The Cognitive Motivations and Combinatorial Mechanisms of Semantically Disoriented VXN Constructions
Abstract
Semantically disoriented VXN constructions in Mandarin Chinese, such as “读死书” (read in a rigid way) and “吃闲饭” (live idly without work), exhibit a distinctive form-meaning mismatch: the modifier X formally precedes the patient object N, but semantically orients toward other components of the event, such as the agent, instrument, manner, or goal. Existing studies have yet to offer a comprehensive account of the motivation and combinatorial mechanism underlying these structures. Drawing on Cognitive (Construction) Grammar, this study systematically examines the grammatical features and orientation types of disoriented VXN constructions to uncover their cognitive motivations and combinatorial mechanisms. The findings suggest that: (1) semantically disoriented VXN constructions are licensed by separable verb-object constructions, with their formation depending on a higher-level process of conceptual reification; (2) the combination of X and VN is achieved through the mechanisms of “active zone” and “reference point,” whereby the reified event activates relevant event participants (e.g., agent, instrument), which then stand in conceptual correspondence with the semantic properties of X; and (3) some XN sequences may undergo reanalysis and conceptual blending in usage, gradually becoming entrenched as lexical units, such as “青春饭” (a youth-dependent livelihood), reflecting the dynamic evolution of language use.
References
- Yang, S. (2005). Word-formation analysis of trisyllabic ‘monosyllabic V + X + monosyllabic N’ constructions.Chinese Linguistics, 4.
- Li, H. (2012). Derivational pathways and constraints of ‘monosyllabic V + NP’ chunks.Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 4.
- Zhang, P., Ma, B., & Zhuang, H. (2020). Adverbial-to-attributive conversion from the perspective of information-structure-syntax interaction.Foreign Language Research, 6,47-54.
- Li, J. (2024). The motivation and mechanism of eventive attributives.Studies of the Chinese Language, 1,36-50.
- Langacker, R. (1987).Foundations of cognitive grammar.Stanford University Press.
- Langacker, R. (1991).Foundations of cognitive grammar.Stanford University Press.
- Langacker, R. (2008).Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction.Oxford University Press.
- Goldberg, A. (1995).Constructions: 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.
- Lü, S. (1979).Problems in Chinese grammar analysis.The Commercial Press.
- Taylor, J. R. (2004). The ecology of constructions.Studies in Linguistic Motivation, 28,49.
- Zhang, Y. (2011). The complementarity of Cognitive Grammar and Construction Grammar in argument structure.Journal of Foreign Languages, 34(1), 44-49.
- Langacker, R. W. (2014). Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. InThe new psychology of language(pp. 1-37). Psychology Press.
- Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions.Cognitive Linguistics, 4,1-38.
- Langacker, R. W. (2004). Metonymy in grammar.Journal of Foreign Languages, 6,2-24.
- Langacker, R. W. (1977). Syntactic reanalysis. In C. N. Li (Ed.),Mechanisms of syntactic change(pp. 59-139). University of Texas Press.
- Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. (1993).Grammaticalization.Cambridge University Press.
- Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). Conceptual blending, form and meaning.Recherches en Communication, 19, 57-86.