Frame-Constructional Verb Classes

Change and Theft verbs in English and German

| Sam Houston State University
HardboundForthcoming
ISBN 9789027207067 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027261014 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
While verb classes are a mainstay of linguistic research, the field lacks consensus on precisely what constitutes a verb class. This book presents a novel approach to verb classes, employing a bottom-up, corpus-based methodology and combining key insights from Frame Semantics, Construction Grammar, and Valency Grammar.

On this approach, verb classes are formulated at varying granularity levels to adequately capture both the shared semantic and syntactic properties unifying verbs of a class and the idiosyncratic properties unique to individual verbs. In-depth analyses based on this approach shed light on the interrelations between verbs, frame-semantics, and constructions, and on the semantic richness and network organization of grammatical constructions.

This approach is extended to a comparison of Change and Theft verbs, revealing unexpected lexical and syntactic differences across semantically distinct classes. Finally, a range of contrastive (German–English) analyses demonstrate how verb classes can inform the cross-linguistic comparison of verbs and constructions.

[Constructional Approaches to Language, 28]  Expected November 2020.  x, 320 pp.
Publishing status: Printing
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–20
Chapter 2. Approaches to verb classification
22–51
Chapter 3. Frame Semantics, Construction Grammar, and Valency Grammar
54–112
Chapter 4. English Change verbs
114–186
Chapter 5. Comparing Theft verbs to Change verbs
188–223
Chapter 6. A contrastive perspective: German Change and Theft Verbs
226–284
Chapter 7. Conclusion
285–299
Bibliography
300–313
Acknowledgments
ix–x
Index
Author Index
Verb Class Index
Subject Index
References

Bibliography

Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore
2001Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Atzler, Judith K.
2011Twist in the list: Frame Semantics as vocabulary teaching and learning tool: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Bäckström, Linnéa, Benjamin Lyngfelt, and Emma Sköldberg
2014Towards interlingual constructicography: On correspondence between constructicon resources for English and Swedish. Constructions and Frames 6(1). 9–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Collin F. & Josef Ruppenhofer
2002FrameNet’s frames vs. Levin’s verb classes. In J. Larson & M. Paster (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 27–38. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F. & Christiane Fellbaum
2009WordNet and FrameNet as complementary resources for annotation. In Proceedings of the third linguistic annotation workshop, 125–129. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Charles J. Fillmore & John B. Lowe
1998The Berkeley FrameNet project. In COLING-ACL ‘98: Proceedings of the conference, 86–90.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1988Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1997Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2001The role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic inchoative. In A. Holmer, J.-O. Svantesson & Å. Viberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 2000, 127–137. Lund: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
2008Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer
(eds.) 2000Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beavers, John
2010The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language 86. 821–864. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John & Andrew Koontz-Garboden
2012Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3). 331–369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John, Beth Levin & Shiao Wei Tham
2010The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46. 331–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bertoldi, Anderson, Rove Chishman & Hans C. Boas
2010Verbs of judgment in English and Portuguese: What contrastive analysis can say about Frame Semantics. Calidoscopio 8(3). 210–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred
1970Semantics. In J. Lyons (ed.), New horizons in linguistics, 166–184. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933Language. New York: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans & Alexander Ziem
. In press. Constructional approaches to argument structure in German. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Boas, Hans C.
2001Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie & S. Khoja (eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001, 64–73.Google Scholar
2002Bilingual FrameNet dictionaries for machine translation. In M. González Rodríguez & C. P. Suárez Araujo (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, vol. IV, 1364–1371. Las Palmas, Spain.Google Scholar
2003A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2005aDetermining the productivity of resultatives: A reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language 81(2). 448–464. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005bFrom theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer & D. Schnorbusch (eds.), Semantik im lexikon, 129–160. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2005cSemantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography 18(4). 445. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning. In P. Steiner, H. C. Boas & S. Schierholz (eds.), Contrastive studies and valency: Studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas, 119–149. Frankfurt and New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2008aDetermining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6. 113–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008bTowards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. In E. Sosa Acevedo & F. J. Cortés Rodríguez (eds.), Grammar, constructions, and interfaces: Special issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, (57). 17–48.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2009aMultilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bSemantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. In H. C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications, 59–100. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010aComparing constructions across languages. In H. C. Boas (ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar, 1–20. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2010bContrastive studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010cThe syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24. 54–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011aCoercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics 49(6). 1271–1303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011bA frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: The case of Build verbs. In P. Guerrero Medina (ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English, 207–234. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
2011cZum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler & K. Proost (eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, 37–69. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2014aLexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 89–112.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ivan A. Sag
(eds.) 2012Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ryan Dux
2013Semantic frames for foreign-language education: Towards a German frame-based dictionary. Veridas On-Line (17)1. 82–100.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C., Ryan Dux & Alexander Ziem
2016Frames and constructions in a German-English online learner’s dictionary. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (eds.), Constructionist approaches to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ryan Dux
2017From the past into the present: From case frames to semantic frames. In Linguistics Vanguard (3)1. 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Alexander Ziem
2018Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. Timponi Torrent (eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages, 183–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Gerd
2013Morphology in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 255–274. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1982The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1934Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Amy Beth Warriner & Victor Kuperman
2014Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmasBehavior Research Methods 46(3). 904–911.Google Scholar
Burchardt, Aljoscha, Katrin Erk, Anette Frank, Andrea Kowalski, Sebastian Padó & Manfred Pinkal
2009FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: Annotation and representation and automation. In H. C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography, 209–244. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Busse, Dietrich
2012Frame-semantik. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
1985Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988Morphology as lexical organization. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2007Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Exemplars and constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Clay Beckner
2009Usage-based theory. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 915–950. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2006Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 1. 1–28.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A.
1957Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1965Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1993A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck
2008Accounting for ditransitive constructions with envy and forgive . Functions of Language 15(2). 187–215. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck
2011Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 183–209.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978Ergativity. In W. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, 329–394. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugen
1964Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale. In Travaux de linguistique et de littérature, 139–186. Strasbourg: Centre de philologie et de littératures romanes de l’Université de Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Croft, William A.
2001Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A.
2003Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In: Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A.
2012Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A., Chiaki Taoka & Esther J. Wood
2001Argument linking and the commercial transaction frame in English, Russian and Japanese. Language Sciences 23(4). 579–602. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
1986Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1985Tense and aspect systems. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2008The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 450 million words, 1990–present. Web database. http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/
De Clerck, Bernard, Annelies Bloem & Timothy Colleman
2012Transfer verbs with prepositional themes in English and Dutch and French: A contrastive analysis. In M. van Peteghem (ed.), Le verbe en verve: réflexions sur la syntaxe et la sémantique verbales: En hommage à Dominique Willems à l’occasion de son éméritat, 5–24. Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert
1979Ergativity Language 55(1), 59–138.Google Scholar
1991A new approach to English grammar: On semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1994Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1979Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000‘The garden swarms with bees’ and the fallacy of ‘argument alternation’. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, 111–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dux, Ryan
2011A frame-semantic analysis of five English verbs evoking the Theft frame. University of Texas at Austin M.A. Thesis.Google Scholar
2016A usage-based approach to verb classes in English and German. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
2018Frames, verbs and constructions: German constructions with verbs of stealing. In A. Ziem & H. C. Boas (eds.), Constructional approaches to argument structure in German. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dux, Ryan & Hans C. Boas
2011On categorizing semantic roles and frame elements: What is the proper level of granularity? Conference presentation at Role Complexes: (New) Approaches to Defining Semantic Roles. The University of Zurich.
Engelberg, Stefan, Meike Meliss, Christel Proost & Edeltraud Winkler
(eds.) 2015Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata, and Kim Wylin
2015Expressing the source of dispossession acts in French and Spanish. Languages in Contrast 15(1). 102–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1994Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faulhaber, Susen
2011Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Jerome, Ellen Dodge & John Bryant
2009Embodied Construction Grammar. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 111–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane
(ed.) 1998WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005WordNet and WordNets. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edition, 665–670. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fernández Méndez, Manuel
2015Argumentstrukturmuster und valenzgrammatisch orientierte Information im deutsch-spanischen Kontrast: Exemplarische Analyse der Lexikalisierungsmöglichkeiten des Konzepts “entführen”. In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, C. Proost & E. Winkler (eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 353–364. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1968The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
1970The grammar of hitting and breaking . In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 120–133. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
1971Types of lexical information. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1975An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood, K. Whistler & J. Wright (eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–131. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1977aThe case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical relations, 59–81. London and New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1977bScenes-and-frames semantics. Linguistic Structures Processing 59. 55–88.Google Scholar
1982Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1985Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni Di Semantica 6(2). 222–254.Google Scholar
1986Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In V. Nikiforidou, M. VanClay, M. Niepokuj & D. Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
2003Valency and semantic roles: The concept of deep structure case. In V. Agel, L. M. Eichinger, H.-W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. J. Heringer & H. Lobin (eds.), Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, 457–475. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007Valency issues in FrameNet. In T. Herbst & K. Götz-Vetteler (eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive, and cognitive issues, 129–160. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In E. Bernal & J. De Cesaris (eds.), Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress, 49–68. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
2009A valency dictionary of English. International Journal of Lexicography 22(1). 55–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary O’Connor
1988Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64. 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & B. T. S. Atkins
1992Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2000Describing polysemy: The case of Crawl. In Y. Ravin & C. Laecock (eds.), Polysemy, 91–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin F. Baker
2009A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 313–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Russell Lee-Goldman & Russell Rhomieux
2012The FrameNet-Constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar, 283–299. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel, Carl Pollard & Thomas Wasow
1985Structure-sharing in lexical representation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 262–267. Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frense, Juta & Paul Bennett
1996Verb alternations and semantic classes in English and German. Language Sciences 18(1). 305–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
(eds.) 2004Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, Koji
1996Double objects, causatives, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 146–173.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2009Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Dylan
2004Constructions at the crossroads: The place of Construction Grammar between field and frame. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2. 197–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff
1998Semantic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions: A construction approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2002Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13. 327–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele, Devin M. Casenhiser & Nitya Sethuraman
2004Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3). 289–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Ray Jackendoff
2004The resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gotsoulia, Voula
2012Formalization of linking information in the FrameNet lexicon: The case of ‘notion’ verbs. Constructions and Frames 4(2). 103–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2003Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1. 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Corpus data in usage-based linguistics: What’s the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument structure constructions? In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries & M. Žic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Convergence and expansion, 237–256. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Data in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 93–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(eds.) 2006Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 172). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1993Semantic structure and semantic content. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander & Richard Goldberg
1991Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition 41. 153–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S.
1965Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Guerssel, Mohamed, Kenneth Hale, Mary Laughren, Beth Levin & Josie White Eagle
1985A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. In W. H. Eilfort, P. D. Kroeber & K. L. Peterson (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, 48–63. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel J. Keyser
1986Some transitivity alternations in English. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo”: International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 20(3). 605–638.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser
1993On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, Patrick & James Pustejovsky
2005A pattern dictionary for natural language processing. Revue Française de linguistique appliquée 10(2). 63–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko, Russell Lee-Goldman, Albert Kong & Kimi Akita
2011FrameNet as a resource for paraphrase research. Constructions and Frames 3(1). 104–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. Causatives and Transitivity 23. 87–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard
1992Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Wolfgang Schenkel
1969Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas
1983Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2011The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst & A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), Argument structure: Valency and/or construction? Special issue of Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4). 347–367.Google Scholar
2014The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid & S. Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns, 167–216. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, Ian Roe & Dieter Götz
2004A valency dictionary of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Susen Schüller
2008Introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency approach. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber
(eds.) 2014Constructions – collocations – patterns. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2013Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 307–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
2013aConstruction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 1–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(eds.) 2013bThe Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan, Gill Francis & Elizabeth Manning
1996Verbs (Cobuild Grammar Patterns 1). London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Iwata, Seizi
2008Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach (Constructional Approaches to Language Series 6). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1972Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1975Semantic and morphological regularities in the lexicon. Language 51. 639–671. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Christopher R., Charles J. Fillmore, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Collin F. Baker, Michael Ellsworth, Josef Ruppenhofer & Esther J. Wood
2003FrameNet: Theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel
1992An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation. In American Association for Artificial Intelligence (ed.), Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-92), 302–308. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
1999Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? Construction. Language 75. 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kupietz, Marc, Cyril Belica, Holger Keibel & Andreas Witt
2010The German reference corpus DeReKo: A primordial sample for linguistic research. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner, D. Tapias (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010), 1848–1854. Valletta, Malta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000A dynamic usage-based model. In S. Kemmer & M. Barlow (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lapata, Maria
1999Acquiring lexical generalizations from corpora: A case study for diathesis alternations. In R. Dale & K. Church (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 397–404. College Park, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2015Verb classes within and across languages. In B. Comrie & A. Malchukov (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
2005Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke
2001On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke & Merja Kytö
(eds.) 2009Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin
2012Rethinking FNI: On null instantiation and control in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 4(1). 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1963Structural semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meliss, Meike
2015Argumentstrukturen, Valenz und Konstruktionen: Eine korpusbasierte Studie deutscher und spanischer “Geruchsverben” im Kontrast. In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, C. Proost & E. Winkler (eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen valenz und konstruktion, 317–340. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Josef Ruppenhofer
2001Beyond alternations: A constructional account of the applicative pattern in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, George A.
1995WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11). 39–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Motsch, Wolfgang
1999Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D.
1981Events, processes, and states. In P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (eds.), Tense and aspect (Syntax and Semantics 14), 191–212. London and New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Stephen Wechsler
2014Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 1–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nemoto, Noriko
2005Verbal polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1951A system for the description of semantic elements. Word 7(1). 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1975Componential analysis of meaning: An introduction to semantic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Don L. F.
1973The instrumental case in English: Syntactic and semantic considerations. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko Hirose
2009Frame-based contrastive lexical semantics in Japanese FrameNet: The case of risk and kakeru . In H. C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Osswald, R. & Robert D. Van Valin
2014Framenet, frame structure and the syntax-semantics interface. In R. Osswald, T. Gamerschlag, D. Gerland & W. Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy, 125–156. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent
2015Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petruck, Miriam R. L., Charles J. Fillmore, Collin F. Baker, Michael Ellsworth & Josef Ruppenhofer
2004Reframing FrameNet data. In G. Williams & S. Vessier (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress (EURALEX 2004). Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1989Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1999Case and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Princeton University
2010 “About WordNet”. http://​wordnet​.princeton​.edu
Quine, Willard V. O.
1951Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60. 20–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin
1998Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2002Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect, 274–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 269–280. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1973Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4. 328–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1978Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef
2018Argument omissions in multiple German corpora. In H. C. Boas & A. Ziem (eds.), Constructional approaches to argument structure in German. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Johnson & Jan Scheffczyk
2010FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report available at http://​framenet​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis
2010A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2. 158–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Frames and the interpretation of omitted arguments. In S. Katz Bourns & L. Myers (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht, 57–86. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Johnson, Collin Baker & Jan Scheffczyk
2016FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report available at https://​framenet2​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/docs​/r1​.7​/book​.pdf
Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow & Emily M. Bender
2003Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand
1916Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas
2008The kicktionary: Combining corpus linguistics and lexical semantics for a multilingual football dictionary. In E. Lavric, G. Pisek, A. Skinner & W. Stadler (eds.), The linguistics of football (Language in Performance 38), 11–23. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2009The kicktionary – a multilingual lexical resource of football language. In H. C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography, 101–132. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schulte im Walde, Sabine
2000Clustering verbs semantically according to their alternation behaviour. In Proceedings of the 18th conference on Computational linguistics, vol. 2, 747–753. Association for Computational Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schulte im Walde, Sabine
2003Experiments on the automatic induction of German semantic verb classes. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart dissertation.Google Scholar
2009The induction of verb frames and verb classes from corpora. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2, 952–971. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut
2007Valenzforschung am IDS. In H. Kämper & L. M. Eichinger (eds.), Sprachperspektiven: Germanistische Linguistik und das Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 243–282. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut, Jacqueline Kubczak, Renate Schmidt & Vera de Ruiter
2004VALBU – Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Scott, Graham G., Anne Keitel, Marc Becirspahic, Bo Yao, and Sara C. Sereno
2019The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scalesBehavior research methods 51(3). 1258–1270.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
(ed.) 1987Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I.
1987Thinking for speaking. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis, H. Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, 435–445. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1997Mind, code, and text. In J. L. Bybee, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 437–467. Amsterdam and Philadelpha: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 157–191. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, M.
1983Verb-descriptivity in English and German. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
2003Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stringer, David
2003Acquisitional evidence for a universal syntax of directional PPs. ACL SIGSEM workshop: The linguistic dimensions of prepositions and their use in computational linguistics formalisms and applications, 44–55. Toulouse: IRIT.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R.
1996On running and jogging. Cognitive Linguistics 7(1). 21–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol L.
1994Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timponi, Ludmila Meireles Lage, Thais Fernandes Sampaio, Tatiane da Silva Tavares, and Ely Edison da Silva Matos
2014Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese constructicon. Constructions and Frames 6(1). 34–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trier, Jost
1931Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Urban, Margaret & Josef Ruppenhofer
2001Shouting and screaming: Manner and noise verbs in communication. Literary and Linguistic Computing 16. 77–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D.
1990Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In R. D. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1999Generalized semantic roles and the syntax-semantics interface. In F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin & J.-M. Marandin (eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 2, 373–389. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & David P. Wilkins
1996The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla
1997Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1957Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Welke, Klaus
2009Valenztheorie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37. 81–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1972Semantic primitives. Bonn: Athenäum-Verl.Google Scholar
2006English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Edeltraud
2015Die beiden Varianten der Material-Produkt-Alternanz im Deutschen. In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, C. Proost & E. Winkler (eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 201–216. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Wood, Mary McGee
1993Categorial grammars. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie
2006Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 101–125. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London and New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch
2005Brutal Brits and argumentative Americans: What collostructional analysis can tell us about lectal variation. Conference paper at the Ninth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC 9) . Seoul: Yonsei University.
Ziem, Alexander
2008Frame-Semantik und Diskursanalyse: Skizze einer kognitionswissenschaftlich inspirierten Methode zur Analyse gesellschaftlichen Wissens. In I. Warnke & J. Spitzmüller (eds.), Methoden der Diskurslinguistik: Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge zur transtextuellen Ebene, 89–116. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Frames of understanding in text and discourse: Theoretical foundations and descriptive applications. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2020013603