Chapter OneIntroduction

1.1 Research Background

Cognate Object Construction (COC) is a special kind of grammatical constructionsand first took shape in the 19'^ century. As a cross-linguistic construction, it occurs inmany languages such as English，Arabic, German, Chichewa, Chinese, Hebrew, Russianand Icelandic. Since its first appearance, much published work is devoted to definingand explicating it. For instance, it is referred to as figura etymologica in some Latingrammar books and as cognate accusative or internal object in some other grammarbooks. Quirk et al (1985) and Huddleston & Pullum (2002) define it as cognate object，while Massam (1990) states it as thematic object and Levin (1993) terms it as thecognate prepositional phrase construction. Even though these definitions vary from oneto another，they all capture the core idea that the object is morphologically oretymologically and semantically cognate with the verb. The word cognate reveals themorphological and semantic relations between the CO (Cognate Object) and itscorresponding verb, and functions as the main criterion to distinguish the cognate objectfrom other kinds of objects.As one of the most elusive and sophisticated constructions ever prevailing inEnglish，the COC whose verbs，normally intransitive verbs，take their cognate nouns intheir object positions.

………..

1.2 Research Questions

In order to fulfill the above-mentioned research objectives, this corpus-based studytakes the Cognate Object Construction in English as its focus and aims to find out thegeneration path of the COC in the light of Goldberg's construction grammar and theunderlying reasons. The clauses and discourse segments selected for this study aremainly from the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English)，supplementedwith materials from other researchers. The present research centers on the discussion ofthe following questions within the vested theoretical framework:

(1) How are the unergative verbs and unaccusative verbs in the COCconstruction-coerced into it by monotransitive constructions?

(2) What are the selective restrictions of the COC on its constituents?

(3) How do the constituents of the COC，especially the modifiers, lexical-coerce theCOC?

(4) What is the relationship between the COC and the VAC (live happily, diesuddenly)!

………

Chapter TwoLiterature Review

2.1 Introductory Remarks

In linguistics, coercion — a terminology originally used in ComputationalLinguistics, is when the grammatical context causes the language-user to reinterpret allor parts of the semantic and/or formal features of a lexeme that appears in it (Boas，2013). De Swart (1998: 360) defines it as being syntactically and morphologicallyinvisible, but triggered by the need to resolve semantic conflict and dominated by theimplicit contextual reinterpretation mechanism. Many scholars in the schoo ofTransformational-Generative Grammar and Cognitive Linguistics have proposedequivalent or corresponding concepts with the notion of coercion defined by Boas andDe Swart.The notion of coercion corresponds to the concept of “control，’ in TG Grammarheaded by Noam Chomsky. It is a construction where the understood subject of a givenpredicate is determined by some expression in context. Stereotypical instances ofcontrol involve verbs. A superordinate verb “controls” a subordinate, non-finite verb. Inaddition, Jackendoff (1997a, 1997b), another leading figure in TG school, holds thatsyntactic structure can generate "extra meaning", which is referred to as "EnrichedComposition". Wang Yin (2009b) states that the notion of "Enriched Composition"corresponds roughly to the concept of coercion in construction grammar. According toMichaelis (2002), Jackendoff (1990，197a) and De Swart (1998) make an attempt tointegrate coercion operators into semantic structure. This kind of coercion is inaccordance with the modularity of language and provides theoretical support for theestablishment of a sign-based model of grammar (Michaelis, 2004).Coercion is closely related to the notions of active zone,construal/conceptualization, and syntactic accommodation known from various schoolswithin the cognitive linguistics movement. Among the cognitive linguists, Talmy,Michaelis, Goldberg，Panther & Thomburg, and Taylor are those who have conducted.

……….

2.2 Previous Studies on Coercion Theory

In semantics and diachronic linguistics, semantic shift (also semantic change，semantic progression or semantic drift) refers to the constant changes both in thesign-shapes and sign contents, which words undergo over the course of time.Unlike the traditional understanding of semantic shift，Talmy (2000: 324) assertsthat when the specifications of two lexical items used in a sentence are in semanticconflict, one kind of reconciliation is for the specification of the two words to changesemantically so as to come into accord with the other form. This change ofaccommodation is termed a shift. He demarcates three types of semantic shift, namelythe stretching of a component of a closed-class schema, the cancellation of a componentof a closed-class schema and the replacement of a component of an open-classspecification. In the first two types，a closed-class form exhibits the shift. Here, acomponent of a basic schema represented by the closed-class form either stretches or iscanceled. Such shifts bring the closed-class specification into accord either with thespecification of an accompanying open-class form or with the referent context. Thethird type of shifts is by far the commonest. In it, a basic specification of an open-classform is replaced so that it comes into accord with the specification of an accompanyingclosed-class form.

…………

Chapter Three Theoretical Framework........   43

3.1 Introductory Remarks........ 43

3.2 Key Concepts in Construction Grammar........   45

3.2.1 Construction Coercion   45

3.2.2 Lexical Coercion........ ........  49

3.3 Theoretical Integration: Bidirectional Coercion Model ........55

3.4 Summary ........57

Chapter Four A Bidirectional Coercion Analysis of the English COC........ 58

4.1 Introductory Remarks ........58

4.2 Construction - Coercion Analysis of the COC........   63

4.2.1 Construction Coercion on Unergative Verbs........ 65

4.2.2 Construction Coercion on Unaccusative Verbs........   69

4.3 Lexical Selection of the COC........ 75

4.4 Lexical - Coercion Analysis of the COC........78

4.6 COC and VAC ........  82

Chapter Five Conclusions........ 88

5.1 Main Findings of the Current Study........ 88

5.2 Implications of the Present Study........ 90

5.3 Limitations of the Present Study........   91

5.4 Suggestions for Future Research ........  92

Chapter FourA Bidirectional Coercion Analysis of the EnglishCOC

4.1 Introductory Remarks According to Goldberg (1995), usually the number of participants a verb is usuallyassociated with corresponds with the number of argument roles offered by theconstruction. Nevertheless, there can be mismatches between the specifications of averb and the specifications of the construction, be that with respect to the profiling ofroles or the number of roles. Goldberg makes explicit and demonstrates with a numberof cases that a construction can enrich the participant constellation conventionallyassociated with a particular verb: “it is not necessary that each argument role of theconstruction corresponds to a participant of the verb. [...] the construction can add rolesnot contributed by the verb" (Goldberg, 1995: 54). It is on the basis of fusing thesemantics of a particular construction with the verb that speakers can easily interpretsentences which include verbs equipped with participants which are not determined bythe verb's participant specifications.Likewise, the majority of verbs taking a CO can be described as cases where thereis mismatch between the number of participant roles associated with the verb and thenumber of argument roles of the construction. This implies that the argument structureis imposed on the verbs by a meaningful argument structure construction. Thus，if theCOC is treated as a special, non-prototypical type of transitive constructions (offeringtwo argument slots)，it must be assumed that the argument roles are inherent in theconstruction and not provided by the verb. Hence, it can be concluded that the secondargument slot for verbs such as sigh or laugh, which are conventionally associated withan intransitive construction and therefore with one participant only, is made available bythe cognate object construction as a meaningftil argument structure construction.

……..

Conclusions

The present study makes an attempt to examine and expound the English cognateobject constructions in the light of Goldberg's construction grammar by quotingexamples of the COC found in the COCA or the published materials as evidence fromnaturally occurring texts, yet without going into detail about frequency of occurrence,distributional patterns et al. Specifically speaking，the author with the holistic featuresof the COC in mind，proposes the Bidirectional Coercion Model by integrating therelated theories of Construction Coercion and Lexical Coercion to conduct a tentativeresearch on the generation path of the COC, its selective restrictions and the dynamicinteractive relationship between the construction and its constituents in the frameworkof Goldberg's construction grammar.

…………

Reference (omitted)