Abstract
The analysis of obligatory or formulaic XVS structures - as in “Here comes the sun” or “Now is the time to solve our problems” - has been neglected in the literature since it has been argued that there seems to be no linguistic variation involved in the use of these types of syntactic constructions. Here, I defend the view that obligatory XVS structures are productive, highly structured constructions which are worthy of serious linguistic investigation. On the basis of a corpus-based analysis of written and spoken texts, it is argued that the different obligatory XVS types distinguished in the literature are clear instances of constructions as understood in the Construction Grammar framework. Despite their formal and functional dissimilarities, the article shows that these XVS structures still relate to one another in systematic and predictable ways, and are in fact grouped in relation to a unit in the schematic network which is naturally most salient - the prototype - and form with it a family of nodes which are extensions from the prototype - in the system. In sum, the analysis here will show that obligatory XVS structures are constructions which form an interconnected, structured system or network and are best understood with reference to different forms of inheritance.
References
Baker, Paul. 2009. Contemporary corpus linguistics. London: Continuum.
Barlow, Michael. 2000. Corpus of spoken professional American English. CD-ROM version. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Birner, Betty. 1996. The discourse function of inversion in English. New York: Garland.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.
Bresnan, Joan & Joni M. Kanerva. 1992. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. In Tim Stowell & Eric Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and semantics No. 26: Syntax and the lexicon, 53-101. New York: Academic Press,.
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, Mary & Christiane von Stutterheim. 2002. Typology and information organisation: Perspective taking and language-specific effects in the construal of events. In Anna Giacalone Ramat (ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 365-402. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chafe, Wallace. L. 1992. Information flow in speaking and writing. In Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima, & Michael Noonan (eds.), The linguistics of literacy, 17-29. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chen, Rong. 2003. English inversion: A ground-before-figure construction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dorgeloh, Heidrum. 1997. Inversion in Modern English: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dubrig, Hans Bernhard. 1988. On the discourse function of subject-verb inversion. In Joseph Klegraf & Dietrich Nehls (eds.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th birthday, 83-95. Heidelberg: Julius Gross Verlag.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1999. Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Andreas Kathol, Jean- Pierre Koenig & Gert Webelhuth (eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation, 113-128. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501-538.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele. E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions.
Language 80. 532-568.
Green, Georgia M. 1982. Colloquial and literary uses of inversion. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 119-154. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hartvigson, Hans & Leif K. Jakobsen. 1974. Inversion in Present-day English. Odense: Odense University Press.
Hofland, Knut, Anne Lindebjerg & Jørg Thunestvedt. 1999. ICAME collection of English language corpora. 2nd edition, CD-ROM version. Bergen: The HIT Centre.
Huddleston, Ronald & Geoffrey K. Pullum 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1-33.
Kreyer, Rolf. 2006. Inversion in modern written English: Syntactic complexity, information status and the creative writer. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology, 13-59. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nelson, Gerald. 1988. The International Corpus of English. The British component. Survey of English Usage: University College London.
Petré, Peter. 2010. The functions of weorðan and its loss in the past tense in Old and Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 14.3. 457-484.
Prado-Alonso, Carlos. 2008. The iconic function of full inversion in English. In Klaas Willems & Ludovic De Cuypere (eds.), Naturalness and iconicity in language, 149-166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Prado-Alonso, Carlos. 2011. Full-verb inversion in written and spoken English. (Linguistics Insights Series: Studies in Language and Communication 127.) Bern: Peter Lang.
Prado-Alonso, Carlos & Juan Carlos Acuña-Fariña. 2010. A comprehensive account of full-verb inversion in English. Folia Linguistica 44.2. 509-553.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rosch, Eleanor & Catlin B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structures of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7. 573-605.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schachter, Paul. 1992. Comments on Bresnan and Kanerva’s “Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar”. In Tim Stowell & Eric Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and semantics No. 26: Syntax and the lexicon, 103-110. New York: Academic Press.
Webelhuth, Gert. 2011. Motivating non-canonicality in Construction Grammar: The case of locative inversion. Cognitive Linguistics 22.1. 81-105.