A Cognitive-Functional Approach To English And Chinese Verb-Result Constructions

The dissertation aims to investigate the nature of English and Chinese VRCs in terms of the differences and similarities in semantics, syntax, functions and their motivations within the framework of our self-constructed cognitive-functional approach. To achieve the aim, the dissertation resorts to the combined research methods of the contrastive, qualitative and quantitative studies of data taken from various sources. And data from other languages or dialects are analysed to confirm and improve our findings from the perspective of language typology and general linguistics. The whole dissertation consists of eight chapters revolving around the detailed examination of and explanation for three problems regarding English and Chinese VRCs: the differences and similarities in semantic representations and semantic constraints; the differences and similarities in syntactic structures and semantics-syntax linking; the differences and similarities in textual features.The major findings can be summarized as follows. Firstly, VRC syntacticalizes the cause-effect event structure following Direct Visible Relevance Principle and Single Cause-Effect Correspondence Principle. Based on the degree of iconicity between the semantic structure and event structure, the VRC family constitutes a continuum of different degrees of prototypicality: prototypical VRCs > quasi-prototypical VRCs >pseudo-prototypical VRCs > non-prototypical VRCs. Secondly, VRC results from the integration between the intralinguistic and extralinguistic factors, especially, the interaction and negotiation among its high-level and low-level semantics, ICM and communicative functions. Thirdly, the causer is inherently eventive and optimally selected under the interaction of the cognitive prominence and metonymic clipping. Verbs with the following semantic components are generally disallowed to enter English or Chinese VRCs: [-Predicate], [+State], [+Stasis],[+Result],and [-Affectedness]. However, Chinese and English VRCs differ in the following aspects: Chinese VRCs enjoy more freedom in choosing causers than their English counterparts. The undergoer is not necessarily subject to DOR in all cases. Chinese VRCs can have RAP/VP/NP, while its English counterparts can have RAP/ PP/ADP/NP. Different Rs vary in their integration with V, among which, RAP is the most powerful. The VR integration is subject to the asymmetrical and typological tendency in English and Chinese. Fourthly, the interaction between single delimiting constraint and R function division largely determines the VR integration and its entry conditions: VRC denotes a delimited event and its eventive delimitation can be linguistically realized by means of syntax or lexicon, which in turn leads to the syntactic differences of VRCs. Only the event-delimiting Rs are in complementary distribution; however, VRCs with multiple delimiters may be generated by analogy. Fifthly, Differences and similarities can be found in syntactic structures and semantics-syntax linking: English and Chinese VRCs all can be arranged in the order SVOR, SVRO and SVR, but differ in the number and markedness in the syntactic arrangements: English VRCs have three major syntactic arrangements—SVOR, SVR and SVRO with the first two being unmarked and the last marked. While Chinese has eight major syntactic arrangements—SVOR, SVR, VRC with BA, SOVR,SVOR,SV1OV2R,SVRO1O2 and SV1O1V2RO2, with SVRO, SVR, and VRC with BA being unmarked, and the others marked. English VRCs are largely of discontinuous order, while Chinese VRCs are largely of continuous order, due to their differences in the degree of grammaticalization degree and language typology. Different VCRs in English and Chinese are subject to the general linking rules and particular integrated linking constraints in structure, meaning, cognition, function and communicative needs. Sixthly, English and Chinese VRCs show differences and similarities in their textual features. The similarities lie in the degree of formality of the texts and the degree of prototypicality of the VRCs, which jointly determine the distribution frequency of VRCs: the more formal the text is, the fewer VRCs it has; the more prototypical the VRC is, the more frequent it appears. The differences can be stated as follows: VRCs in proses tend to be clauses in positive polarity, active voice and indicative mood. Chinese and English VRCs are different in that the former enjoy higher frequency than the latter and the most frequent VRC is SVRO in Chinese, but SVOR in English.