A constructional perspective on conceptual constituency
Dutch postpositions or particles?
Cognitive Grammar distinguishes three types of constituents: phonological,
conceptual, and grammatical constituents. This study argues that this distinction
offers a new and promising perspective on constructions whose constituent
structure, or ‘constituency’, has seemed to defy analysis in the past. In particular,
the study proposes a method to analyze conceptual constituency, which crucially
relies on semantic considerations. The method is applied to constructions
from Dutch with adpositions whose syntactic status has been unclear: they have
been analyzed as postpositions by some, yet as particles by others. Using corpus
data rather than constructed data with grammaticality judgments, the study
concludes that the method provides new arguments for a ‘particle analysis’.
References
Beavers, J
(
2006)
Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
Beckner, C., & Bybee, J
(
2009)
A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis.
Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 27–46.
Beeken, J
(
1993)
Spiegelstructuur en variabiliteit: Pre- en postposities in het Nederlands [
Mirror structure and variability: Prepositions and postpositions in Dutch]. Leuven: Peeters.
Beliën, M
(
2008)
Constructions, constraints, and construal: Adpositions in Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, VU Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
Beliën, M
(
2012)
Dutch manner of motion verbs: Disentangling auxiliary choice, telicity and syntactic function.
Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 1–26.
Blom, C
(
2005)
Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Ph.D. dissertation, VU Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
Booij, G
(
1998)
Samenkoppelingen en grammaticalisatie [Separable complex verbs and grammaticalization]. In
E. Hoekstra &
C. Smits (Eds.),
Morfologiedagen 1996 (pp. 6–20). Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.
Cappelle, B
(
2013)
De aaneenschrijfregels de prullenmand in gooien of ingooien [Throwing orthographic rules into the bin]? Over Taal, 52(3), 66–67.
Cornelis, L.H
(
1997)
Passives and perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Croft, W
(
2001)
Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Haas, W., & Trommelen, M
(
1993)
Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming [
Morphological handbook of Dutch: An overview of word formation]. The Hague: SDU.
de Schutter, G
(
1974)
De Nederlandse zin: Poging tot beschrijving van zijn structuur [
The Dutch sentence: An attempt to describe its structure]. Brugge: De Tempel.
de Vries, J.W
(
1975)
Lexicale morfologie van het werkwoord in modern Nederlands [
Lexical morphology of the verb in modern Dutch]. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden.
Goldberg, A.E
(
1995)
A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.E
(
2006)
Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.C
(
1997)
Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [
General Dutch grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.
Helmantel, M
(
2002)
Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOT.
Hoekstra, T
(
1984)
Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.
Langacker, R.W
(
1987)
Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W
(
1991)
Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W
(
1995)
Conceptual grouping and constituency in cognitive grammar. In
I.-H. Leek (Ed.),
Linguistics in the morning Calm 3 (pp. 149–172). Seoul: Hanshin.
Langacker, R.W
(
1997)
Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping.
Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 1–32.
Langacker, R.W
(
2005)
Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In
F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez &
M. Sandra Peña Carvel (Eds.),
Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R.W
(
2008)
Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Luif, J
(
1992)
Over richtingsbepalingen [On directional phrases]. In
E.C. Schermer-Vermeer,
W.G. Klooster, &
A.F. Florijn (Eds.),
De kunst van de grammatica [
The art of grammar] (pp. 157–167). Amsterdam: Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde, University of Amsterdam.
Paardekooper, P.C
(
1959)
Voor- en achterzetsels [Prepositions and postpositions].
De Nieuwe Taalgids, 52, 310–320.
Paardekooper, P.C
(
1966)
Beknopte ABN-syntaksis. Den Bosch: Malmberg.
Rice, S
(
1987)
Towards a cognitive model of transitivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Talmy, L
(
2003)
Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tenny, C.L
(
1994)
Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Vandenbosch, L
(
1992)
Aspekten van passiefvorming in het Nederlands: Een kognitief-pragmatische benadering [
Aspects of passive formation in Dutch: a cognitive-pragmatic approach]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Antwerp.
van der Leek, F.C
(
1996)
The English conative construction: A compositional account.
Chicago Linguistics Society, 32, 363–378.
van Riemsdijk, H.C
(
1978)
A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: De Ridder.
Verkuyl, H., & Zwarts, F
(1992) Postpositie, incorporatie en terminativiteit [Postposition, incorporation, and terminativity]. In:
H.J. Bennis &
J.W. de Vries (Eds.),
De binnenbouw van het Nederlands [
The inner structure of Dutch] (pp. 383–400). Dordrecht: Foris.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.