| The double object construction (DOC for short), characterized by the two juxtaposed noun phrases immediately following the matrix verb, has for long become a focus of academic interest, drawing the attention of grammarians from a wide range of linguistic enquiries. However, the generative approach, lexical and valent approach, construction grammar approach and cognitive grammar approach altogether cannot undertake an in-depth examination of the syntagmatic relations between the matrix verb and the two post-verbal noun phrases; particularly, they all lack an adequate exploration of the embodiments concerning the compatibility between the matrix verb and DOC. Guided by these theories, the present cross-linguistic and contrastive analyses available tend to attribute the differences in English and Chinese DOCs to the disparate verbal lexicalization patterns inherent in these two languages, thus providing no proper treatment for the cognitive factors to motivate the typological differences displayed in what seems to be a homogeneous syntactic configuration but a heterogeneous semantic explanation relating to English versus Chinese DOCs.The present study is intended to explore from a synchronic dimension the underlying cognitive factors that motivate the typological differences in English versus Chinese DOCs in the hope of providing a systematic contrast and a coherent explanation. With the framework of construction grammar as a basis, it draws upon the usage-based dynamic model of language proposed by cognitive grammar, pointing out that the event denoted by the matrix verb plays a key role in the formation of DOC. It puts forward Event Overt Cognitivization Hypothesis (EOCH for short), which goes:There exists in the event conceptualization a plane of overt cognition. Based on the dynamic usage event, it either observes or deviates from the strong force-dynamic model of Agent-Verb-Patient, which is an entrenched cognitive structure at the plane of covert cognition. Overt cognitivization process projects the entrenched dependency relations at the plane of covert cognition into a verb-centered event scene relations at the plane of overt cognition. The absolute verb-object relation in dependency is thus alternatively construed as a relation between the verb and its accessible participants. In such a process, the conceptualizer assigns the matrix verb of DOC some certain overt cognition content, whose parametrization trend might be employed to account for the typological differences in English and Chinese DOCs. The present study proposes four cognitive parameters:ontological features of event participants (including ontological features of Subject & Theme and the cognitive domains in which prototypical 'give' in Engish and 'GEI' in Chinese are used), cognitive orientation, benefactive accessibility and controllability and undertakes a systematic and contrastive analysis of English and Chinese prototypical 'give/GEI', fulfilling verbs, caused-motion verbs and two-valency verbs respectively used in DOC. For those identified differences, it aims to seek a cognitive parameter-based explanation.The Subject and Theme in the English and Chinese prototypical 'give/GEI'-DOC both have a tendency of expanding from prototypical to maginal cases. Specifically, the Subject tends to expand from prototypical strong agency and humanness to less prototypical weak agency and humanness. The Theme tends to expand from prototypical concrete objects to less prototypical abstract events and forms a continuum with thing-ness and act-ness as its two extremes. In terms of abstractness, if the Theme is more concrete, its thing-ness or act-ness turns out to be stronger. The commonness shared by English and Chinese prototypical 'give/GEI'-DOCs lies in the fact that, if the Theme denotes an event, more abstract events can generally be reconstrued and thing-fied to be conceptual entities. The individuality in this respect lies in the fact that while in English more concrete events can also be done in this manner, those counterparts in Chinese can never be. Echoing the trend of Theme expansion, English 'give' seems to be a little wider than Chinese 'GEI' in cognitive domain in the sense that while the former can be used in domains of transfer, force-dynamics and achievement, the latter tends to be restricted to the domain of transfer or the domain of feeling, a sub-domain of force-dynamics. Put it another way, English 'give' tends to be functionalized in usage event and more often than not used in combination with the Theme noun phrase for a complete expression of semantics; Chinese 'GEI' is more restricted in functionalization and tends to preserve in usage event the image-schema of object transfer noticeable in the domain of transfer. In contrast, Chinese 'GEI' occurs occasionally with empty 'TA' to form the so-called eventive ditransitive construction. As it develops a hortative use for the expression of emotion or will release, it motivates to some certain degree the use of empty TA-construction, a marginal DOC frequently found in Mandarine Chinese.When English fulfilling verbs are used in to-construction, the conceptualizer assigns them a strong theme-orientedness. When they occur in with-construction, the conceptualizer assigns them an invariable or a weak goal-orientedness. Construed alternatively, some certain fufilling verb of variable behavior might be assigned by the conceptualizer a strong goal-orientedness, hence made temporarily compatible with doc-construction. Though some theme-oriented fulfilling verb in English can indeed gain under provisional construal a certain degree of goal-orientedness, the nature of its weak goal-orientedness makes it occur with the preposition 'with' to introduce the Theme. Its Chinese counterparts can, however, achieve for the same reason a strong goal-orientedness, hence they can be used in bare or added suffix form 'GEI' in DOC, displaying a higher compatibility with DOC than English corresponding verbs. Fulfilling verbs can approximately be categorized into six semantic clusters: provide-cluster, award-cluster, equip-cluster, issue-cluster, trust-cluster and regale-cluster, which seem to correlate with the theme-goal oriented continuum. Put it another way, if the verb adjoins in meaning to provide-or-award cluster, it tends to be assigned different degrees of theme-orientedness, hence a high probability of being realized in versatile argument structures; if the verb adjoins in meaning to trust-or-regale cluster, it tends to be assigned a steady goal-orientedness, hence a high probability of being realized in one single argument structure.Caused-motion verbs have the potential of being used either in prepositional construction (PC for short) or in DOC. When they occur in PC, they are assigned by the conceptualizer a strong theme-orientedness, in which condition the theme-content argument of the caused-motion event succeeds in competing for the structural object argument slot; when they occur in DOC, they are assigned a strong goal-orientedness, in which condition it is the experiencer-content argument that outdoes. Whether a caused-motion verb can be attracted into DOC is then determined by the implication rank'cognitive orientation>basic-level category>semantic feature', viz., whether it is assigned a strong orientedness overwhelmingly qualifies as a first-order explanation. Caused-motion verbs fall into five semantic clusters:send-cluster, throw-class, roll-cluster, carry-cluster and drive-cluster, which seem to correlate with the goal-theme oriented continuum. Put it another way, if the verb is closer in meaning to send-or-throw cluster, it tends to be more easily compatible with DOC for its stronger goal-orientedness; if the verb is closer in meaning to carry-or-drive cluster, it tends to be more easily compatible with PC for its stronger theme-orientedness. The major caused-motion verbs that are frequently used in DOC are of the send-or-throw cluster kind. Verbs of other semantic clusters might, however, jump across the given cluster under the conceptualize's provisional construal. While the majority of English caused-motion verbs can be used in DOC and the Theme tends to be metaphorically expanded, their Chinese counterparts seem to be blocked. To remedy this, Chinese caused-motion verbs often occur with 'GEI'-structure to constitute alternatives to DOC, displaying a lower compatibility with DOC than their English counterparts in usage events although strong goal-orientedness has to be a constraining condition for both languages.Create verbs are of typical two-valency category, meaning that the Subject brings the Theme into being. The Theme created might, however, benefit a third party (so-called 'Adjoiner') involved in the projected event scene. Once create verbs are assigned by the conceptualizer a strong benefactive accessibility, they can be used in DOC. As to their compatibility with DOC, English and Chinese create verbs differ noticeably in the sense that the conceptualizer assigns the former a much higher benefactive accessibility than the latter. In resonance with this trend, English DOC displays strong construction-ness, which can compress the psychological remoteness cutting across the major creative event and the minor experiencing event to provide some certain motivation for create verbs incorporated in DOC. In contrast, Chinese DOC displays weak construction-ness, which cannot forcefully excute the similar compression. Consequently, Chinese create verbs tend to co-occur syntactically with 'GEI'-structure, whose position relative to the matrix verb is for the most part determined by the psychological remoteness severing the two events. While the majority of English create verbs can be used in DOC, their Chinese counterparts are limited to those which happen and finish instantaneously for the ease of integrating the two events. When create verbs are used in DOC, the information status of the Recepient or Beneficiary might influence the conceptualizer assigning benefactive accessibility. If the Adjoiner is coded in personal pronoun, the acceptability of create verbs occurring in DOC might be enhanced; if it is coded in general common noun, the acceptability of create verbs occurring in DOC might be lowered.Get verbs are also of typical two-valency category, meaning that the Subject comes to get hold of the Theme. Under the conceptualizer's provisional construal, however, the Subject's action might more or less excute different degrees of control over a third party (viz. Adjoiner). English and Chinese get verbs both have the potential of being used in DOC, but the conceptualizer tends to assign the former a weaker controllability over the Ajoiner than the latter. When English get verbs occur in DOC, their weak controllability makes the Adjoiner receive a Recepient or benefactive interpretation; when Chinese get verbs occur in DOC, their strong controllability makes the Adjoiner receive a Provider or malefactive interpretation. Based on this contrastive trend of controllability, it can even be predicted that English get verbs of a lexically strong control flavour or Chinese get verbs of a lexically weak control flavour avoid being attracted into DOC. To account for the typological differences in semantic interpretation in terms of controllability means that English get verbs differ from their Chinese counterparts in integrative mechanism when they are both used in DOC. While it is the prototypical 'give'-DOC that metaphorically coerces the use of English get verbs in DOC, it is the possessor raising construction that highly motivates the use of Chinese get verbs in DOC. The establishment of controllability can, on the one hand, account for the phenomenon 'homogeneous syntactic configuration, heterogeneous semantic interpretation' when the majority of English and Chinese get verbs are used in DOC and the phenomenon that some minor Engish get verbs never receive a transfer-to-the-right interpretation; and on the other hand, it is conducive to bringing into the general interpretive framework those non-get verbs that lack a transfer meaning when they occur in DOC.The ontological features of event participants, cognitive orientation, benefactive accessibility and controllability are established when the conceptualizer projects the verb-centered structural dependency relations at the plane of covert cognition into the verb-centered event scene relations at the plane of overt cognition. They thus belong to overt cognition contents, with respect to which English and Chinese DOCs exhibit disparaties, partly confirming the plausibility of EOCH. Studying Engish and Chinese DOCs from a perspective of overt cognition contents not only avoids the implausible verb senses, but also goes beyond the limits of different lexicalization models. The exploration of how the construction attracts a verb not only helps in putting the framework of construction grammar to applied cross-linguistic studies, but also helps in solving the problem of dative shift from an alternative view.
|
PDF Full Text Request