Many languages, including English, the Scandinavian languages, Portuguese, and Spanish, allow a small number of verbs, most notably GO, to head a coordinated verb structure. The following are examples of some of the most typical uses of this construction type (which I refer to as GO-AND-V):

(1) a. Look what you’ve GONE AND DONE!
      b. Johan har GÅTT OCH GIFT sig (Swedish)
         John has gone and married REFL
(2) a. Nobody believed he would do it, but then he actually WENT AND DID it.
      b. Ninguém acreditou que ele ia fazer isso, mas ele FOI E MATOU mesmo (Br. Portugese)
          ‘Noone believed that he would do it, but then he actually went and killed her’
(3)  Något jag har GÅT OCH TÄNKT mycket på (Swedish)
       Something I have gone and thought much on
      ‘Something I have been thinking about’

At first glance, the semantics of GO-AND-V seems quite disparate: it is used in constructions expressing disapproval (1), unexpectedness (2), and duration through time (3) (most uses can actually be found in all languages, though they are conventionalized to varying degrees).

 The literature deals almost exclusively with the formal properties of this construction type, rarely mentioning its semantics at all and never establishing cross-linguistic similarities in meaning (e.g. Pullum 1990, Wiklund 1996, but cf. ).

 In contrast, my paper focuses on the semantics of GO-AND-V. Within the framework of Cognitive Grammar, I determine its major uses in each language. I then show that it is possible to offer a unified account of its semantics across languages. I argue that all uses of GO-AND-V are motivated by the image schematic properties of the verb GO and whichever second verb occurs in a particular expression. More specifically, the image-schematic properties of GO are superimposed upon (or blended with) the image schematic properties of the second verb to allow the speaker to construe the event denoted by the second verb in accordance with the image-schematic meaning of GO (cf. Ekberg 1993 for a different approach in the same framework to TAKE+AND+V constructions).

 The image-schematic property of GO that enters into the construction is (i) movement along a conceptual path; a very salient extension of this schema is (ii) movement deviating from a conceptual path (cf. Radden 1994). Different languages utilize this schema and its extension in different ways, although examples of both can be found in all the languages. For example, in (1a) above, the extension in (ii) is further extended to deviation from a DESIRABLE conceptual path and is then blended with the image-schematic structure of do (‘an agent acts (on some patient) with some result’) to yield the meaning ‘an agent acts (on some patient) with an undesirable result’). Or take (3): the notion in (i) is extended to motion along a TEMPORAL path, and is then blended with the semantics of think about to yield the meaning ‘think about something for an extended period of time’.

 To sum up, my paper shows how language-independent image-schematic patterns can be associated with certain cross-linguistic grammatical patterns to yield a number of semantically related language-specific constructions. The semantic similarity can be explained by the common conceptual structures and cognitive processes underlying the construction type.

References

Ekberg, L. 1993. The cognitive basis of the meaning and function of cross-linguistic take and V. In Jan Nuyts, Eric Pederson (eds), Perspectives on Language and Conceptualization. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 8, 21-42.
Josefsson, G. 1991. Pseudocoordination - a VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 47. University of Lund, 130-156.
Pullum, G.K. 1990. Constraints on intransitive quasi-serial verb constructions in modern colloquial English. In Brian D.J., A.M. Zwicky (eds), When Verbs Collide: Papers from the Ohio State Mini-Conference on Serial Verbs. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, 218-239.
Radden, G. 1996. Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In Eugene H. Casad (ed), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 423-458.
Wiklund, A.-L. 1996. Pseudocoordination is subordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58, University of Lund, 29-53.

Back to the Conference Schedule