English Resultatives

A force-recipient account

| Kansai University
ISBN 9789027204912 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
ISBN 9789027261595 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
The objective of this book is to develop a force-recipient account of English resultatives. Within this approach the post-verbal NP is a recipient of a verbal force, whether it is a subcategorized object or not, and the verbal force being exerted onto the post-verbal NP is responsible for bringing about the change as specified by the result phrase. It is shown that many apparent puzzles posed by English resultatives are due to the complex interplay between the verb meaning and the constructional meaning, or between the verb meaning and the semantics of the result phrase. Thus the proposed account can provide answers to the question “Which resultatives are possible and which are not?” in a coherent way. Also, the proposed account reveals that English resultatives are not a monolithic phenomenon, and that some “resultatives” cited in the literature as such are not resultatives at all. This book is of interest not only to practitioners of Construction Grammar but also to everyone interested in English resultatives.
[Constructional Approaches to Language, 26]  2020.  xx, 549 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
Part I. A force-recipient account
Chapter 2. The status of the post-verbal NP
Chapter 3. Force transmission as essential to resultatives
Part II. So-called idiomatic cases
Chapter 4. He laughed his head off
Chapter 5. They beat the hell out of me
Part III. Resultatives and domains
Chapter 6. Resultatives with verbs of eating and drinking I
Chapter 7. Resultatives with verbs of eating and drinking II
Chapter 8. He laughed himself silly
Part IV. ‘Change verb’ resultatives and how to accommodate them
Chapter 9. ‘Change verb’ resultatives
Chapter 10. What are spurious resultatives?
Chapter 11. Resultatives with open/shut
Part V. On the result component
Chapter 12. To result phrases vs. into result phrases
Chapter 13. Adjectival result phrases vs. prepositional result phrases
Chapter 14. Consequences of the AP/PP distinction
Part VI. Still further issues surrounding adjectival result phrases
Chapter 15. Maximal end-point constraint reconsidered
Chapter 16. Selectional restrictions on adjectival result phrases
Chapter 17. Temporal dependence reconsidered
Part VII. Resultatives that are not based on force-transmission
Chapter 18. Princess Anne rides to victory
Chapter 19. Resultatives with free
Part VIII. Putative resultatives
Chapter 20. Follow and disappear
Chapter 21. Verbs of sound emission followed by a path PP
Chapter 22. Reconsidering the parallel between change of state and change of location
Part IX. Still another putative constraint
Chapter 23. Unique path constraint reconsidered
Chapter 24. To one’s death
Chapter 25. Summary and conclusion
Index of constructions
Subject index
English Resultatives: A force-recipient account presents a masterly synthesis of the English resultative construction, based on detailed corpus analysis of British and American English. Iwata presents a force dynamic analysis of English resultative constructions that addresses many of the issues found with earlier accounts. In Iwata’s analysis, schematic construction meanings interact with rich verb meanings to account for the distributional patterns of verbs in resultative constructions and the semantic interpretation of particular verbs in the resultative construction. English Resultatives will serve as the reference point for future research on the resultative construction in English and other languages.”


Ameka, F.
(1992) Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18: 101–118. Crossref link
Aronoff, M.
(1976) Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beavers, J.
(2012) Resultative constructions. In R. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp.908–933). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Beavers, J., & Koonz-Garboden, A.
(2012) Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry, 43: 331–369. Crossref link
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Weitham, S.
(2010) The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46: 331–377. Crossref link
Binnick, R.
(1968) On the nature of the ‘lexical item.’ CLS, 4: 1–13.
Boas, H. C.
(2000) Resultative constructions in English and German. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
(2011) Coercion and leaking argument structures in construction grammar. Linguistics, 49: 1271–1303. Crossref link
(2014) Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.233–252). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bolinger, D.
(1971) The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bresnan, J.
(1979) Theory of complementation in English syntax. New York: Garland.
(1980) Polyadicity: Part I of a theory of lexical rules and representations. In T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst, & M. Moortgat (Eds.), Lexical Grammar (pp.97–121). Dordrecht: Foris. Crossref link
Broccias, C.
(2003) The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Brugman, C.
(1988) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.
Bybee, J.
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82: 711–733. Crossref link
Cappelle, B.
(2014) Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp.251–281). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carlson, G., & Storto, G.
(2006) Sherlock Holmes was in no danger. In B. J. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp.53–70). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Carrier, J., & Randall, J. H.
(1989) From conceptual structure to syntax: Projecting from resultatives. Ms. Harvard University and Northeastern University.
(1992) The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 23: 173–234.
(1993) Lexical mapping. In E. Reuland & A. Werner (Eds.), Knowledge and language Volume II (pp.119–142). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Crossref link
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2015) Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79: 79–92. Crossref link
Chafe, W.
(2007) The importance of not being earnest. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Chomsky, N.
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Claridge, C.
(2011) Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H.
(1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.27–64). New York: Academic Press. Crossref link
Colston, H. L.
(1997) ‘I’ve never seen anything like it’: Overstatement, understatement, and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12: 43–58. Crossref link
(2015) Using figurative language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B.
(1998) You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27: 499–513. Crossref link
Condoravdi, C., & Gawron, J. M.
(1996) The context-dependency of implicit arguments. In M. Kanazawa, C. Piñon, & H. de Swart (Eds.), Quantifiers, deduction, and context (pp.1–32). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Coulmas, F.
(1979) Idiomaticity as a problem of pragmatics. In H. Parret, M. Sbisá & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics (pp.139–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Croft, W.
(1990) Possible verbs and event structure. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp.48–73). London: Routledge.
(1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(1998) Event structure in argument linking. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.21–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language (pp.49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2009) Connecting frames and constructions: A case study of eat and feed . Constructions and Frames, 1: 7–28. Crossref link
(2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Cruse, A.
(1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2000) Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Culicover, P. W.
(2013) Grammar and complexity: Language at the intersection of competence and performance. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
Davis, W. A.
(2016) A theory of saying reports. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. L. Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics (pp.291–332). Springer. Crossref link
Dirven, R.
(1982) ‘Talk’: Linguistic action perspectivized as discourse. In R. Dirven, L. Goossens, Y. Putseys, & E. Vorlat (Eds.), The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say and tell, (pp.37–83). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Dowty, D.
(1979) Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Crossref link
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67: 547–619. Crossref link
Ernst, T.
(1984) Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
(2002) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2016) Modification of stative predicates. Language, 92: 237–274. Crossref link
Espinal, M. T., & Mateu, J.
(2010) On classes of idioms and their interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42: 1397–1411. Crossref link
Fagan, S.
(1992) The syntax and semantics of middle constructions: A study with special reference to German. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Faulhaber, S.
(2011) Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Fellbaum, C.
(1986) On the middle construction in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
(2013) Purpose verbs. In J. Pustejovsky, P. Bouillon, H. Isahara, K. Kanzaki, & C. Lee (Eds.), Advances in generative lexicon theory (pp.371–384). Dordrecht: Springer. Crossref link
Fillmore, C.
(1977) Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp.76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
(1997) Lectures on deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T.
(1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp.75–102). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Fillmore, C., Johnson, C., & Petruck, M.
(2003) Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16: 235–250. Crossref link
Fraser, B.
(1976) The verb-particle combination in English. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Geuder, W.
(2000) Oriented adverbs: Issues in the lexical semantics of event adverbs. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., & Colston, H. L.
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Giora, R.
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 183–206. Crossref link
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
Goldberg, A. E.
(1991a) It can’t go down the chimney up: Paths and the English resultative. BLS, 17: 368–378. Crossref link
(1991b) A semantic account of resultatives. Linguistic Analysis, 21: 66–96.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(1998) Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp.203–220). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7: 219–224. Crossref link
(2004) Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In J-O Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.17–43). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
(2009) The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20: 93–127. Crossref link
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R.
(2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80: 532–568. Crossref link
Green, G.
(1970) How abstract is surface structure? CLS, 6: 270–281.
(1972) Some observations on the syntax and semantics of instrumental verbs. CLS, 8: 83–97.
Gross, M.
(1994) Constructing lexicon-grammars. In B. T. S. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approaches to the lexicon (pp.213–263). Oxford University Press.
Gruber, J.
(1976) Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Haïk, Isabelle.
(2012)  The hell in English grammar. In N. Le Querler, F. Neveu, & E. Roussel (Eds.), Relations, connexions, dependances: Hommage au Professeur Claude Guimier (pp.101–126). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J.
(1987) A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers, 10: Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 1. Journal of Linguistics, 3: 37–81. Crossref link
(1994) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B.
(1999) Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements.’ Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX: 127–144. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Herbst, T.
(2012) Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino. In H-J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns (pp.225–255). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2014) The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns (pp.167–216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Himmelmann, N., & Schultze-Berndt, E.
(2005) Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. In N. Himmelmann & E. Schultze-Berndt (Eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives (pp.1–68). Oxford: The Oxford University Press. Crossref link
Hoeksema, J., & Napoli, D. J.
(2008) Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 44: 347–378. Crossref link
Hoekstra, T.
(1988) Small clause results. Lingua, 74: 101–139. Crossref link
Horrocks, G., & Stavrou, M.
(2003) Actions and their results in Greek and English: The complementarity of morphologically encoded (viewpoint) aspect and syntactic resultative predication. Journal of Semantics, 20: 297–327. Crossref link
Hoshi, H.
(1992) Circumstantial predicates, PRO, and d-structure adjunction. English Linguistics, 9: 1–20. Crossref link
Huddleston, R.
(2002) The clause: Complements. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.213–321). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Hundt, M.
(2007) English mediopassive constructions: A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread and current status. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Crossref link
Iwata, S.
(1995) Invariance again: What is preserved in a metaphorical mapping? English Linguistics, 12: 173–196. Crossref link
(1998) A lexical network approach to verbal semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
(1999) On the status of implicit argument in middles. Journal of Linguistics, 35: 527–553. Crossref link
(2002) Does MANNER count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics, 40: 61–110. Crossref link
(2004a)  He jumped to his feet: Internal motion and internal path. Tsukuba English Studies 22: A festschrift in honor of Minoru Nakau, 89–99. University of Tsukuba.
(2004b)  Over-prefixation: A lexical constructional approach. English Language and Linguistics, 8: 239–292. Crossref link
(2005) Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics, 16: 355–407. Crossref link
(2006a) Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a lexical constructional account: The case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases. Language Sciences, 28: 449–496. Crossref link
(2006b) Where there’s a sound, there’s motion: Two types of path PPs that appear after verbs of sound emission. Paper read at the Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at University of Tokyo, Japan.
(2006c) Where do constructions come from? English Linguistics, 23: 493–533. Crossref link
(2008a) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2008b) A door that swings noiselessly open may creak shut: Internal motion and concurrent changes of state. Linguistics, 46: 1049–1108. Crossref link
(2008c) Another look at the maximal end-point constraint on resultatives. Paper read at the Fifth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at University of Texas, Austin.
(2010) Why can we say ‘Bob shot him to death’ but not ‘*Bob shot him into death’? Paper read at the Sixth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at Charles University. Czech Republic.
(2011)  He laughed his head off: A lexical-constructional account. Paper read at the Fourth International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, held at Osnabrueck University. Germany.
(2012) Kekkahyougen-ni oite doushi-ni kouzokusuru meishiku-ga hatasu yakuwari (The role played by the post-verbal NP in resultatives). Paper read at the 84th General Meeting of the English Literature Society in Japan, held at Senshu University, Ikuta campus.
(2014a) ‘Tight links’ make convenient metaphors but loose explanations: Replying to a reply. Language Sciences, 42: 15–29. Crossref link
(2014b) Construction grammar. In A. Carnie, Y. Sato, & D. Siddiqi (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 647–669. London: Routledge.
(2014c) Aspect and force dynamics: Which is more essential to resultatives? English Linguistics, 31: 234–263. Crossref link
(2014d) Where does Princess Anne rode (the horse) to victory come from? Paper read at the Eighth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at Osnabrueck University. Germany.
(2014e) Going further and further astray: Why a loose explanation never becomes tight. Language Sciences, 45: 135–151. Crossref link
(2015a) Resultatives and domains: The cases of fake reflexives with eat and drink . Paper read at the Sixth Biennial International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, held at University of Wisconsin-Madison. US.
(2015b) Keiyoushi kekka-ku to zenchishi kekka-ku (Adjectival result phrases vs. prepositional result phrases). Paper read at the 33rd General Meeting of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, held at Kansai Gaidai University, Nakamiya Campus.
(2017) ‘State-maintaining’ causatives: A close kin to resultatives. Language Sciences, 64: 103–129. Crossref link
Jackendoff, R.
(1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1996) The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14: 305–354. Crossref link
(1997) Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73: 534–539. Crossref link
(2002a) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
(2002b) English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In N. Dehe, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-particle explorations (pp.67–94). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Jespersen, O.
(1933) Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Jongen, R.
(1985) Polysemy, tropes and cognition, or the non-Magrittian art of closing curtains whilst opening them. In W. Paprotte & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor (pp.121–139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Karttunen, L.
(1971) Implicative verbs. Language, 47: 340–358. Crossref link
Kaufmann, I.
(1995) O- and D-predicates: A semantic approach to the unaccusative-unergative distinction. Journal of Semantics, 12: 377–427. Crossref link
Kay, P.
(2005) Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.71–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Kayne, S. R.
(1985) Principles of particle construction. In J. Guéron, H-G. Obenauer, & J-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Grammatical representation (pp.101–140). Dordrecht: Foris.
Kearns, K.
(2007) Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua, 117: 26–66. Crossref link
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L.
(1999) From event structure to scale structure: Degree modification in deverbal adjectives. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX: 163–180. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Kratzer, A.
(2005) Building resultatives. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications (pp.177–212). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Crossref link
Krifka, M.
(1992) Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters (pp.29–53). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
(1998) The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar (pp.197–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Crossref link
Kuno, S., & Takami, K.
(2004) Functional constraints in grammar: On the unergative – unaccusative distinction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Kusayama, M., & Miyata, A.
(2000) Doushi-to kekkahyougen-no imikankei (The semantic relation between verb meaning and resultatives). Report of the special research Project for the typological investigation of languages and cultures of the East and West 2000, Part II (pp.841–868). University of Tsukuba.
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crossref link
(1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 39–74. Crossref link
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp.202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R.
(1986) Abstract motion. BLS, 12: 455–471. Crossref link
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
(2005a) Integration, grammaticisation, and constructional meaning. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.157–189). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2005b) Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.101–159). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
Larson, R.
(2014) On shell structure. London: Routledge. Crossref link
Lehrer, A.
(1970) Verbs and deletable objects. Lingua, 25: 227–253. Crossref link
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(1999) Objecthood: An event structure perspective. CLS, 35: 223–247.
Levin, B., & Rapoport, R.
(1988) Lexical subordination. CLS, 24: 275–289.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(1991) Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41: 123–151. Crossref link
(1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1996) Lexical semantics and syntactic structure. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp.487–507), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
(1999) Two structures for compositionally derived events. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, IX: 199–223.
Lindner, S.
(1981) A lexico-semantic analysis of verb-particle constructions with up and out. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Available from IULC (1983).
(1982) What goes up doesn’t necessarily come down: The ins and outs of opposites. CLS, 18: 305–323.
Maienborn, C.
(2001) On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 9: 191–240. Crossref link
Maienborn, C., & Schäfer, M.
(2011) Adverbs and adverbials. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp.1390–1420). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Margerie, H.
(2011) Grammaticalising constructions: To death as a peripheral degree modifier. Folia Linguistica Historica, 32: 115–148.
Martínez-Manrique, F., & Vicente, A.
(2013) What is said by a metaphor: The role of salience and conventionality. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21: 304–328. Crossref link
Mateu, J., & Espinal, M. T.
(2007) Argument structure and compositionality in idiomatic constructions. The Linguistic Review, 24: 33–59. Crossref link
(2013) Laughing our heads off: When metaphor constrains aspect. BLS, 33: 284–294. Crossref link
Matsumoto, Y.
(1996a) Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive linguistics, 7: 183–226. Crossref link
(1996b) How abstract is subjective motion? A comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, language, and discourse (pp.359–374), Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
(2006) Constraints on the co-occurrence of spatial and non-spatial paths in English: A closer look at the Unique Path Constraint. A plenary talk given at the Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, held at University of Tokyo, Japan.
McNulty, E.
(1988) The syntax of adjunct predicates. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
Meinard, M. E. M.
(2015) Distinguishing onomatopoeia from interjections. Journal of Pragmatics, 76: 150–168. Crossref link
Moon, R.
(1998) Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Morita, J.
(1998) Some notes on prepositional resultatives. Tsukuba English Studies, 17: 319–340.
Napoli, D. J., & Hoeksema, J.
(2009) The grammatical versatility of taboo terms. Studies in Language, 33: 612–643. Crossref link
Nemesi, A. L.
(2004) What discourse goals can be accomplished by the use of hyperbole? Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 51: 351–378. Crossref link
Nemoto, N.
(2005) Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in construction grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.119–136). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Neuhaus, L.
(2016) On the relation of irony, understatement, and litotes. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23: 117–149. Crossref link
Nikitina, T.
(2008) Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlacil, B. Gehrke, & R. Nouwen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P (pp.175–195). Berlin & New York: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Norrick, N. R.
(2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1727–1739. Crossref link
Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G.
(1987) Talking: A study in lexical network theory. BLS, 13: 195–205. Crossref link
Nunberg, G.
(1979) The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3: 143–184. Crossref link
(1992) Two kinds of indexicality. Proceedings of the Semantics and Linguistic Theory, II: 283–301. Columbus: Ohio State University.
(1995) Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12: 109–132. Crossref link
(2004) Deferred interpretation. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.344–364). Blackwell.
Ono, N.
(2010) Eigo kekka koubunn no koyuusei to ruikeiteki tokusei (Some peculiarities and typological properties of resultatives in English). Paper read at the Twenty-Eighth Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, held at Nihon University, Tokyo.
Paradis, C., Löhndorf, S., van de Weijer, J., & Willners, C.
(2015) Semantic profiles of antonymic adjectives in discourse. Linguistics, 53: 153–191. Crossref link
Partee, B. H.
(1989) Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. CLS, 25: 342–365.
Perek, F.
(2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54: 149–188. Crossref link
Petruck, M. R. L.
(1996) Frame semantics. In J. Verschueren, J-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 1996 (pp.1–11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Plag, I.
(2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Postal, P.
(1974) On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J.
(1991a) The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41: 47–81. Crossref link
(1991b) The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17: 409–441.
(1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Ramchand, G.
(2008) Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Randall, J. H.
(2010) Linking: The geometry of argument structure. Springer. Crossref link
Rapoport, T.
(1999) Structure, aspect, and the predicate. Language, 75: 653–677. Crossref link
Rappaport Hovav, M.
(2008) Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp.13–42). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2014) Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua, 141: 8–29. Crossref link
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
(1998) Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.97–134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
(2001) An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77: 766–797. Crossref link
Reddy, M.
(1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivière, C.
(1982) Objectionable objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 13: 685–689.
Roberts, I.
(1988) Predicative APs. Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 703–710.
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2015) Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics, 26: 467–503. Crossref link
Rothstein, S.
(1983) The syntactic forms of predication. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
(2004) Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. Crossref link
(2011) Secondary predicates. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics Vol.2: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1442–1462). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y.
(2004) Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12: 259–288. Crossref link
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., & Scheffczyk, J.
(2016) FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report (available at http://​framenet​.icsi​.bekeley​.edu)
Sapir, E.
(1944) On grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science, 2: 93–116. Crossref link
Shibatani, M.
(1976) The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: The grammar of causative constructions (pp.1–40). New York: Academic Press.
Simpson, J.
(1983) Resultatives. In M. Rappaport, A. Zaenen, & L. Levin (Eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar (pp.143–157). Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sweetser, E.
(1999) Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp.129–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Talmy, L.
(1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp.57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2000a) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol.2, Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, J. R.
(2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
(2003) Linguistic categorization, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2012) The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
Thomas, E.
(2004) On ‘syntactic’ versus ‘semantic’ telicity: Evidence from in and on . In H. Cuyckens, W. de Mulder, & T. Montelmans (Eds.), Adpositions of movement, (pp.145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M.
(1999) On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 1655–1674. Crossref link
Tortora, C.
(1998) Verbs of inherently directed motion are compatible with resultative phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 29: 338–345. Crossref link
Tsujimoto, M.
(2003) On the motion uses of English verbs of sound. Unpublished BA thesis, Osaka City University, Japan.
Tsunoda, T.
(1985) Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21: 385–396. Crossref link
Tsuzuki, M.
(2003a) Kouirensa to koubun II: Kekka koubun (Action chain and construction II: Resultative construction),” In Y. Nakamura (Ed.), Ninchi bunpouron II (Cognitive grammar II) (pp.89–135). Tokyo: Taishukan:.
(2003b) Three kinds of resultatives: To death, to one’s death & dead . In S. Chiba et al. (Eds.), Empirical and theoretical investigations into language: A festschrift for Masaru Kajita (pp.747–761). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
van der Leek, F.
(2000) Caused-motion and the ‘bottom-up’ role of grammar. In A. Foolen & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics (pp.301–331). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Vanden Wyngaerd, G.
(2001) Measuring events. Language, 77: 61–90. Crossref link
Verkuyl, H.
(1978) Thematic relations and the semantic representation of verbs expressing change. Studies in Language, 2: 199–233. Crossref link
Verspoor, C. M.
(1997) Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Ward, G.
(2004) Equatives and deferred reference. Language, 80: 262–289. Crossref link
Washio, R.
(1997) Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6: 1–49. Crossref link
Wechsler, S.
(1997) Resultative predicates and control. Texas Linguistic Forum, 38: 307–321.
(2005a) Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect: Driving thematic and aspectual interpretation (pp.255–273). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
(2005b) Weighing in on scales: A Reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language, 81: 465–473. Crossref link
(2012) Resultatives and the problem of exceptions. In Ik-Hwan Lee et al. (Eds.) Issues in English linguistics (Papers from the 1st World Congress of Scholars of English Linguistics, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, June 30, 2012) (pp.119–131). Hankookmunhwasa, Seoul.
(2015) Word meaning and syntax: Approaches to the interface. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
Zwicky, A.
(1971) In a manner of speaking. Linguistic Inquiry, 11: 223–233.


Barclay, L.
(2008) No time for goodbye. New York: Bantam Books.
Brown, S.
(2006) Ricochet. New York: Pocket Books.
Cheever, S.
(1989) Elizabeth Cole. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Child, L.
(2002) Utopia. New York: Ballantine Books.
Coben, H.
(2000) Darkest fear. New York: Dell Publishing.
(2002) Back spin. London: Orion.
Connelly, M.
(1992) The black echo. New York: Warner Books.
(2008) Trunk music. New York: Grand Central Publishing.
Crais, R.
(1987) The monkey’s raincoat. New York: Bantam Books.
Evanovich, J.
(2005) Eleven on top. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Gardner, E. S.
(1952) Top of the heap. New York: Dorchester Publishing Co.
(1960) The case of the fan dancer’s horse. New York: Pocket Books.
(1974) The case of the postponed murder. New York: Pocket Books.
Gerristen, T.
(2005) Body double. New York: Ballantine Books
(2006) Vanish. New York: Ballantine Books.
Grafton, S.
(1990a) C Is for Corpse. London: Pan Books.
(1990b) E is for evidence. London: Pan Books.
(1990c) G is for gumshoe. London: Pan Books.
Lee, H.
(1988) To kill a mockingbird. New York: Warner Books.
Miller, S.
(1990) Family pictures. New York: Harper and Row.
Muller, M.
(1985) There’s nothing to be afraid of. New York: St. Matin’s Press.
Ostenso, M.
(1925/2008) Wild geese. New Canadian Library.
Paretsky, S.
(2001) Total recall. New York: Dell Publishing.
Picoult, J.
(2004) My sister’s keeper. New York: Washington Square Press.
Robertson, M. E.
(1989) Family life. New York: Penguin Books.
Sayers, D. L.
(1995) Lord Peter. New York: Harper Paperbacks.
Spark, M.
(1963) The girls of slender means. New York: Knopf.
Thane, E.
(1976/2001) Yankee stranger. New York: Buccaneer Books.

Electronic/Multimedia Products

Electronic/Multimedia Products
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2019056152