2. The notions “event integration” and “macro-event”. Linguistic patterns for the

Representation of macro–events (see: Further readings on syntax in this book from

L.Talmy “Toward a cognitive semantics”.

Literature

1. Lectures on syntax (this book).

2. Фурс Л.А. Когнитивные аспекты синтаксиса английского простого

предложения. – Тамбов, 2005.

3. Goldberg Adele E. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument

structure. – Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1995.

4. Events as Grammatical Objects. Ed. by C.Tenny and J.Pustejovsky, CSLI

Publications, 2000.

5. Fauconnier G., Turner M. Blending as a central process of grammar//Goldberg

A.(ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. – Stanford, Cal.:

CSLI Publications, 1996.- P.113-131.

6. Kay P., Fillmore C. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:

“The what’s X doing Y? construction”, Language 75: pp. 1-33, 1999.

7. Mandelblit N. The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: From

syntax to morphology // Cognitive Linguistics 2000, 3-4, P. 197-206.

8. Talmy L. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition //Topics in Cognitive

Linguistics. – Amsterdam, 1988. – P.165-207.

9. Talmy L. The windowing of Attention in Language // Grammatical

Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. – Oxford, 1996. – P. 235-287.

10. Talmy L. Toward a cognitive semantics. – Massachusetts:Institute of

Technology, 2000.

11. Ungerer F., Schmid H.-J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. –

L., N.Y., 1996.

12. Zucchi A. The language of Propositions and Events. Dordrecht, 1993.

13. Болдырев Н.Н., Фурс Л.А. Репрезентация языковых и неязыковых

знаний синтаксическими средствами// Филологические науки, 2004, №

3, стр. 67-74.

14. Скобликова Е.С. Концептосфера человека и модели предложения//

Филологические науки, 2001, № 4, стр.45-54.

15. Сулейманова О.А. Релевантные типы синтаксических структур и их

семантические корреляты. Автореф. дисс. на соискание уч.степени

доктора филол. наук. Москва, 2000.

Practical tasks

I. State the type of the following sentences expressing a particular

type of cross-event relations. Use L.Talmy’s classification:

a1. complex sentence with subordinating conjunction

a2. complex sentence with subordinating preposition

a3. complex sentence with subordinating conjunction and gerundive

a4. complex sentence with zero subordinating conjunction and gerundive

b. copy-cleft sentence with nominal pro-clause

c. copy-cleft sentence with adverbial pro-clause

d. copy-cleft sentence with conjunctional pro-clause

Type of semantic (cross-event) relation: “Reason”

1. They stayed home because/ since/ as they were feeling tired.

2. Feeling tired, they stayed home.

3. They were feeling tired, and they stayed home because of/ on account of/

due to that.

4. They were feeling tired, and so/ therefore/ hence they stayed home.

“Concession”

5. They went out although/ though/ even though they were feeling tired.

6. They went out, although feeling tired.

7. They were feeling tired, but they went out despite/ in spite of/ regardless of/

notwithstanding that.

8. They were feeling tired, but they went out anyway./ even so./ all the same./

nevertheless./

“Cause: nonagentive”

9. The napkin slid off the table from/ as a result of/ due to the wind’s blowing

on it.

10. The wind blew on the napkin, and it slid off the table from/ as a result of/ due

to that.

11. The wind blew on the napkin, and it slid off the table as a result.

“Cause: agentive”

12. The batter provided some excitement for the fans by driving in three runs.

13. The batter drove in three runs, and provided some excitement for the fans in that way/ thereby.

14. The batter drove in three runs, and thus provided some excitement for the

fans.

“Conditionality”

15. She will move back to Boston if/ in case/ in the event that she loses her job.

16. She will move back to Boston in case of/ in the event of her losing her job.

17. If experiencing seasickness, one should take an antinausea pill.

18. She could lose her job, and she would move back to Boston in that event/ in

that case.

19. She could lose her job, and she would move back to Boston then.

II. Analyze the following syntactic constructions considering their semantic

constraints as proposed by A. Goldberg and complete the tasks: