Show Less
Restricted access

Categorization in Discourse and Grammar


Edited By Małgorzata Fabiszak, Karolina Krawczak and Katarzyna Rokoszewska

This collection of papers addresses new trends in Cognitive Linguistics. Three parts of the book focus on Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Integration Network Analysis. Both the theoretical contributions and the empirical case studies stress the importance of contextual factors in the meaning making processes. They employ qualitative methods to analyze the use of metaphor in political discourse and in the conceptualization of emotions. The data sets include multimodal data, sign languages and co-speech gestures. The fourth part of the book contains two corpus-based studies. The fifth part concentrates on the grammatical categories of passive voice and aspect. One contribution discusses the problem of categorization in phonology.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

The English get-Passive Revisited


The present paper is concerned with the semantic characteristics of the English get-passive construction. The paper takes a Cognitive Linguistic approach to syntactic structure, arguing that get-passives represent a radial network of interrelated senses centered around the prototypical use, which represents action chain in the sense of Langacker (2008: 35f.). The main goal of this study is to elucidate this network, i.e. to account for the range of meanings conveyed by the get + PAST PARTICIPLE construction and the links holding between them. Furthermore, using the corpus-based method of distinctive collexeme analysis, the paper provides empirical evidence in favour of the thesis that the get-passive represents a construction in its own right, which is syntactically and semantically distinct from the be-passive construction. As argued here, the semantic distinctiveness of the two constructions resides in alternative construals they tend to impose on scenes being described.

1.  Introduction

The English so called get-passive, and especially its syntactic, semantic and pragmatic distinctiveness from the be-passive, has received considerable attention from researchers of various methodological and theoretical persuasions (cf. Alexiadou 2005; Carter & McCarthy 1999; Chappell 1980; Collins 2005; Downing 1996; Fleisher 2008; Haegeman 1985; Hatcher 1949; Reed 2011; Sussex 1982; Vanrespaille 1991). Interesting and informative as these studies might be, they leave unresolved many fundamental issues. One of them is the question of what actually should count as the get-passive, that is whether such divergent uses as get married, get involved, get frustrated, or get killed can...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.