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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beckner, C., & Bybee, J
(
2009)
A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis.
Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 27–46.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beeken, J
(
1993)
Spiegelstructuur en variabiliteit: Pre- en postposities in het Nederlands [
Mirror structure and variability: Prepositions and postpositions in Dutch]. Leuven: Peeters.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beliën, M
(
2008)
Constructions, constraints, and construal: Adpositions in Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, VU Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beliën, M
(
2012)
Dutch manner of motion verbs: Disentangling auxiliary choice, telicity and syntactic function.
Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 1–26.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blom, C
(
2005)
Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Ph.D. dissertation, VU Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cappelle, B
(
2013)
De aaneenschrijfregels de prullenmand in gooien of ingooien [Throwing orthographic rules into the bin]? Over Taal, 52(3), 66–67.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cornelis, L.H
(
1997)
Passives and perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W
(
2001)
Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.E
(
1995)
A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.E
(
2006)
Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.C
(
1997)
Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [
General Dutch grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Helmantel, M
(
2002)
Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOT.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoekstra, T
(
1984)
Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1987)
Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1991)
Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1997)
Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping.
Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 1–32.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
2008)
Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paardekooper, P.C
(
1959)
Voor- en achterzetsels [Prepositions and postpositions].
De Nieuwe Taalgids, 52, 310–320.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paardekooper, P.C
(
1966)
Beknopte ABN-syntaksis. Den Bosch: Malmberg.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rice, S
(
1987)
Towards a cognitive model of transitivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L
(
2003)
Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tenny, C.L
(
1994)
Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van der Leek, F.C
(
1996)
The English conative construction: A compositional account.
Chicago Linguistics Society, 32, 363–378.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Riemsdijk, H.C
(
1978)
A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: De Ridder.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 june 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.