Advertisement

A Web of Analogies: Depictive and Reaction Object Constructions in Modern English and French Fiction

  • Susanne Dyka
  • Iva Novakova
  • Dirk Siepmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10596)

Abstract

This paper looks at the cross-linguistic complexity of two fiction-specific English-language constructions involving descriptive key words, viz. (a) depictive constructions and (b) reaction object constructions (ROCs). The English constructions in question were subjected to a detailed, corpus-based analysis in terms of their lexical realizations and complementation patterns. A comparison was then made (a) with French constructional equivalents in literary texts written by French authors and (b) with translations of literary texts from English into French and vice versa. The results show that, compared to English, French literary style has limited options for expressing descriptivity. However, whilst there is an almost total absence of full equivalents of depictives in French novels, the situation is more varied in the case of ROCs, with some types being fairly productive in French (e.g. hurler, murmurer) but others non-existent.

Keywords

Depictive constructions Reaction object constructions Fictional key words Descriptive verbs 

References

  1. Aït-Mokhtar, S., Chanod, J., Roux, C.: Robustness beyond shallowness: incremental deep parsing. J. Nat. Lang. Eng. 8(2/3), 121–144 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. Beaver, J.: Resultative constructions. In: Binnick, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  3. Bouso, T.: Muttering contempt and smiling appreciation: disentangling the history of the reaction object construction in English. Engl. Stud. 98(2), 194–215 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozzeto, R.: La Science-fiction. Armand Colin, Paris (2007)Google Scholar
  5. Goldberg, A., Jackendoff, R.: The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3), 532–568 (2004). https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/jackendoff/papers/EnglishResultative.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hanks, P.: Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploiatations. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Himmelmann, N., Schulze-Berndt, E. (eds.): Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification: The Typology of Depictives. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  8. Levin, B.: English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London (1993)Google Scholar
  9. Levin, B., Rappaport Hovav, M.: Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  10. Martínez Vázquez, M.: Expressive object constructions in English: a corpus based analysis. Revista Canara De Estudios Ingleses 69, 175–190 (2014a). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Montserrat_Martinez_Vazquez/publication/303523978_EXPRESSIVE_OBJECT_CONSTRUCTIONS_IN_ENGLISH_A_CORPUS_BASED_ANALYSIS/links/5746cadd08aea45ee856d00a.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2017Google Scholar
  11. Martínez Vázquez, M.: Reaction object constructions in English and Spanish. E.S. Revista de Filología Inglesa 35, 193–217 (2014b). https://revistas.uva.es/index.php/esreview/article/view/732/714. Accessed 29 Aug 2017Google Scholar
  12. Real Puigdollers, C.: The nature of cognate objects: a syntactic approach. In: Proceedings ConSOLE XVI, pp. 157–178 (2008). http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/console16-real-puigdollers.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2017
  13. Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C., Rioul, R.: Grammaire méthodique du français. Presse Universitaires de France, Paris (1993)Google Scholar
  14. Siepmann, D.: Lexicologie et phraséologie du roman contemporain: Quelques pistes pour le français et l’anglais. Cahiers de lexicologie, No. 108 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. Snell-Hornby, M.: Verb-Descriptivity in German and English: A Contrastive Study in Semantic Fields. Carl Winter, Heidelberg (1983)Google Scholar
  16. Talmy, L.: Towards a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 2. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  17. Tapanainen, P., Järvinen, T.: A non-projective dependency parser. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pp. 64–71. Association for Computational Linguistics, Washington D.C. (1997). http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/980000/974568/p64-tapanainen.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität Osnabrück, University of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany
  2. 2.Université Grenoble Alpes, Université Stendhal Grenoble3Grenoble Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations