M. Iriskulov, A. Kuldashev a course in Theoretical English Grammar Tashkent 2008

Questions and tasks for discussion 
 
1. What is the logical difference between the composite sentence and the 
sequence of simple sentences? 
2. What are the main ways of joining clauses into a sentences? 
3. What is the functional classification of subordinate clauses? 
4. What is the principal of conceptual integration of clauses? 
5. What are monolithic and segregative types of sentences? 
SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTIONS. SENTENCE
TYPOLOGY WITHIN A COGNITIVE APPROACH 
 
I. The problem of the semantic study of syntactic constructions. Concepts
represented by syntactic constructions. 
II. The problem of sentence typology within a cognitive approach: 
a) L.Talmy’s classification of syntactic structures; 
b) J.R. Taylor’s conception of sentence classification. 
I. The problem of the semantic study of syntactic constructions. Concepts
represented by syntactic constructions. 
There are two main approaches to the study of the sentences in cognitive 
linguistics investigations. The first one brings into focus the observation of the 
concepts represented by syntactic constructions, their nature, content and structure 
(A.Goldberg, L. Talmy, N.N. Boldyrev, L.A. Fours). The second one concerns the 
sentence typology and principles of sentence classification (L.Talmy, J.R. Taylor).
One of the semantic investigations of the syntactic structures within a 
cognitive approach has been started by A.Goldberg. She argues that constructions 
are conventionalized pieces of grammatical knowledge and they exist 
independently of the particular lexical items which instantiate them. The 
constructions brought under her observation are: ditransitive construction, caused-
motion construction, resultative construction, way construction. 
Ditransitive construction in the most general sense represents transfer between 
an agent and a recipient and schematically it can be defined as:
Subject (Agent)- Predicate (Cause-Receive)- Object 1 (Recipient)- Object 2 
(Patient), e.g.: Joe loaned Bob a lot of money. 

---

147 
Caused-motion construction represents the situation where one object (the 
causer) directly causes the motion of the other object: Subject (Causer)- Predicate 
(Cause-Move)- Object – Obl (Goal), e.g.: They laughed the poor guy out of the 
room. 
Resultative construction represents the situation where a patient undergoes a 
change of state as a result of the action denoted by the verb. Resultatives can apply 
to direct objects of some transitive verbs, e.g.: I had brushed my hair smooth; or to 
subjects of particular intransitive verbs, e.g.: The river froze solid. 
Thus, resultative construction can be defined as: Subject (Agent) – Predicate 
(Cause-Become) – Object (Patient) – Obl-adjective or prepositional phrase (Result-
Goal)  for transitive resultatives, and Subject (Patient) – Predicate (Become) – Obl 
(Result-Goal) for intransitive resultatives. 
“Way” construction represents the situation which involves the motion of the 
subject along some path. The construction admits two interpretations: “means” 
interpretation and “manner” interpretation. The first one means that that the path of 
motion is created by some action of the subject, e.g.: He pushed his way through 
the others; He bought his way into the exclusive country club (metaphorical 
motion). The second one means that the path is pre-established, e.g.: They were 
clanging their way up and down the narrow streets. The construction can be 
defined as Subject (Creator-Theme) – Predicate (Create-Move) – Object way 
(Createe-Way) – Obl (Path).
The semantics of a construction is viewed as a family of closely related
senses. It means that one and the same construction is paired with different but 
related senses, one of which is a central sense (a prototypical one), the others (non-
prototypical ones) are the senses which are its metaphorical extension. Thus, 
within the semantics of the ditransitive construction A.Goldberg distinguishes the 
central sense “the actual successful transfer”(e.g.: He gave her a lot of money) and 
metaphorical extension senses, such as, “causal events as transfers” (e.g.: The rain 
brought us some time), “communication as reception”, (e.g.: She told Joe a fairy 
tale), “perception as reception”(e.g.: He showed Bob the view), “actions as 
reception entities”( e.g.: She blew him a kiss), “facts and assumptions as objects 
which are given” (e.g.: I’ll give you that assumption). Thus, a syntactic 
construction is viewed by A. Goldberg as a category structured by the 
prototypical principle.
The main object of her further study is to make proposals for how to relate 
verb and construction. For this purpose she proposes the notion “semantic 
constraints”. The latter are the principles which license the use of verb in the 
construction. Thus, the semantic constraints for the caused-motion construction, 
for example, are the constraints on the causer and on the type of causation.
Constraint on the Causer presupposes that the causer can be an agent or
a natural force, e.g.: Chris pushed the piano up the stairs; The wind blew the ship 
off the course. 
Constraints on Causation, i.e. constraints on what kind of situations 
(causations) can be encoded by the Caused-Motion Construction, are as follows: 
I. No Cognitive Decision can mediate between the causing event and the entailed

---

148 
motion, e.g.: Sam frightened (coaxed, lured) Bob out of the room.  
II. The Implication of Actual Motion: if motion is not strictly entailed, it must be
presumed as an implication and can be determined pragmatically, e.g.: Sam 
asked (invited, urged) him into the room.
III. Causations can be Conventionalized Causations – causations which involve an
intermediate cause, i.e. are indirect, but cognitively packaged as a single
event, e.g.: The invalid owner ran his favorite horse (in the race).
IV. Incidental Motion Causations: incidental motion is a result of the activity 
causing the change of state which is performed in a conventional way. It
means that the path of motion may be specified and the causation may be
encoded by the Caused-Motion Construction, e.g.: Sam shredded the papers
into the garbage pail. The action performed by the agent typically implies
some predictable incidental motion.
V. Path of Motion: the path of motion must be completely determined by the
causal force. Which paths count as “completely determined” is in part a matter
of pragmatics, e.g.: They laughed the poor guy into his car. 
The semantic constraints have been proposed in an attempt to show principled 
patterns where there seems to be idiosyncrasy (compare the examples with relative 
verbs: Pat coaxed him into the room. – sounds correct, while Pat encouraged him 
into the room. – does not). (For details see: Goldberg Adele E., 1995).
The main value of A.Goldberg’s observation of the senses encoded by the 
constructions is that it deals with the analysis of the conceptual constituents of 
the events, such as agent, patient, causer, path , as well as the processual 
parameters of events (aspectual characteristics, characteristics of motion – directed 
motion, self-propelled motion, etc.) The constituent content is determined by 
lexical semantics and general world knowledge.
The linguistic investigations within the cognitive approach for the present 
give the priority to the issue of concepts represented by the simple sentence. 
Thus, it has been stated that syntactic concepts represent both linguistic and extra-
linguistic knowledge in their structure (N.N. Boldyrev and L.A. Fours); it has
been observed that the simple sentence as a linguistic unit represents not only a 
single event but also an event complex, when the syntactic pattern shapes two 
distinct events into a unitary one – the phenomenon termed by L.Talmy “event 
integration”. In other words, the linguists have performed a study of the nature 
and structure of concepts represented by the simple sentence.
The basic target of N.N. Boldyrev and L.A. Fours’ study is to observe the 
nature of the concepts represented by simple sentences and propose concepts 
typology. The main principle governing the concept typology is the assumption 
that syntactic concepts represent both linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge in 
their structure.
L.A. Fours argues that there are three formats of representing knowledge in 
syntax of the simple sentence and points out a configurational format, an 
actualizational format and a format of mixed type (combining properties of 
configurational and actualizational formats).

---

149 
Configurational format includes concepts which are represented by the basic 
syntactic configurations (schemes) defining the rules of combining words into
constructions. Actualizational format includes concepts which are verbalized by