Metaphor in the syntax: the ditransitive (again)
One of the observations that Goldberg makes in her analysis of the ditransitive construction is that it typically requires a volitional AGENT in subject position. This is because the meaning associated with the construction is one of intentional transfer. Unless there is a sentient AGENT who has the capacity for intention, then one entity cannot be transferred to another. However, we do find examples of this construction where the subject (in square brackets) is not a volitional AGENT:
Goldberg argues that examples like these are extensions of the ditransitive construction, and are motivated by the existence of the metaphor CAUSAL EVENTS ARE PHYSICAL TRANSFERS. Evidence for this metaphor comes from examples like the ones in (26), which illustrate that we typically understand abstract causes in terms of physical transfer:
In these examples causal events like causing a soccer ball to swerve, or causing someone to have a headache, are conceptualised as the transfer of a physical entity. Clearly the English soccer star David Beckham, well known for his ability to ‘bend’ a football around defensive walls, cannot literally put ‘swerve’ on a football; ‘swerve’ is not a physical entity that can be ‘put’ anywhere. However, we have no problem understanding what this sentence means. This is because we ‘recognise’ the convention within our language system of understanding causal events metaphorically in terms of physical transfer.
Goldberg argues that it is due to this metaphor that the ditransitive construction, which normally requires a volitional AGENT, can sometimes have a non-volitional subject like a missed ball or the rain. The metaphor licenses the extension of the ditransitive so that it can be used with non-volitional AGENTs.
To conclude the discussion so far, this section has illustrated the view held by cognitive linguists that various areas of human language share certain fundamental organising principles. This illustrates the ‘Generalisation Commitment’ adopted by cognitive linguists. One area in which this approach has achieved considerable success is in uniting the lexical system with the grammatical system, providing a unified theory of grammatical and lexical structure. As we will see in Part III, cognitive approaches to grammar treat lexicon and syntax not as distinct components of language, but instead as a continuum. However, the relationship between phonology and other areas of human language has only recently begun to be explored from a cognitive perspective. For this reason, while aspects of the foregoing discussion serve to illustrate some similarities between the phonological subsystem and the other areas of the language system, we will have relatively little to say about phonology in the remainder of this book.
