Johanna: I think you're quite right about the go + -ing construction; it's much more a what than a where. And thanks for your description of Construction Grammar. It's a very helpful concept. Can you give me a reference for further reading? Always learning, Martha >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/