A Constructional Analysis of Obligatory XVS Syntactic Structures

Open access


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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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.

Journal information
Impact Factor

Cite Score 2018: 0.08

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.1
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.095

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 191 56 1
PDF Downloads 119 41 0