not completely successful: (2) a. The zombies slashed my face. b. The zombies slashed at my face. Although the construction has been studied before (van der Leek [1996], Broccias [2001, 2003], Beavers [2010], Perek and Lemmens [2010], Guerrero-Medina [2011], Perek [2015]), it remains scarcely investigated from a diachronic point of view. Therefore, our main objective is to research on the origin and development of the conative construction in English by looking at its occurrence in several historical corpora. For the purpose, we have first made a comprehensive list of verbs which allow the construction and then selected the verbs under study. A collostructional analysis, which “investigates which lexemes are strongly attracted or repelled by a particular slot in the construction (i.e. occur more frequently or less frequently than expected)” (Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003: 214), has been carried out as it can help to establish which verbs favour the construction over others in the different corpora. Some of our preliminary results show that the construction was already present in Old English and that in most instances the subject is agentive or animate. References Beavers, John Travis. 2006. Argument/Oblique Alternations and the Structure of Lexical Meaning. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. ---. 2010. “The Structure of Lexical Meaning: Why Semantics Really Matters.” Language 86 (4): 821-64. Broccias, Cristiano. 2001. “Allative and Ablative at-constructions.” In CLS 37: The Main Session. Papers from the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 1, edited by Mary Andronis, Christopher Ball, Heidi Elston and Sylvain Neuvel, 67-82. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. ---. 2003. The English Change Network: Focusing Changes into Schemas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Guerrero Medina, Pilar. 2011. “An Antipassive Interpretation of the English “Conative alternation”: Semantic and Discourse-Pragmatic Dimensions.” In Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, edited by Pilar Guerrero Medina, 182-203. Sheffield: Equinox. Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-Based Perspectives. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Perek, Florent and Maarten Lemmens. 2010. “Getting at the Meaning of the English atConstruction: The Case of a Constructional Split.” CogniTextes. Revue de l’Association française de linguistique cognitive 5. Available from http://cognitextes. revues.org/331. [Accessed online on May 18, 2016]. Riemer, Nick. 2010. Introducing Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. “Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2): 209-243. van der Leek, Frederike. 1996. “The English Conative Construction: A Compositional Account.” In CLS 32: Papers from the Main Session of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, edited by Lise Dobrin, Kora Singer and Lisa McNair, 36378. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.