论文总字数：51074字

摘 要

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Research background 1

1.2 Significance of the study 2

1.3 Organization of the study 2

2. Literature Review 4

2.2 Studies on the syntax-semantics interface abroad 4

2.3 Studies on the syntax-semantics interface in China 5

2.4 Research gap 6

3. Methodology 8

3.1 Research questions 8

3.2 Research methods 8

3.2.1 Close reading 8

3.2.2 Introspection 8

3.2.3 Corpus-based approach 8

4. Theoretical Framework 10

4.1 Cognitive grammar 10

4.2 Construction theory 10

4.2.1 Semantic coherence principle and correspondence principle 11

4.2.2 The interaction between lexical meaning and constructional meaning 12

4. 3 Trajector-Landmark concept 12

5. Construal of Syntax-semantics Interface of English Cause-effect Complex Sentences 14

5.1 The concept of cause-effect complex sentences 14

5.2 The construction of English cause-effect complex sentences 15

5.3 The effect of cause-effect complex event on cause-effect syntax structure 17

5.3.1 Elaboration of cause-effect syntax structure 17

5.3.2 The verification of causal relation 18

5.3.3 The establishment of differently gradual force-dynamic relation 18

5.4 The counter-effect of cause-effect syntax structure on cause-effect complex event 19

5.4.1 The complement of cause-effect complex event 19

5.4.2 Enforcement of roles of two events 20

5.4.3 Filtration of cause-effect event 20

6. Conclusion 21

6.1 Major findings 21

6.2 Innovations and significance of the study 21

6.3 Limitations of the study 22

6.4 Suggestions for further study 22

References 23

Acknowledgements

Looking back on the four years of university is the most important growth experience in my life. I have a vivid memory of the past of university, which makes me unforgettable.

I would like to thank my thesis instructor, Dr. Wu Jidong, who has made my study improve by leaps and bounds. Otherwise, with my academic ability, it is difficult to complete a high-quality graduation thesis. The rigorous academic spirit of the teacher has made me improve my study writing in an all-round way. Not only has my horizon of knowledge been expanded, but also my attitude towards academia has become more focused. It was the teacher who gave me the guidance of my thesis, which was only a small aspect of my instructor's progress. I also learned the truth of being a man from my instructor. My attitude towards life became positive and healthy. Every breath of air I breathed was full of vitality, which made me full of passion in both work and study. It's my luck and gift to meet such an excellent teacher in my life, to give me papers and advice in my life. It's the beacon of my way forward in hardship, the navigator of my wandering in the lost way, and the ferryman of my self-help in the confusion.

Here, I must pay high tribute to my instructor and express my heartfelt thanks. My instructor is an example of my life.

Finally, I would like to thank all those who have helped me.

Abstract

The thesis mainly explores the syntax-semantics interface of the English cause-effect complex sentences based on Construction Theory (Goldberg) and Trajector-Landmark Concept. English cause-effect complex sentences are classified into two categories--objective cause-effect complex sentences and subjective cause-effect complex sentences--in light of human beings’ construal and perception of English cause-effect complex sentences. After detailed examination it finds out that there is interaction between cause-effect syntax structure and cause-effect complex events in English cause-effect complex sentences. First, cause-effect complex events exert influence on cause-effect syntax structure. In the context of English cause-effect complex sentences, cause-effect complex events elaborate cause-effect syntax structure, verify the causal relation in cause-effect syntax structure, and provide force-dynamic relation. Reversely, cause-effect syntax structure can complement cause-effect complex events, enforce participant roles on cause-effect complex events, and select the appropriate process or conception roles. Major research methods include close reading, corpus-based approach and introspection. Through thorough expounding of the syntax-semantics interface, the mechanism behind English cause-effect complex sentences is unveiled, which will help English enthusiasts, learners, and teachers have a better understanding of cause-effect complex sentences and provide a reference for researchers in relevant studies.

Keywords: English cause-effect complex sentences; syntax-semantics interface; construction theory (Goldberg); trajector-landmark concept

中文摘要

论文主要借助构式理论及射体-界标理论研究英语因果复句的句法语义界面。根据人们对英语因果复句的认知及识解，将英语因果复句分为客观因果复句和主观因果复句。通过文献阅读法，语料库研究法以及内省法等，发现因果句法结构和因果复杂事件之间存在互动制约的关系。首先，因果复杂事件影响因果句法结构。因果复杂事件使因果句法结构更具体，验证因果句法结构中的因果关系，为因果句法结构提供动态作用力；相反，因果句法结构可以补足因果复杂事件，将参与者角色强加给词汇意义，选择适合的例概念或者例过程。因此，英语因果复句的机制得以明晰，这有利于英语爱好者，学习者，教师更好理解英语因果复句，也为相关科研工作提供一定的参考。

关键词: 英语因果复句； 句法语义界面；构式理论； 射体-界标

1. Introduction

The cause-effect complex sentence, which is easily accessible in English, has been examined from various angles. The study will analyze its syntax-semantics interface from a cognitive linguistics angle, hoping to shed light to relevant cognitive evidence. This chapter introduces research background, research significance, and the organization of the study.

1.1 Research background

The core topics and main fields of cognitive linguistics include grammaticalization, metonymy, metaphor, construction grammar, cognitive grammar, etc. These theories provide a new paradigm for our language research. Recently, with the universality of language, the cause-effect complex sentence, which is composed of two finite clauses connected by causal conjunctions, has always been one of the hot topics in academic research.

Because of the different classification criteria, the classification of cause-effect complex sentences is different. According to the semantic relationship between the main clause and the subordinate clause, the English cause-effect complex sentence can be divided into two categories: direct reason and indirect reason (Quirk et al, 1985). According to the meanings of cause-effect complex sentences, Sweetser (2002) divides English cause-effect complex sentences into three domains: content domain, epistemic domain and speech-act domain. Shen (2003), based on Sweetser’s research, proposes three domains of “Xing(行)、Zhi(知)、Yan(言)”. From the perspective of cognitive grammar, Niu (2006) divides English cause-effect complex sentences into objective and subjective types, according to the reference to the speaker’s cognitive construal. He believes that the semantic change from objective cause-effect complex sentences to subjective cause-effect complex sentences is a subjectivation process.

The findings of previous studies on cause-effect complex sentences provide us with new ideas and perspectives to analyze and understand their syntactic features and semantic functions, and they have important reference value and significance for us to further explore the internal relationship between their syntactic structure and semantics of English cause-effect complex sentences. Nevertheless, there are few cognitive grammar studies on the syntax-semantics interface of English cause-effect complex sentences. Therefore, the study attempts to explore the relation between the semantic structure and the syntactic structure of English cause-effect complex sentences, especially the correlation between the semantic interpretation and the syntactic rules, within the theoretical framework of cognitive grammar.

1.2 Significance of the study

The present study has both academic and practical significance. On the one hand, the study of the relationship between the semantic structure and the syntactic structure of English cause-effect sentences and their correlation between the semantic interpretation and the syntactic rules will in return strengthen the understanding of the interface hypothesis and the syntax-semantics interface. This study applies Construction Theory and Trajector-landmark concept to the syntax-semantics interface of English cause-effect complex sentences. Therefore, this study can provide a more specific and detailed reference for language research and the development of the Cognitive Grammar. On the other hand, the study on the syntax-semantics interface of English cause-effect complex sentences will be helpful to provide cognitive evidence for Chinese English learners to acquire them. In this way, this study could additionally support the study of English cause-effect complex sentences in the L2 classroom, which is of great significance for second language teaching. What’s more, the findings of this study will provide strong theoretical support and practical guidance for computer information processing and artificial intelligence research and development. All in all，this study on the syntax-semantics interface of English cause-effect complex sentences from the perspective of Cognitive Grammar is of great importance and significance.

1.3 Organization of the study

This study consists of six chapters: the first chapter is the introduction, in this part the research background and the research significance are introduced; Chapter 2 is the literature review, which summarizes the research status of the syntax-semantics interface and domestic and foreign research status related to the fundamental topics, thus providing reference for the writing of this thesis; the third part introduces the research methods used in the study including literature reading, introspection, and corpus-based approach. Then the fourth part discusses the theoretical framework which involves Construction Theory, Trajector-Landmark Concept, and the cognitive principles of English cause-effect complex sentences; The fifth part is the core of this paper, which discusses the interaction between cause-effect syntax structure and cause-effect complex events in English cause-effect complex sentences. First, cause-effect complex event exerts influence on cause-effect syntax structure. In the context of English cause-effect complex sentences, cause-effect complex event elaborates cause-effect syntax structure, verifies the causal relation in cause-effect syntax structure, and provides force-dynamic relation. Reversely, cause-effect syntax structure can complement cause-effect complex event, enforce participant roles on cause-effect complex event, and select the appropriate process or conception roles; and the last part is the conclusion part.

2. Literature Review

This part mainly conducts a review of the previous research on the syntax-semantics interface and the English cause-effect complex sentences both at home and abroad in an all-round way, so as to find the research gap in this particular field and enrich relevant studies.

2.1 The syntax-semantics interface

The study of syntax-semantics interface began with people’s attention to the semantics addressed in Chomsky’s (1957, 1965, 1981) transformational-generative grammar. There are two main perspectives in the study of syntax-semantics interface. One is projection theory, which holds that verb semantics plays a decisive role in syntactic morphology. It discusses verb, the representation of argument and mapping rules from the perspective of verb semantics. The other perspective is the construction grammar, based on cognitive theory, which holds that some syntactic meanings belong to the construction meaning, and the projection function of verbs cannot explain such linguistic facts, so we must find the answer from the systematic correspondence between the whole form of argument structure and the meaning. These two perspectives are different in research methods, but they both propose a fundamental relationship between the semantics and the syntax and the general trend is to study the relationship between lexical semantics and syntactic realization. Each theory has a potential power for the interpretation of the syntax-semantics interface.

2.2 Studies on the syntax-semantics interface abroad

John Lyons (2000) pointed out “people’s general view is that words, phrases and sentences in natural languages are meaningful, while sentences are composed of words (and phrases), and the meaning of a sentence depends on the words (and phrases) that make it.” However, modern linguistics has started a new era of emphasizing syntactic form over semantic research. It is not until the middle of transformational grammar that semantic value is highlighted in syntactic research. Chomsky (1995) put forward the problem of syntactic and semantic interface in the minimalist scheme. Since then, the problem of syntax-semantics interface has become an important research field.

The research of syntax-semantics interface has undergone various stages of development, including the classical theory stage, the standard theory stage, the tube theory stage, and the simplest project stage. In the early classical theory stage, Chomsky (1965) emphasized the autonomy of syntax and opposed syntax based on semantics or explained semantics of various syntactic phenomena and restrictions. Therefore, he took a contradictory attitude towards semantics. Then, the rise of cognitive semantics in the late 1970s(the standard theory stage) made up for the shortcomings of generative grammar in the study of lexical semantics, and explained the semantic basis of syntax better from the perspective of lexical semantics. The theoretic stage proposed the theta role and the theta criterion, that is, the number, type and position of the theta roles are unique to each verb. In the simplest project stage, Chomsky (1995) greatly changed the research of the lexical semantics-syntax interface.

Foreign scholars have merged grammatical theories such as dependency grammar, categorical grammar, generative grammar, role and reference grammar, etc., and combined semantic research with vocabulary, which has established a systematic syntax-semantics interface theory. Many problems have been solved in the fields of verb meaning and argument structure, the nature and syntactic expression of syntactic categories, prosody and syntax, information structure and syntax, and syntactic and semantic analysis in complex sentences. The syntax-semantics interface theory is not only useful in language, which reflects strong descriptive and explanatory power, and it also shows interdisciplinary interests and development directions.

2.3 Studies on the syntax-semantics interface in China

Interface research started late in China. The earliest article on syntax-semantics interface was published in Foreign Linguistics, which Syntax-Semantics Interface by Mgrve En and translated by Chen (1993). The author states: “Studying the relationship between syntax and semantics is to study the nature of the principle of combination, and one of the main tasks faced by linguists is to determine other characteristics of syntax related to interpretation.” The syntax-semantics interface issues were introduced by type assignment, the assignment of theta roles, scope assignment, and constraints on interpretations from several perspectives.

Lu (2006) put forward two ideas of syntax-semantics interface research, one is from the outside to the inside, that is, from the perspective of sentence meaning composition, to explore the meaning of a sentence woven from which meaning; the other is from the inside to the outside, that is, how to express their cognitive access of the objective world through words. Wang et al (2009) and other researchers found that the semantics of ergative verbs in English and Chinese contains the three meanings of action, cause-become meaning and result-state; some of the meanings of ergative verbs are mapped onto their syntactic structures, not all of them. The semantic characteristics of ergative verbs and the cognitive orientation of language users have a direct impact on the selection of specific sentence patterns of ergative verbs in English and Chinese. Gao (2013) studied English middle constructions at syntax-semantics interface. Her article establishes an integrated syntax-semantics interface，i.e.，an extended event structure which includes an event structure and a qualia structure. The event structure determines syntactic realization of arguments in linking syntax and semantics，and the qualia structure is a good complement by following the principle of semantic compatibility.

Some of these studies comprehensively introduced the basic ideas and research status of syntax-semantics interface, and some proposed the important role of syntax-semantics interface in the field of information science. Some of them analyzed the syntax-semantics interface of Chinese. Most of their studies were based on construction theory and projection theory. And these previous studies can provide important reference to study the syntax-semantics interface of English cause-effect complex sentences.

2.4 Research gap

The extant literature on the syntax-semantics interface mainly focuses on the lexical or sentential semantics. These previous studies have suggested that lexical semantics determines syntax and syntactic semantics influences the vocabulary. And the research on the syntax-semantics interface of complex sentences is insufficient. What’s more, previous studies have studied English cause-effect complex sentences from the perspective of typology, semantics, pragmatics, syntax, or cognitive grammar. However, the studies on the syntax-semantics interface of English cause-effect complex sentences are seldom seen in relevant research. More importantly, the interaction between the semantics and syntax is barely studied over the past few years.

And the previous studies on English cause-effect complex sentences are from the perspectives of semantics, syntax, and pedagogy, but few of them are cognition-related.

Therefore, this thesis aims to explore the syntax-semantics interface of English cause-effect complex sentences and find out how syntax and semantics interact with and influence each other.

3. Methodology

This chapter introduces research questions and research methods.

3.1 Research questions

The present paper makes an attempt to explore the syntax-semantics interface of English cause-effect complex sentences based on Construction Theory and Trajector-landmark concept. The specific research questions are:

(1) How does semantics determine syntactic structure in English cause-effect complex sentences?

(2) How does syntactic structure influence semantics in English cause-effect complex sentences?

3.2 Research methods

Major research methods including close reading, introspection and corpus-based approach will be introduced one by one in the following part.

3.2.1 Close reading

This paper collects relevant literature and research in order to understand and analyze recent research status and find out the research gap. Based on the findings of previous research, we will aim to make breakthroughs and innovations.

3.2.2 Introspection

Introspection is a basic method in the study of philosophy and psychology, and is later used in linguistic studies. This paper combines scientific thinking with logical reasoning, explaining the two-way interaction view of syntax and semantics of English cause-effect complex sentences.

3.2.3 Corpus-based approach

Big data is changing how people think, live and produce things nowadays. Corpus is an embodiment of big data, and it is wildly used in linguistic studies. By way of corpus, the research becomes an objective and descriptive one, which makes the research result more scientific and reliable. The corpus used in the thesis is from The British National Corpus (BNC). BNC is one of the most representative contemporary corpora, which works on building the corpus began in 1991 and completed in 1994. It is a 100-million-word collection of samples of written and spoken language from a wide range of sources, designed to represent the wide cross-section of British English from the later part of the 20th century, both spoken and written.

4. Theoretical Framework

This part mainly presents the theoretical framework in the syntax-semantics interface research of the English cause-effect complex sentences. The relevant theories include Construction Theory and Trajector-Landmark concept in cognitive grammar, which may well explain the research questions.

4.1 Cognitive grammar

Ronald W. Langacker, a professor of linguistics in the United States, has been devoted to the creation of a new linguistic theory since 1976, which was called space grammar at that time and now known as Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Grammar aims to describe the psychological and cognitive rules of language. It holds that language ability is a part of human’s general cognitive ability, so language is not a autonomous system and cannot be described without referring to cognitive processing. Syntax is not a self-sufficient system of language, but closely related to semantics and vocabulary. Semantics is not only based on objective truth conditions, but also depends on the structural style of the context content and the subjective construal style of human beings.

The correlation and interaction between syntax and semantics has long been the focus of cognitive grammar, which is named syntax-semantics interface research. There are mainly three theories about syntax-semantics interface research, i.e. Predicate Decomposition Theory, Construction Theory and Projection Theory, among which Construction Theory is deemed to afford a strong explanatory power in syntax-semantics interface research. And Trajector-Landmark Concept, an indispensable part in Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar, is a useful tool in various studies to better explain language phenomena. Therefore, Construction Theory and Trajector-Landmark Concept will be adopted to explain the syntax-semantics interface in the English cause-effect complex sentences.

4.2 Construction theory

Originating from cognitive grammar in the 1980s, Construction Theory is a thriving grammar theory both at home and abroad due to its powerful explanation in language analysis as a theoretical prototype. In spite of different schools in Construction Theory with Golderberg, Langacker, Fillmore, Kay, Bergen and Chang as prominent figures, they all carry weight in the theoretical research of Construction Theory. Construction Theory holds that construction is a pair of form and meaning and that sentence meaning contains cause-effect complex event and cause-effect syntax structure,, the two of which interact in non-trivial ways (Goldberg, 1995). Construction makes form and meaning match and is a form itself--a correspondence that meaning matches. The study will adopt Construction Theory, and put it on a sentence or clause unit, therefore, in English cause-effect sentences, the lexical meaning and the constructional meaning in Construction Theory is replaced respectively with cause-effect complex event and cause-effect syntax structure, which is also the innovation of the thesis.

4.2.1 Semantic coherence principle and correspondence principle

As what has mentioned above, Construction Theory thinks that lexical meaning and constructional meaning interact with each other, and Semantic Coherence Principle and Correspondence Principle (Goldberg, 1995), put forward by Goldberg, is to make the interaction happen.

According to Semantic Coherence Principle, the participant roles must be the instance conception/process of the semantic roles. For the verb buy, its participant roles are lt;buyer, buyee, buyedgt;. The verb buy can enter the double object construction lt;Mary bought a cargt; is because lt;buyer, buyee, buyedgt; is the instance conception/process of lt;agent, recipient, patientgt; respectively, and is not the instance conception/process of lt;cause, theme, goalgt;, which is the reason why it cannot enter this caused-motion construction.

In terms of Correspondence Principle, the participant roles which have to be presented can be profiled. For construction, the semantic roles can be profiled only if they have direct grammatical relationship. And the profiled participant roles have to be fused with the profiled semantic roles in construction.

The Semantic Coherence Principle and Correspondence Principle are established because of the following reasons.

First, the semantic roles of construction unit are the categorization of participant roles. For example, agent is the categorization of buyer, breaker, seller, etc. The relationship between them is type vs. instance, which ensures the semantic validity of the predicates in the construction.

Second, as for Correspondence Principle, the fusion is unidirectional in that the participant roles must fuse into the semantic roles, which means that the lexical must adapt to the construction. That theoretically makes sure the limitation of lexical meaning of participle roles by construction. The unidirectionality of fusion holds that construction exist a priori, i.e., construction is selective and it can select and check out the proper lexical. So the selection of lexical by construction and the fusion of lexical into construction are the same.

4.2.2 The interaction between lexical meaning and constructional meaning

Lexical meaning influences constructional meaning in its elaboration of cause-effect syntax structure, providing of force-dynamic relation and precondition, and the co-occurring with constructional meaning (Goldberg, 1995).

The counter-effect of constructional meaning on lexical meaning includes the following aspects. First, construction can complement lexical meaning because construction itself is of meaning. When the same lexical enter the different construction, it will have different meaning. Second, participant roles can be shaded or de-profiled, cut or merged by construction. Third, the construction can force participant roles into lexical meaning. Last, construction can filter the improper lexical out of construction by Semantic Coherence Principle and Correspondence Principle.

4. 3 Trajector-Landmark concept

Trajector-Landmark concept is useful in research to visualize the relevant parameters or transforming processes. Though often used in the specific analysis to assist the whole research, it is proved to be powerful and decisive.

In the Cognitive Grammar by Langacker, a linguistic predication is either nominal or relational, the former is “characterized abstractly as a set of interconnected entities(Langacker, 1987/2005) and functions as a noun, and the latter refers to the profiling of interconnections between nouns in the form of a verb, preposition, adverb, etc., which is dependent. The nominal predication and the relational predication together constitute an essential meaning, whereas an asymmetry invariably consists in the nominal participants of a relational predication, which are trajector (TR) and landmark (LM).

The trajector can be used in both static and dynamic relations. The Landmark provide information about the location of the trajector as a referred object to position the “moving” object--trajector. In the relation of objects perceived in language, the positions of trajector and landmark are interchangeable. For example, in the passive and active voice, the agent and the patient can be perceived respectively as the trajector and the landmark, but the patient or the agent can be profiled as needed. The choice of trajector depends on the speaker or the writer’s cognition pattern, attention focus, gestalt perception, observation direction, moving direction, and personal preference.

In English cause-effect complex sentences, main clause (MC) regardless of result clause or causal clause, is the trajector and clause (C) the landmark, once the two of which are connected by connectives, a grounding element, they lose their independence in that clause will be overridden by the main clause. So the one that overrides is trajector, and the other that is overridden is landmark（Wu, 2017）.

5. Construal of Syntax-semantics Interface of English Cause-effect Complex Sentences

This chapter introduces the concept of cause-effect complex sentences, the construction of English cause-effect complex sentences, the effect of lexical meaning on constructional meaning, and the counter-effect of cause-effect syntax structure on cause-effect complex event.

5.1 The concept of cause-effect complex sentences

Cause-effect complex sentences refers to the connector of two clauses that express causality, including compound sentence and subordinate complex sentence. A cause-effect complex sentence is often composed of three parts: the main clause, the conjunction and the clause. Use A stands for the main sentence, C stands for the conjunction, and B stands for the clause. Its basic structure is: A (,) C B or C B, A. The main clause is the result clause and the causal clause. Connectives here include because, since and as etc., which are all subordinate conjunctions. Specifically, there are two sentence structures of it: R (result clause) Co (connectives) C (causal clause) and Co (connectives) C (causal clause) R.

It can represent the causal relation not only between objective events but between the subjective cognitions of the speaker or writer and between the speech act and events.

As language is an essential part of cognition, the language carries the speakers’ or writers’ individual perception and construal dimensions. The speakers or writers can be the perceivers, and the perceivers and objects of perception at the same time. According to the role of perception of speakers or writers, the English cause-effect complex sentences are divided into two groups: objective cause-effect complex sentences and subjective cause-effect complex sentences (Niu, 2006).

In the former group, the speaker or writer is only a perceiver, the causal relationship is always objective like in this sentence, he grows fast as his mother takes good care of him, the speaker or writer is only a perceiver of the objective fact that the good caring causes him to grow fast; while in the latter one, the speaker is both a perceiver and an object of perception and the causal relationship is subjective. For instance, in the sentence “you should work hard, for your parents hope so”, the speaker or writer is both the perceiver and the object of perception in that “I” conclude that “you” should work hard because “I” know “your parents” hope so, so the causal relation is not between two events but what “I” know and what “I” conclude.

However, the subjective English cause-effect complex sentences and the objective English cause-effect complex sentences are not clear-cut but a continuum because language itself is subjective. According to the theory of cognitive grammar, meaning is subjective and meaning is conceptualization. The semantic value of an expression is not only an inherent feature of an entity, but also related to people’s subjective construal (Langacker, 1998). The subjectivity of the semantics of a language expression is mainly embodied in the speaker’s understanding of the expression object as well as the speaker’s perception or conceptualization of the expression object. When understanding or perceiving the expression objects people may be either perceivers or constructers, or they may be perceived or the construal. They often adopt “optimal viewing arrangement” and “egocentric viewing arrangement” (Langacker, 1987). The subjectivity of semantics refers to the projection of the speaker’s understanding of the relevant events or the speaker’s own understanding, thoughts and feelings or the dimension of perception in the language. As Niu (2005) said, “the subjectivity of complex sentence semantics means that in the process of semantic construction of a complex sentence, the relationship between the two events is presumed to be a certain logical relationship by subjective factors such as the speaker’s position, viewpoint, purpose and intention, so as to highlight and strengthen the involvement and participation of the speaker’s “self”. The following part will relate the subjectivity to the interaction of cause-effect complex events and cause-effect syntax structure.

Lots of research has done in syntactic features and semantic functions of the English cause-effect complex sentences while few of them focus on the syntax-semantics interface which the following part will elaborate on mainly in the framework of Construction Theory and Trajectory-Landmark concept.

5.2 The construction of English cause-effect complex sentences

English cause-effect complex sentences contain three components, that is, the main clause, the connective, and the clause, and they have two constructions: (1) lt; R Co Cgt;, (2) lt; Co C R gt;. According to Construction Grammar, the connective in English cause-effect complex sentences can be treated as a verb, which not only connects the result clause and the causal clause, but, as a grounding element, introduces the causal clause. Due to the asymmetry in causal clause and result clause, Trajector-Landmark concept can be applied. The result clause, as the main clause, can be seen as trajector, which is the focus on stage that catches the attention of speaker/writer and hearer/reader; while the causal clause, as the clause, can be equated with landmark, which is the secondary focus on stage of speaker/writer and hearer/reader, as the reference of the main clause (Wu, 2017). Take the construction (1) as an example, the construal of the English cause-effect complex sentences is as follows, in which On-s, S/W and H/R stands for on-stage, speaker/writer and hearer/reader respectively; thick lines mean the focused components, the arrows represent the effect of one element on the other or towards each other.

Figure 5.1 Construal of the English cause-effect complex sentence（Wu,2019）

5.3 The effect of cause-effect complex event on cause-effect syntax structure

As mentioned in Chapter four, cause-effect complex event exerts influence on cause-effect syntax structure. In the context of English cause-effect complex sentences, cause-effect complex event elaborates the cause-effect syntax structure, verifies the causal relation in cause-effect syntax structure, and provides force-dynamic relation.

5.3.1 Elaboration of cause-effect syntax structure

Though constructions are meaningful themselves, but the meaning is abstract and incomplete as the two constructions: (1) lt; R Co Cgt;, (2) lt; Co C R gt;, from which we only know there is a clausal relation that needs to be perceived, but we do not know what it is. However, once the events enter the construction, the constructional meaning is elaborated by event meaning, thus the construction being more specific and vibrant. And different event meaning gives different semantic meaning of the same construction, as in the following examples:

1. I don't rise sooner, because 'tis the worst thing in the world for the complexion.
2. As you become interested in film acting it is likely that you will also become interested in film making.
3. New children are being put at risk every day because many care workers still do not know how to protect people from HIV.
4. Since black people in the southern states have suffered more injustices at the hands of the law they tend to be less likely to hand out death sentences.

The above Example (1), (2), (3) and (4) are all English cause-effect complex sentences, and their constructions are the same. But Example (1) and (2) are English cause-effect complex sentences in that the speaker is both the perceiver and the object of perception. In Example (1), the speaker’s intention is to indicate that the speaker did not get up sooner for he thinks it’s the most detrimental to the complexion, but actually there is no direct causal relation between the two events; In Example (2), the speaker concludes that the hearer who loves film acting is interested in filming making probably because many people who is interested in film acting happen to love film making. Example (3) and (4) are objective English cause-effect complex sentences. The speaker just objectively states the causal relation of the two facts. In Example (3), the children are at risk because many care workers don’t know how to protect them from HIV. In Example (4) that fact that black people in the southern states have suffered more injustices at the hands of the law causes black people to be less likely to hand out death sentences.

The above four examples, apart from providing a causal relation, all vitalize cause-effect syntax structure by concretizing or elaborating the cause and effect.

5.3.2 The verification of causal relation

The cause-effect complex event of a construction verifies the causal relation in cause-effect complex sentences to make sure the realization of the causal relation. As in the sentence “Since the notebook runs out of use, the earth revolves around the sun”, it matches the construction well, but the cause-effect complex event of it does not establish a causal relation between the shortage of notebooks and the natural phenomenon of the revolving of the earth around the sun. So the cause-effect complex event helps to verify the causal meaning and rules out the inappropriate ones.

5.3.3 The establishment of differently gradual force-dynamic relation

The connectives in English cause-effect complex sentences function as a verb functions in simple sentences, which connect the main clause and the clause and put a causal relation to the construction.

(5) Yet she was pardoned, because she was an internationally famous actress.

请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：51074字