Chapter One Introduction
 

1.1 Definition of the Caused-motion Construction

In this thesis, we define the syntactic configuration NP1+ V +NP2+PP as theEnglish caused-motion construction (in active form). in this configuration, v denotesan action performed by the causer argument (NP1), which causes the theme argument(NP2) move towards someplace (PP), denoted by a preposition phrase. It can beexemplified by the following sentences:(1) They laughed the poor guy out of the room.(2) Frank sneezed the tissue off the table.(3) Mary urged Bill into the house.(4) Sue let the water out of the bathtub.(5) Sam helped him into the car.(6) They sprayed the paint onto the wall.(Goldberg, 1995:152)The basic semantics of this construction is that the causer argument directly causes thetheme argument to move along a path designated by the directional phrase, that is, XCAUSES Y to MOVE Z (Goldberg, 1995:152).

 
1.2 Objectives of the Study
Due to its ubiquity and crucial role in organizing people’s experience，the issue ofEnglish caused-motion construction attracts much attention from linguists all over theworld, it has been more or less studied or touched in the literature from differentperspectives. However, up till now, a full and satisfactory explanation has not beenarrived, and thus it leaves a space for my study.Previous studies on the caused-motion construction generally fall into four domains. One is the transformational approach of argument structure that proposedderiving caused-motion expressions from an underlying structures consisting of twopropositions, which is represented by Fillmore1971, Layoff 1976 and Lakoff & Ross1976 (see Goldberg, 1995). The second is the projection principle, it believed that theargument structure of caused-motion construction is determined by the main verb (seeGoldberg1995, Shen Jiaxuan 2007). the third is the compositional approach whichargued that the meaning of caused-motion expressions do not require positingadditional verb senses, it can be compositionally derived from composing themeaning of the constituent parts. the fourth is cognitive approach, which is mainlyrepresented by Goldberg(1995), Professor Cheng Qilong & Mei Wensheng (2008),professor Zhang hui (2003), professor Pan Yanyan & Zhang Hui (2005).However, to some extent, the three former approaches fail to offer a satisfactoryaccount. The transformational approach cannot explain why in any case, manyexpressions commonly related by transformations do not have identical truthconditions (see Goldberg, 1995). The projection approach lack persuasion when weuse it to explain some untypical expression. For example:(7) He sneezed the foam off the cappuccino. (Goldberg, 1995)If we explain the argument structure from the side of semantic projection, the onlythings we can say is X causes Y to move Z through sneeze. But in fact, usually,sneeze is an intransitive verb, so it seems unacceptable to say that the three argumentsare determined by its verbs meaning. (Shen Jiaxuan, 2007:77). A general problemwith compositional accounts is that this explanation can’t explain why some argumentconstructions can exist with some verbs (see Goldberg 1995, Shen Jiaxuan 2007).Compared with traditional approach, cognitive approach has given us a morepowerful interpreting on this linguistic phenomenon. However, there still have someinadequacies. Firstly, according to Leek (see Yuan Ye, 2007), #p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#http://www.400190.com/dissertation_writing/linguistic/ Goldberg’s argumentconstruction grammar does not pay enough attention to the frame semantic meaningor cognitive meaning of verbs. The thesis agrees with him on this view. As a matter offact, Goldberg’s study on caused-motion construction only study on verb’s lexicalmeaning, neglect cognitive meaning comparably. This studying method not only does not match up with cognitive semantic view held by Construction Grammar includingthe Construction Grammar of herself, but also cause her to exaggerate the function ofconstruction. Secondly, from the perspective of Construction Grammar, previewsstudies on the English caused-motion construction mainly concentrate on theinteraction between verbs and the construction, however, it lacks a systematic studyon the relationship between the English caused-motion construction and its arguments.Thus it leaves a space for my further study.Therefore, because of these reasons, based on the theoretical framework ofconstruction grammar, encyclopaedic view and some other cognitive linguistictheories, there are mainly two objectives on this study: Firstly, we will attempt todiscuss the relationships between English caused-motion construction and itsarguments. Secondly, re-examine the interaction between English caused-motionconstruction and its verbs, compared with previous studies, the verbs meanings whichwe study in this thesis include verb’ lexical meaning and encyclopaedic knowledge.

 
1.3 The Organization of the ThesisThe thesis is composed of six parts and structured as follows. Chapter one offers ageneral introduction to the thesis. Chapter Two presents a review of previous researchon the English caused-motion construction. Chapter Three is a brief introduction tothe theory adopted in this thesis. In chapter four, with the framework of ConstructionGrammar, firstly, we attempt to study the interaction between the Englishcaused-motion construction and its arguments. Based on this study, the relationshipbetween direct causation and cognitive decision will be discussed. In chapter five,with the theoretical framework of encyclopaedic view, firstly, the interaction betweencaused-motion construction and its verbs is re-examined. Next, we will discuss thequestion whether this explanation negates some advantages of the constructionaccount. Chapter six, a summary is offered ， followed by the major findings,limitations and remaining problems.

 
Chapter Two Previous Studies on the ECMC 15-24
    2.1 Introduction 15
    2.2 Previous Studies on the Concept of … 15-17
        2.2.1 Previous Studies at Abroad 15-16
        2.2.2 Previous Studies at Home 16-17
    2.3 Previous Studies on the ECMC 17-20
        2.3.1 Traditional Approaches on the ECMC 17-18#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#
        2.3.2 Cognitive Approaches on the ECMC 18-20
    2.4 Comments on the Previous Studies 20-24
Chapter Three Theoretical Framework 24-40
    3.1 Construction Grammar 24-33
        3.1.1 The Concept of Construction 25-27
        3.1.2 The Nature of Verb Meaning 27
        3.1.3 The Nature of Constructional … 27-28
        3.1.4 The Interaction between … 28-29
        3.1.5 Possible Relations … 29-30
        3.1.6 Advantages of the… 30-33
    3.2 The Encyclopaedia View 33-40
        3.2.1 A Brief Introduction to the … 34-35
        3.2.2 Some Characteristics…35-40

 
Chapter Six Conclusion

 
6.1 Major Findings of the Study
Based on the top-down and bottom-up methodology, this thesis seeks to providea new perspective towards the English caused-motion construction. Our findingsconcerning English caused-motion construction are mainly concentrated in chapterfour and chapter five.In chapter four, we mainly discuss the interaction between caused-motionconstruction and its arguments, and the relation between direct causation andcognitive decision. Through this discussion, our findings are mainly listed asfollowing:Firstly, previous studies on the causative construction believed that in directcausation, both animate entities and inanimate entities can act as patient. Although,English caused motion construction is direct causation, however, influencing by“polysemy’’ of the CMC and the transmission manner of causative force, it is not thecase. Only if the CMC with the center sense: X causes Y to move Z, then bothanimate entities or inanimate entities can act as the theme argument. Because at thistime, the causative force which appears in caused-motion construction is the physicalforce, and there is physical contact between the causer argument and the themeargument, thus through this physical contact, both animate entities and inanimateentities have ability to transmit the force and undergo a change. For example:(1) John tossed the ball in the basket. (cheng Qilong, 2008)(2) Her family put her into a nursing home. (Dictionary)(3) Frank kicked the dog into the bathroom.However, if the CMC with extended meaning, such as X enables Y to move Z. Atthis time, only animatehttp://www.400190.com/dissertation_writing/linguistic/  entities can act as theme argument. Because under the circumstance, generally speaking, causative force which appears in the construction isnot physical force, and there is no physical contact between the causer argument andthe theme argument. Thus as a matter of fact, this kind of force is actually absorbedand transmitted by the animate entities’ psychology. Only if the theme argumentchanges its position according to the will of the causer argument can thecaused-motion event be entailed. Obviously, unanimated entities cannot have theability to absorb and transmit this kind of energies, let alone changing its positionaccording to causer’ will and then motion can’t be implied. For example:(4) Sam let Bill into the room. (Goldberg, 1995:161)(5) Sam let a dog into the room.Whereas, the inanimate theme argument can not appear in this construction. Forexample:(6)﹡ Sam let a table into the room.Furthmore, if the caused-motion construction with the meaning of the conditionsof satisfaction associated with the act denoted by the predicate entail: X causes Y tomove Z, at this time, only human being can act as theme argument. Because at thistime, the force which appears in this construction usually is the language force, thusonly human being can understand the meaning of causer argument, and do somethingaccording to the will of the causer argument. For example:(7) Sam invited him into the room.However, without any anthropomorphizing, that is, under the normal scene, bothinanimate entities and animal can not act as theme argument. For example:(8)﹡Sam invited a duck into the room.(9)﹡Sam invited a table into the room.Secondly, according to Goldberg (1995), she argued that there is no cognitivedecision can mediate between the causative event and the implied motion. However,we find that this constrain seems to violate some linguistic facts, such as if languageforce appears in the caused-motion construction, whether a motion is presumedmainly depends on three factors, that is, the transmission of causative force, the willof theme argument, the strength of a causative force. Relating to our experience, we#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#