|
1.
|
|
|
Ronald W. Langacker
University of California, San Diego - Linguistics Department
|
| Posted: |
|
29 Oct 08
|
|
Last Revised:
|
|
29 Oct 08
|
|
0
(0)
|
|
|
| |
Abstract:
The description and theoretical implications of the adverbial expressions in (1) are examined from the standpoint of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, 1991, 2008).
(1)(a) It just kept on raining day after day after day after day after day.
(b) Time after time he failed the exam.
(c) Year after year after year they reject my abstract.
This construction inherits from a variety of others, including a regular pattern whereby nominals referring to time function as adverbial modifiers, as in (2)(a)-(b). Internally these expressions involve the modification of a noun by a prepositional phrase, but are special in that the head and the prepositional object both appear ungrounded; they are part of a network of constructions of this sort described by Jackendoff (2008). In terms of both form and meaning, there is an evident similarity to chained coordination, as in (2)(c). More broadly, the expressions instantiate a general intonational pattern indicating the parallelism of a series of elements separated by a slight pause, as in (2)(c)-(d).
(2)(a) It rained the whole month.
(b) Every year they reject my abstract.
(c) It just rained and rained and rained and rained and rained.
(d) A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie.
In (1)(a), each non-peripheral instance of day functions simultaneously as the object of the preceding preposition and the head modified by the following prepositional phrase. Likewise, in (2)(d) each non-peripheral instance of a lie functions as both the predicate nominative in one clause and as subject in the next. This chain-like organization, unproblematic for the symbolic assemblies of Cognitive Grammar, shows the inadequacy of strict constituency hierarchies for describing grammatical structure.
The construction further involves the superimposition of non-commensurate organizational schemes. At one level, following the usual trajector/landmark alignment of after-phrases, each day mentioned in (1)(a) is prior to the preceding one, as in (3)(a). Overriding this, however, is an interpretation analogous to (2)(c), where each day mentioned follows the preceding one. This reversal of trajector/landmark alignment is comparable to the one exhibited by when and before in (3)(b)-(c), where discourse importance places primary emphasis on what would otherwise be the landmark clause.
(3)(a) the fight after the party after the reception after his wedding
(b) I had just stepped in the shower when the phone rang.
(c) I barely had time to introduce myself before everyone started offering advice.
The construction can be analyzed as iconically representing the simulation of extended experience. Everything needed for its description is available and independently justified in Cognitive Grammar. And pace Jackendoff, it does not support the autonomy of syntax vis-a-vis semantics.
|
