Article published in:
Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar
Edited by Jiyoung Yoon and Stefan Th. Gries
[Constructional Approaches to Language 19] 2016
► pp. 11–38

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’.
Published online: 08 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.19.02bel
References

References

Beavers, J.
(2006) Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., & Bybee, J.
(2009) A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 27–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Beliën, M.
(2008) Constructions, constraints, and construal: Adpositions in Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, VU Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2012) Dutch manner of motion verbs: Disentangling auxiliary choice, telicity and syntactic function. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blom, C.
(2005) Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Ph.D. dissertation, VU Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
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
Bybee, J.
(2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón & B.F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Cornelis, L.H.
(1997) Passives and perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
Helmantel, M.
(2002) Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T.
(1984) Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(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
(1997) Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Paardekooper, P.C.
(1959) Voor- en achterzetsels [Prepositions and postpositions]. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 52, 310–320.Google Scholar
(1966) Beknopte ABN-syntaksis. Den Bosch: Malmberg.Google Scholar
Rice, S.
(1987) Towards a cognitive model of transitivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2003) Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tenny, C.L.
(1994) Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
van der Leek, F.C.
(1996) The English conative construction: A compositional account. Chicago Linguistics Society, 32, 363–378.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H.C.
(1978) A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: De Ridder.Google Scholar
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
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Pijpops, Dirk
2017. Jiyoung Yoon & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.). 2016. Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar . Constructions and Frames 9:2 ► pp. 329 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2021. 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.