6. Conclusion
6.3 Limitations and Future Studies
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
new principle’, it is suggested to be arranged in the post-verbal position, as in [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] (You can substitute margarine in the recipe). On the
contrary, when the NP has been mentioned in the prior discourse, it is suggested to be arranged in the pre-verbal position, as in [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp] (Margarine can be substituted in the recipe).
6.3 Limitations and Future Studies
In this section, some limitations of the present thesis are acknowledged, and future studies are presented.
The first limitation relates to the source of the corpus used in the present thesis.
Since the BNC corpus is designed to represent British English, it follows that the findings of this thesis could be generalized in the British English at best. The analysis of SUBSTITUTE is anticipated to extend to the American English in future studies.
Then, since the scope of this thesis is limited in SUBSTITUTE, the comparison with other lexical units in the {REPLACING} frame (e.g., replace, change, and
exchange) has not been researched. Specifically, the comparison in terms of the particular construal imposed on the event of substituting by different verbs should be investigated. The present thesis has indicated that the ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (IN)’
construal is the typical construal of SUBSTITUTE. Similarly, the same analysis of construal in other lexical units is expected to reveal the typical construal of each verb.
Then, by comparing the typical construals of the respective verbs, we could categorize the verbs in the {REPLACING} frame according to the typical construal that each verb imposes on the event. In doing so, the overall analysis of construal represents the varying ‘perspectives’ (Fillmore & Baker, 2010:330) that the respective verbs adopt.
Agent In Out TR LM
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
References
Aarts, B., Chalker, S., & Weiner, E. S. (2014). The Oxford dictionary of English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(4), 187-203.
Arnold, J. E., Kaiser, E., Kahn, J. M., & Kim, L. K. (2013). Information structure:
linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(4), 403-413.
Brito, C. M. C. (1996). A transitividade verbal na língua portuguesa: uma investigação de base funcionalista. Sao Paulo: Araraquara. de Base Funcionalista. São Paulo:
Araraquara.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: a comprehensive guide; spoken and written English grammar and usage. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York:
Praeger.
Cowan, R. (2011). The teacher’s grammar of English: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Cruse, D. A. (1973). Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics, 9(1), 11-23.
Davidse, K., & Heyvaert, L. (2007). On the middle voice: An interpersonal analysis of the English middle. Linguistics, 45(1), 37-83.
Davis, A. R., & Koenig, J. P. (2000). Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language, 76(1), 56-91.
Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic linguistic theory volume 1: Methodology (Vol. 1).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Du Bois, J. W. (2003). Argument structure. Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 14, 11-60.
Everett, C. (2009). A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”, 33(1), 1-24.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understandings. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222-254.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in
semantic and lexical organization, 103, 75-102.
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. (2003). Background to framenet.
International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235-250.
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame semantics. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 34, 373-400.
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Pragmatics and argument structure. In Laurence R. Horn &
Gregory Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 427–441. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). (2007). Corpora in cognitive linguistics:
Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (Vol. 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Kemmer, S. (1993). The middle voice (Vol. 23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization (Vol. 14). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation.
Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mateu, J. (2014). Argument structure. In Carnie, A., Siddiqi, D., & Sato, Y. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 42–59. London ; New York: Routledge.
Murphy, M. L., & Koskela, A. (2010). Key terms in semantics. London: Continuum.
Netz, H., & Kuzar, R. (2019). Discourse and metadiscourse of Hebrew SOV in the heated parliamentary arena. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 67–79.
Okugiri, M. (2014). English relative constructions and discourse in spoken and written language. KLA Journal, 1, 29-40.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Petruck, M. (1996). Frame Semantics. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert,
& C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 1–13. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins
Poesio, M., & Vieira, R. (1998). A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics, 24(2), 183-216.
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status.
In S. Thompson and W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description: diverse analyses of a fund raising text, 295-325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Schwarzer-Petruck, M., Johnson, C. R., &
Scheffczyk, J. (2006). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. (https:
//framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/index.php?q=the_book)
Schmid, H. J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shibatani, M. (1985). Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis.
Language, 61, 821-848.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Oosten, J. (1986). The nature of subjects, topics and agents: A cognitive explanation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Ward, G., & Birner, B. (2004). Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 153–
174. Oxford: Blackwell.
Yoshimura, K., & Taylor, J. R. (2004). What makes a good middle? The role of qualia in the interpretation and acceptability of middle expressions in English. English Language & Linguistics, 8(2), 293-321.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Zeyrek, D. (2019). Discourse structure: The view from shared arguments in Turkish Discourse Bank. In A. Sumru Özsoy (Ed.), Word order in Turkish, 287-306.
Cham: Springer.