Abstract
This chapter aims to provide an initial cross-linguistic and cognitively oriented analysis of aspectual verbs in English and Italian. The focus is on the areas of overlap and contrast between the two languages, with the aim of broadening the theoretical understanding of how they work with respect to these verb types. Certain pairs of aspectualisers are examined contrastively, e.g. start/iniziare, begin/cominciare, keep and continue/continuare, stop/smettere, finish/finire and end/terminare, both by relying on OPUS, a parallel corpus of translated texts from the web that was queried with Sketch Engine, and on authentic occurrences retrieved in Google Books. The first part of the presentation analyses the syntactic behaviour of these predicates and highlights the similarities, but, above all, the differences between the types of constructions they can participate in. Their semantic features are then considered in order to show, among other things, how etymologically related verbs have evolved differently in the two languages; translation is used here as a heuristic tool in the investigation of inter-linguistic variation in that it brings to the fore the mismatches at different levels of analysis. Lastly, the cognitive operations underlying and motivating the various realisations of aspectual verb constructions in English and Italian are examined. It is shown that the differences between the two languages reside in their level of semantic specification, but also in the way in which they conceptualise the events that they reify.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
These verbs are not semantically related, but simply share a common syntactic feature.
- 4.
The addition of the reflexive pronoun seems to produce a more resultative interpretation, i.e. it highlights the effect of the manner in which the activity in question is performed rather than the activity itself. (5a) and (5b) are examples of the evaluative middle-reflexive construction (see Sect. 4.1).
- 5.
See Langacker (1984) for the concept of ‘active zone’.
- 6.
These two constructions also take on a resultative meaning due to the presence of the adjective/adjective phrase free/free of the snow, which confirms that constructions do not always fall into discrete types.
- 7.
This cognitive operation is a metaphor in that it involves a cross-domain mapping between unrelated domains.
- 8.
- 9.
Levin (1993: 39–40) only provides the following examples, where it is the presence of a list of verbs creating a resultative effect that increases the acceptability of the construction: This lotion softens, soothes, moisturises and protects; This polish cleans, protects, and shines. It would be less natural to say This lotion softens or This polish cleans, for instance.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
In Italian, a pro-drop language, the subject pronoun is non-lexically realised.
References
Ackema, P., & Schoorlemmer, M. (1994). The middle construction and the syntax-semantics interface. Lingua, 93, 59–90.
Ackema, P., & Schoorlemmer, M. (1995). Middles and non-movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 26(2), 173–197.
Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2000). Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies. In B. Altenberg & S. Granger (Eds.), Lexis in contrast (pp. 3–50). Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Baicchi, A. (2011). Metaphoric motivation in grammatical structure. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the Lexicon (pp. 140–170). John Benjamins.
Boas, H. C. (2008a). Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 11–36). John Benjamins.
Boas, H. C. (2008b). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144.
Boas, H. C. (2010a). The syntax–lexicon continuum in construction grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 54–82.
Boas, H. C. (Ed). (2010b). Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Benjamins.
Croft, W. (2020). Ten lectures on construction grammar and typology. Leiden/Boston.
Davidse, K., & Heyvaert, L. (2007). On the middle voice: An interpersonal analysis of the English middle. Linguistics, 45(1), 37–83.
Faber, P. B., & Usón, R. M. (1999). Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Mouton.
Fagan, S. (1992). The syntax and semantics of middle constructions: A study with special reference to German. Cambridge University Press.
Fellbaum, C. (1986). On the middle construction in English. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Fellbaum, C. (1989). On the ‘reflexive middle’ in English. Papers from the Regional Meetings. Chicago Linguistic Society, 25(1), 123–132.
Fellbaum, C., & Rapoport, T. (2013). A lexical and information structure account of English instrument-subject constructions. In Proceedings of MTT13 (Meaning, Text and Translation) (pp. 41–49). Charles University.
Fiengo, R. (1980). Surface structure: The interface of autonomous components. Harvard University Press.
Franceschi, D. (2020). English vis-à-vis Italian aspectual verb constructions: The case of continuative aspectualizers. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(5), 39–52.
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (Eds.). (2022). Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective. Benjamins.
Geniušienė, E. (1987). The typology of reflexives. Mouton.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1987). A view from the middle. In Lexicon project working papers (Vol. 10, pp. 1–36).
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction grammar. The structure of English. Cambridge University Press.
Ibáñez,. .Conceptual metonymy theory revisited: Some definitional and . . The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics.
Kazenin, K. I. (2001). Verbal reflexives and the middle voice. In M. Haspelmath, E. Konig, W. Oestereich & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals. An international handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 916–927). Mouton.
Kemmer, S. (1993). The middle voice. John Benjamins.
Korhonen, A., & Briscoe, T. (2004). Extended lexical-semantic classification of English verbs. In Proceedings of the HLT/NAACL Workshop on Computational Lexical Semantics. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Korhonen, A., & Ryant, N. (2005). Novel lexical-semantic verb classes. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved July 12, 2022, from http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/alk23/classes2
Lakoff, G. (1977). Linguistic gestalts. Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society, 13, 236–287.
Langacker, R. W. (1984). Active zones. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 10, pp. 172–188).
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2009a). Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Benjamins.
Langacker, R. W. (2009b). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Mouton.
Lekakou, M. (2005). In the middle, somewhat elevated. The semantics of middles and its crosslinguistic realization. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College London.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and aternations. A preliminary Iivestigation. University of Chicago Press.
Möhlig-Falke, R. (2012). The early English impersonal construction: An analysis of verbal and constructional meaning. Oxford University Press.
Ogura, M. (1989). Verbs with the reflexive pronoun and constructions with self in Old and Early Middle English. Boydell & Brewer.
Paradis, C. (2009). “This beauty should drink well for 10–12 years”: A note on recommendations as semantic middles. Text and Talk, 29(1), 53–73.
Peitsara, K. (1997). The development of reflexive strategies in English. In R. Matti, K. Merja, & H. Kirsi (Eds.), Grammaticalization at work: Studies of long-term developments in english (pp. 277–370). Mouton.
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (2004). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Mouton.
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (2011). Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. John Benjamins.
Rapoport, T. (1999). The English middle and agentivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(1), 147–155.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Usón, R. M. (2006). Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística, 17, 26–47.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Usón, R. M. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp. 33–49). JohnBenjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Usón, R. M. (2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the lexical-constructional model. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). Equinox.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., Luzondo Oyón, A., & Pérez Sobrino, P. (Eds.). (2017). Constructing families of constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges. John Benjamins.
Sanz-Villar, Z. (2022). German into Basque translation of verbal patterns. Analysing trainee translators’ output. In C. Mellado Blanco (Ed.), Productive patterns in phraseology and construction grammar. A multilingual approach (pp. 265–286). Mouton.
Serianni, L. (1989). Grammatica italiana. Italiano comune e lingua letteraria. Utet.
Stephens, N.M. (2006). Agentivity and the virtual reflexive. In B. Lyngfeld & T. Solstad (Eds.), Demoting the agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena (pp. 275–300). John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. (1992). Syntax. In R. M. Hogg (Ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 1: The beginnings to 1066 (pp. 168–289). Cambridge University Press.
Weigand, E. (1998). Contrastive lexical semantics. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics (pp. 25–44). John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford University Press.
Williams, E. (1981). Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review, 1, 81–114.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Franceschi, D. (2024). From the Reflexive to the Middle Construction: What is ‘In-Between’? a Comparison Between English and Italian. In: Baicchi, A., Broccias, C. (eds) Constructional and Cognitive Explorations of Contrastive Linguistics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46602-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46602-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-46601-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-46602-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)