Johanna, I am grateful that you've made (inter alia) this point:
I guess the point I want to make is that not every construction can be
easily analyzed into parts, and that not every construction is a neutral
template that will work with every verb in the language.
May I ask this: Is it `constructions' that sometimes cannot be `easily
analysed', or is it the semantic extension of some words, and our
terminology for analysis, that create a problem? For instance, I am
deploying the infinite `to go' for quite dissimilar semantic ends when I
say:
`I went teaching/I went on stage'
and
`I went fishing'.
That recognised, structural analysis poses no real problem: I can decide of
both sentences that the complement of `went' is either a locative noun
(gerund) that specifies the direction of the copular verb `went', or it is
an adverb that tells us where the subject `I' went. No matter which
terminology (`locative noun' or `adverb') I use, the fact remains constant
that I have isolated the syntactic relationships that are operative in my
sentences.
This `locative noun (gerund)' and `adverb' worth of conceptual fusion is a
`one-off' in syntactic analysis: It shouldn't condemn the power of syntax
to construct neutral templates.
Sophie Johnson
at ENGLISH GRAMMAR TUTOR
http://www.englishgrammartutor.com/
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: go fishing
> I'd like to thank Martha for doing the research work in Quirk et al. on
> the constructions in question. It's a good idea to consult what people
> who have made a close study of English syntax have to say before
> speculating on what a construction seems to be. Another source to
> consult would be the Collins Cobuild corpus-based English grammar, which
> I just bought. If I have the energy, I'll look up some of these
> constructions there. There is no reason for us to break our heads trying
> to figure things out when others who spend their entire professional
> lives analzying English grammar (not teaching it or teaching writing)
> have done this work.
>
> A very important point Martha makes is that there are shades of gray in
> grammar. What has struck me about this discussion is the way in which
> everyone insists on being able to cut up each construction and precisely
> label its parts and their functions. This is a natural impulse under
> traditional approaches to grammar, but close study has shown that
> language is just not that cut and dried.
>
> There is a theory of grammar called Construction Grammar. Its basic
> premise is that language comes in constructions which are wholes, and
> often cannot be neatly analyzed into parts that can then be neatly
> labeled or pigeonholed. Constructions like this arise as a result of
> specialization in meaning and a sort of fossilization or fixing of
> phrase structure. This is similar to the idea of an idiom; but the
> meaning of the construction is more closely related to the meaning of
> its parts than with an idiom. I think the 'go Xing' construction is a
> good example of this. I disagree with Martha's analysis of the
> participle as location adverbial, and with the analysis of 'go Xing' as
> equivalent to 'X'. The following don't work for me:
>
> Where did Susan go?
> Fishing.
>
> It seems more likely that one would ask 'What did Susan do?' 'She went
fishing.'
>
> He is fishing right now. does not mean the same thing as
> He is going fishing right now.
>
> In the second sentence, fishing is not happening yet; someone is about
> to engage in the activity type 'fishing'.
>
> 'To go Xing' means, to me, something like 'to engage in an activity
> type', 'to undertake an activity type'. The activity type is a
> culturally conventional activity, often a leisure pursuit, although
> certain chore-type activities occur in the construction ('go
> food-shopping', 'go appliance hunting'). We go shopping, go
> ice-skating, go birdwatching, go jogging, go sailing, go hiking, etc.
> 'Go' sounds odder with other activity types. We don't 'go housecleaning'
> or 'go bank-robbing' or 'go murdering' or 'go babysitting' or 'go
> data-entering' or 'go working'. Note how different the implication is in
> these two sentences:
>
> I went driving yesterday. implies a pleasure ride
> I drove yesterday. is neutral; it could have been for any purpose.
>
> I went driving to work yesterday. implies a combination of pleasure
> ride with mundane must-do getting to work.
>
> 'Go bank-robbing' improves considerably if we imagine that robbing banks
> is someone's favorite leisure activity.
>
> There may well be work on this construction by a linguist somewhere;
> what I have done here is an off-the-cuff foray into the kind of analysis
> that needs to be backed up by further testing and looking at usage data.
> I won't claim my little analysis here is conclusive; it's an exploration.
>
> I guess the point I want to make is that not every construction can be
> easily analyzed into parts, and that not every construction is a neutral
> template that will work with every verb in the language. It's not enough
> to say 'combine _go_ with a present participle used as an adverbial [or
> whatever]'. Cultural information often is part of the meaning of a
> construction, if not its total raison d'etre. And that cultural
> information determines its accurate use.
>
> Semantics (if culture is part of semantics, and how could it not be) and
> syntax are inseparable.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> One Grand Avenue . San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Tel. (805)-756-2184 . Fax: (805)-756-6374 . Dept. Phone. 756-2596
> . E-mail: [log in to unmask] . Home page:
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
