Cover not available
Part of
Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages
Edited by Benjamin Lyngfelt, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara and Tiago Timponi Torrent
[Constructional Approaches to Language 22] 2018
► pp. 183–228

Chapter 7
Constructing a constructicon for German

Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues

This chapter discusses a number of important issues underlying and motivating the development of a constructicon for German. More specifically, it presents an overview of some typologically interesting facets of German syntax such as word order, topological fields, case, and passives. Taking a contrastive view of some German constructions and their English counterparts, this chapter shows under what circumstances existing entries from the Berkeley constructicon for English can be reused to create corresponding entries in a German constructicon. Of particular interest in this context are the notions of idiomaticity, abstraction, and the continuum of constructional correspondence. Finally, this chapter introduces ongoing constructicographic efforts to create a constructicon for German. To document the current status of the project, both the methodology and the workflow guiding the German Constructicon project (GCon) are illustrated.
Keywords: annotation, constructicon, construction, construction grammar, contrastive linguistics, German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Typological considerations
    • 2.1Word order
    • 2.2Case
    • 2.3Constructions at different levels of abstraction
  • 3.Contrastive issues
  • 4.The ‘continuum of constructional correspondences’: Consequences for the design of a German constructicon
    • 4.1The just_because_doesn’t_mean construction: exemplifying one end of the ‘continuum of constructional correspondences’
    • 4.2The family of exclamative constructions: Exemplifying constructions with partial commonalities in German and English
    • 4.3The way construction: Towards the other end of the ‘continuum of constructional correspondences’
  • 5.Towards a German constructicon
  • 6.Conclusions and outlook
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 17 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.07boa
References (162)
References
Abraham, W. (1995). Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., & Webelhuth, G. (1998). A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bäckström, L. Lyngfelt, B., & Sköldberg, E. (2014). Towards interlingual constructicography. On correspondence between constructicon resources for English and Swedish. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 9–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2006). Construction-Specific Properties of Syntactic Subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 39–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Productivity. Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The Development of Case in Germanic. In J. Barðdal, & S. Chelliah (Eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case (pp.123–159). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Construction-Based Historical-Comparative Reconstruction. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.438–457). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bech, G. (1983). Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. 2. Auflage. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. (1930). Von deutscher Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde, 44, 81–89.Google Scholar
Bender, E. M., & Kathol, A. (2001). Constructional effects of just because … doesn’t mean . Berkeley Linguistics Society, 27, 13–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, C. (2003). Clausal Syntax of German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bertoldi, A., & Chishman, R. L. de Oliveira. (2011). Developing a frame-based lexicon for the Brazilian legal language: The case of the Criminal_Process frame. AICOL 2011, 256–270.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1963). Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Studia Grammatica No. 2. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2002). Bilingual FrameNet dictionaries for machine translation. In M. González Rodríguez, & C. Paz Suárez Araujo (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Vol. IV, 1364–1371. Las Palmas, Spain.
(2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2005). Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography, 18(4), 445–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2009a). Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b). Recent trends in multilingual computational lexicography. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography (pp.1–36). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a). Comparing constructions across languages. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp.1–20). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2010b). Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010c). Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 54–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In S. Engelberg, K. Proost, & A. Holler (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp.37–69). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013a). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013b). Wie viel Wissen steckt in Wörterbüchern? Eine frame-semantische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 57, 75–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013c). Frame Semantics and translation. In A. Rojo, & I. Ibarretxte-Antunano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Translation (pp.125–158). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Zur Architektur einer konstruktionsbasierten Grammatik des Deutschen. In A. Ziem, & A. Lasch (Eds.), Grammatik als Inventar von Konstruktionen? Sprachliches Wissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp.37–63). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Computational Resources: FrameNet and Constructicon. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.549–573). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Dux, R. (2013). Semantic frames for foreign language education: Towards a German frame-based dictionary. Veridas Online. Special Issue on Frame Semantics and its Technological Applications (pp.82–100). [URL]Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Dux, R., & Ziem, A. (2016). Frames and constructions in an online learner’s dictionary of German. In S. de Knop, & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp.303–326). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Gonzalvez-Garcia, F. (2014). Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (Eds.) (In press a). Constructional Approaches to Argument Structure in German. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
(In press b). Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective. In H. C. Boas, & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional Approaches to Argument Structure in German. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Borin, L., Dannells, D., Forsberg, M., Toporowska Gronostaj, M., & Kokkinakis, D. (2010). The past meets the present in the Swedish FrameNet++. [URL].
Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 343–434.Google Scholar
Burchardt, A., Erk, K., Frank, A., Kowalski, A., Padó, S., & Pinkal, M. (2009). Using FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: annotation, representation, and automation. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets: Methods and Applications (pp.209–244). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Busse, D. (2012). Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castilho, R. E. de, Mújdricza-Maydt, É., Yimam, S. M., Hartmann, S., Gurevych, I., Frank, A., & Biemann, C. (2016). A Web-based Tool for the Integrated Annotation of Semantic and Syntactic Structures. In Proceedings of the LT4DH workshop at COLING 2016. Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. (1998). Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christie, E. (2011). Investigating the differences between the English way-construction and the fake reflexive resultative construction. In L. Armstrong (Ed.): CLA Conference Proceedings, 1–14. [Online publication, URL: [URL], accessed on August 24, 2016]
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.211–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
D’Avis, F. (2013). Exklamativsatz. In J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach, & H. Altmann (Eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen (pp.171–201). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Besten, H. (1983). On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In W. Abraham (Ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania: Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (pp.47–131). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, P. (2006). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Band 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. & Gallmann, P. (2016). Der Duden in 12 Bänden: 4 – Die Grammatik. Bibliographisches Institut & FA Brockhaus AG.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. & Thieroff, R. (2013). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Band 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Engel, U. (1988). Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Engelberg, S., König, S., Proost, K., & Winkler, E. (2011). Argumentstrukturmuster als Konstruktionen? In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp.71–112). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellsworth, M., Ohara, K., Subirats, C., & Schmidt, T. (2006). Frame-semantic analysis of motion scenarios in English, German, Spanish, and Japanese. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, Tokyo, Japan. Available at [URL].
Eroms, W. (1986). Funktionale Satzperspektive. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. (1989). Coherent infinitives in German: Restructuring vs. IP-Complementation. In C. Bhatt, E. Loebel, & C. Schmidt (Eds.), Syntactic phrase structure phenomena in noun phrase and sentences (pp.1–16). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb valency patterns. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS), 123–131.Google Scholar
(1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
(1999). Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J. -P. Koenig, & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation (pp.113–128). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2007). Valency issues in FrameNet. In T. Herbst & K. Götz-Vetteler (Eds.), Valency: theoretical, descriptive, and cognitive issues (pp.129–160). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). Border Conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress (Barcelona, 15–19 July 2008), 49–68.
(2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.111–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Atkins, B. T. S. (2000). Describing polysemy: The case of crawl . In Y. Ravin, & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Linguistic and computational approaches (pp.91–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Baker, C. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (pp.313–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar Course Book. UC Berkeley: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp.309–372). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Petruck, M. R. L., Ruppenhofer, J., & Wright, A. (2003). FrameNet in Action: The Case of Attaching. In International Journal of Lexicography 16, 297–333.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2013). Satzstrukturen im Deutschen und Englischen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forsbert, M., Johansson, R., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., & Prentice, J. (2014). From construction candidates to constructicon entries. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 114–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, A. (1990). The structure of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1997). Making one’s way through the data. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (1989). Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. (1985). A unified account of case and theta-marking: The case of German. Papiere zur Linguistik, 32, 3–36.Google Scholar
(1986). Fehlende Argumente: Vom Passiv zu kohärenten Infinitiven. Linguistische Berichte, 101, 3–33.Google Scholar
(1990). Topicalization and other puzzles of German syntax. In G. Grewendorf, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Scrambling and Barriers, (pp.93–112). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Deutsche Syntax – Generativ. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2013). Lexical Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R., Ohara, K. H., Fuji, S., & Fillmore, C. J. (2010). On expressing measurement and comparison in English and Japanese. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp.169–200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2007). Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology, 11(1), 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1986). A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heid, U. (1996). Creating a multilingual data collection for bilingual lexicography from parallel monolingual lexicons. In Proceedings of the VIIth EURALEX International Congress, Gothenburg 1996, 573–559.
Hentschel, E., & Weydt, H. (2013). Handbuch der Deutschen Grammatik. 4th edition. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. (2014). The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H. -J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns (pp.167–216). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2005). A diachronic perspective on concessive constructions with just because . In A. Makkai, W. J. Sullivan, & A. R. Lommel (Eds.), Lacus Forum XXXI: Interconnections (pp.67–80). Houston: LACUS.Google Scholar
(2007). Just because it’s new does not mean people will notice it: The idiosyncratic properties of a recent usage. English Today, 91–92(23), 29–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirose, Y. (1991). On a certain nominal use of because-clauses: Just because because-clauses can substitute for that-clauses does not mean that this is always possible. English Linguistics, 8, 16–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. N. (1982). Über Komposition und Derivation: zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 1(1), 76–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. (1986). Der Begriff “Mittelfeld”, Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In W. Weiss, H. E. Wiegand, & M. Reis (Eds.), Akten des VII. Kongresses der Internationalen Vereinigung für germanische Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften. Göttingen 1985. 3rd Vol. (pp.329–340). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (Eds.) (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, W. (2016). Grammatik: Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Iwata, S. (2008). Locative alternation: a lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. (1986). The syntax of focus and adverbials in German. In W. Abraham, & S. De Meij (Eds.), Topic, Focus, and Configurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen 1984 (pp.103–127). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kanetani, M. (2011). Analogy in Construction Grammar: The case of Just Because of X Doesn’t Mean Y ’. Tsukuba English Studies, 29, 77–94.Google Scholar
Kathol, A. (2000). Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.32–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y?‘ Construction. Language, 75, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, H. W. (1969). Aspects of word order and its communicative function in English and German. Journal of Linguistics, 5, 85–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunze, J. (1995). Reflexive Konstruktionen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 14, 3–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasch, A. (2016). Nonagentive Konstruktionen des Deutschen. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviola, A. (2015). Frames e Construções em Contraste: uma análise comparativa português-inglês no tangente à implementação de constructicons [‘Frames and Constructions in Contrast: a Portuguese-English comparative analysis in regards to the implementation of constructicons’]. MA Thesis, Federal University of Juiz de Fora.Google Scholar
Leino, J. (2010). Results, cases, and constructions: Argument structure constructions in English and Finnish, In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp.103–136). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenerz, J. (1977). Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Sköldberg, E., & Tingsell, S. (2012). Adding a constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of KONVENS 2012, Vienna, 452–461.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1992). The way-construction and the semantics of direct arguments in English. In E. Wehrli, & T. Stowell (Eds.), Syntax and the lexicon (pp.179–188). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. (2000). Lexical generalizations in the syntax of German non-finite constructions. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, No. 145. Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2001). Exclamative Constructions. In M. Haspelmath, E. Wulf Österreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language Universals and Language Typology: An International Handbook (pp.1038–1050). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2012). Making the case for Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp.30–68). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond Alternations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2005). German: A grammatical sketch. In A. Alexiadou, & T. Kiss (Eds.), Syntax – ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 2nd Edition. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ohara, K. H. (2009). Frame-based contrastive lexical semantics in Japanese FrameNet: The case of risk and kakeru . In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets: Methods and Applications (pp.163–182). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2014). Relating Frames and Constructions in Japanese FrameNet. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC '14), 2474–2477.Google Scholar
Oya, T. (1999). Er bettelt sich durchs Land: Eine one’s way Konstruktion im Deutschen? Deutsche Sprache, 27, 356–369.Google Scholar
Padó, S. (2007). Translational equivalence and cross-lingual parallelism: The case of FrameNet frames. Proceedings of the NODALIDA workshop on building frame semantics resources for Scandinavian and Baltic languages, 39–46.Google Scholar
Padó, S., & Lapata, M. (2009). Cross-lingual annotation projection of semantic roles. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 36, 307–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petrov, S., Barrett, L., Thibaux, R., & Klein, D. (2006). Learning Accurate, Compact, and Interpretable Tree Annotation. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp.433–440). Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Petruck, M. R. L. (2009). Typological considerations in constructing a Hebrew FrameNet. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets: Methods and Applications (pp.183–208). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1993). Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Reis, M. (1980). On justifying topological frames: ‘positional field’ and the order of non-verbal constituents in Berman. Documentation et Recherche en Linguistique Allemande Contemporaire, 22/23, 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1985). Wer glaubst Du hat recht? On the so-called extractions from verb-second clauses and verb-first parenthetical constructions in German. Sprache und Pragmatik, 36, 27–83.Google Scholar
(1987). Die Stellung der Verbargumente im Deutschen. Stilübungen zum Grammatik-Pragmatik-Verhältnis. In I. Rosengren (Ed.), Sprache und Pragmatik (pp.139–177). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2009). A degree account of exclamatives. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, XVIII, 601–618.Google Scholar
Rimsdijk, H. van. (1985). Zum Rattenfängereffekt bei Infinitiven in deutschen Relativsätzen. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Roja, A. (2002). Frame semantics and the translation of humor. Babel: International Journal of Translation, 48(1), 34–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojo, A., & Valenzuela, J. (1998). Frame semantics and lexical translation: The risk frame and its translation. Babel: International Journal of Translation, 44(2), 128–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Boas, H. C., & Baker, C. (2013). The FrameNet approach to relating syntax and semantics. In R. H. Gouws, U. Heid, W. Schweickhard, & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Dictionaries. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography (pp.1320–1329). Berlin & New York: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C., & Scheffczyk, J. (2010). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Available at [[URL]].Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. C. Boas, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp.69–202). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Salomão, M. M. M., Torrent, T. T., & Sampaio, T. F. (2013). A Linguística de Corpus Encontra a Linguística Computacional: Notícias do Projeto FrameNet Brasil. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos, 55(1), 7–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. (1995). Improvements in Part-of-Speech Tagging with an Application to German. In Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT-Workshop. Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T. (2009). The Kicktionary – A multilingual lexical resource of football language. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets: Methods and Applications (pp.101–134). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Slocum, J. (1987). Concept-lexeme-syntax triangles: A gateway to interlingual translation. Computers and Translation, 2, 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerfeldt, K. -W., & Starke, G. (1992). Einführung in die Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
von Stechow, A., & Sternefeld, W. (1988). Bausteine Syntaktischen Wissens. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (2013). Fluid Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.153–167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Subirats, C. (2009). Spanish FrameNet: A frame-semantic analysis of the Spanish lexicon. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets: Methods and Applications (pp.135–162). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Subirats, C. & Petruck, M. R. L. (2003). Surprise: Spanish FrameNet! Proceedings of CIL 17. CD-ROM. Prague: Matfyzpress.Google Scholar
Timyan, N., & Bergen, B. (2010). A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive construction in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp.137–168). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., da Silva Tavares, T., & da Silva Matos, E. E. (2014). Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 33–50.Google Scholar
Uszkoreit, H. (1987). Word order and constituent structure in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Egmond, M. -E. (2009). Two way-constructions in Dutch: motion along a path and transition to a location. VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. & Wilkins, D. P. (1996). The case for ‘Effector’: Case Roles, agents, and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions (pp.289–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. (1992). Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Welke, K. (2011). Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willems, D. (2012). Verb typology: Between construction and lexicon. In M. Bouveret, & D. Legallois (Eds.), Constructions in French (pp.23–48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wöllstein, A. (2010). Topologisches Satzmodell. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Wöllstein-Leisten, A., Heilmann, A., Stepan, P., & Vikner, S. (1997). Deutsche Satzstruktur. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Ziem, A. (2014a). Von der Kasusgrammatik zum FrameNet: Frames, Konstruktionen und die Idee eines Konstruktikons. In A. Ziem, & A. Lasch (Eds.), Grammatik als Inventar von Konstruktionen? Sprachwissen im Fokus in der Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp.263–290). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(in press). Tag für Tag Arbeit über Arbeit: konstruktionsgrammatische Zugänge zu Reduplikationsstrukturen im Deutschen. In K. Steyer (Ed.): Sprachliche Verfestigung. Wortverbindungen, Muster, Phrasem-Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr.
Ziem, A., Boas, H. C., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2014). Grammatische Konstruktionen und semantische Frames füer die Textanalyse. In J. Hagemann, & S. Staffeldt (Eds.), Syntaxtheorien. Analysen im Vergleich (pp.297–333). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Ziem, A., & Ellsworth, M. (2016). Exklamativsätze im FrameNet-Konstruktikon. In R. Finkbeiner, & J. Meibauer (Eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen im Deutschen (pp.146–191). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ziem, A., & Lasch, A. (2013). Konstruktionsgrammatik. Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A., & Staffeldt, S. (2011). Compositionality and embodied meanings of phraseologisms: the case of somatisms. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.): Converging evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research (pp.195–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3 volumes. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R., & Portner, P. (2003). Exclamative Clauses: At the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Language, 79(1), 39–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Torrent, Tiago Timponi, Ely Edison da Silva Matos, Alexandre Diniz da Costa, Maucha Andrade Gamonal, Simone Peron-Corrêa & Vanessa Maria Ramos Lopes Paiva
2024. A flexible tool for a qualia-enriched FrameNet: the FrameNet Brasil WebTool. Language Resources and Evaluation DOI logo
van Trijp, Remi
2024. Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames DOI logo
Bychkova, Polina & Ekaterina Rakhilina
2023. Chapter 3. Towards pragmatic construction typology. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 227], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Czulo, Oliver, Alexander Willich, Alexander Ziem & Tiago T. Torrent
2023. A multilingual approach to the interaction between frames and constructions. Constructions and Frames 15:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Patel, Malin, Armine Garibyan, Elodie Winckel & Stephanie Evert
2023. A reference constructicon as a database. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11:1 ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo
Ziem, Alexander & Tim Feldmüller
2023. Dimensions of constructional meanings in the German Constructicon: Why collo-profiles matter. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11:1 ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Ioanesyan, E. R.
2022. Discursive Formulas Derived from Propositional Predicates. Nauchnyi dialog 11:8 ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Herbst, Thomas
2020. Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language. Constructions and Frames 12:1 ► pp. 56 ff. DOI logo
Herbst, Thomas
2022. Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language. In Construction Grammar across Borders [Benjamins Current Topics, 122], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Herbst, Thomas & Peter Uhrig
2020. The issue of specifying slots in argument structure constructions in terms of form and meaning. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Frame-Constructional Verb Classes [Constructional Approaches to Language, 28], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 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.