Cover not available
Part of
Frame-Constructional Verb Classes: Change and Theft verbs in English and German
Ryan Dux
[Constructional Approaches to Language 28] 2020
► pp. 300–311

Bibliography

Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore
2001 Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Atzler, Judith K.
2011 Twist 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
2014 Towards interlingual constructicography: On correspondence between constructicon resources for English and Swedish. Constructions and Frames 6(1). 9–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Collin F. & Josef Ruppenhofer
2002 FrameNet’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
2009 WordNet 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
1998 The Berkeley FrameNet project. In COLING-ACL ‘98: Proceedings of the conference, 86–90.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1988 Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1997 Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2001 The 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
2008 Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer
(eds.) 2000 Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beavers, John
2010 The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language 86. 821–864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John & Andrew Koontz-Garboden
2012 Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3). 331–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John, Beth Levin & Shiao Wei Tham
2010 The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46. 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertoldi, Anderson, Rove Chishman & Hans C. Boas
2010 Verbs of judgment in English and Portuguese: What contrastive analysis can say about Frame Semantics. Calidoscopio 8(3). 210–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred
1970 Semantics. In J. Lyons (ed.), New horizons in linguistics, 166–184. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. 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.
2001 Frame 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
2002 Bilingual 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
2003 A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2005a Determining the productivity of resultatives: A reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language 81(2). 448–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b From 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
2005c Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography 18(4). 445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 A 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
2008a Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6. 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b Towards 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.) 2009a Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b Semantic 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
2010a Comparing constructions across languages. In H. C. Boas (ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar, 1–20. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2010b Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010c The syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24. 54–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011a Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics 49(6). 1271–1303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b A 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
2011c Zum 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2014a Lexical 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.) 2012 Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ryan Dux
2013 Semantic 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
2016 Frames 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
2017 From the past into the present: From case frames to semantic frames. In Linguistics Vanguard (3)1. 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Alexander Ziem
2018 Constructing 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Gerd
2013 Morphology 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
1982 The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1934 Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Amy Beth Warriner & Victor Kuperman
2014. Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 46(3). 904–911.Google Scholar
Burchardt, Aljoscha, Katrin Erk, Anette Frank, Andrea Kowalski, Sebastian Padó & Manfred Pinkal
2009 FrameNet 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
2012 Frame-semantik. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
1985 Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Morphology as lexical organization. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2007 Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Exemplars 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
2009 Usage-based theory. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 915–950. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2006 Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 1. 1–28.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A.
1957 Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986 Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1993 A 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
1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck
2008 Accounting for ditransitive constructions with envy and forgive . Functions of Language 15(2). 187–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck
2011 Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 183–209.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In W. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, 329–394. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugen
1964 Pour 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.
2001 Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A.
2003 Lexical 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A.
2012 Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A., Chiaki Taoka & Esther J. Wood
2001 Argument linking and the commercial transaction frame in English, Russian and Japanese. Language Sciences 23(4). 579–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
1986 Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1985 Tense and aspect systems. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2008 The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 450 million words, 1990–present. Web database. [URL]
De Clerck, Bernard, Annelies Bloem & Timothy Colleman
2012 Transfer 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
1979 Ergativity Language 55(1), 59–138.Google Scholar
1991 A new approach to English grammar: On semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1979 Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle 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
2011 A frame-semantic analysis of five English verbs evoking the Theft frame. University of Texas at Austin M.A. Thesis.Google Scholar
2016 A usage-based approach to verb classes in English and German. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
2018 Frames, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dux, Ryan & Hans C. Boas
2011 On 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.) 2015 Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata, and Kim Wylin
2015 Expressing the source of dispossession acts in French and Spanish. Languages in Contrast 15(1). 102–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1994 Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faulhaber, Susen
2011 Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Jerome, Ellen Dodge & John Bryant
2009 Embodied 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.) 1998 WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 WordNet and WordNets. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edition, 665–670. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fernández Méndez, Manuel
2015 Argumentstrukturmuster 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.
1968 The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
1970 The 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
1971 Types 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
1975 An 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
1977a The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977b Scenes-and-frames semantics. Linguistic Structures Processing 59. 55–88.Google Scholar
1982 Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni Di Semantica 6(2). 222–254.Google Scholar
1986 Pragmatically 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
2003 Valency 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
2007 Valency 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
2008 Border 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
2009 A valency dictionary of English. International Journal of Lexicography 22(1). 55–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary O’Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64. 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & B. T. S. Atkins
1992 Towards 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
2000 Describing 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
2009 A 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
2012 The 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
1985 Structure-sharing in lexical representation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 262–267. Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frense, Juta & Paul Bennett
1996 Verb alternations and semantic classes in English and German. Language Sciences 18(1). 305–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
(eds.) 2004 Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujita, Koji
1996 Double objects, causatives, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 146–173.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2009 Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Dylan
2004 Constructions at the crossroads: The place of Construction Grammar between field and frame. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2. 197–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff
1998 Semantic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A construction approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2002 Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13. 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 Constructionist 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
2004 Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3). 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Ray Jackendoff
2004 The resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gotsoulia, Voula
2012 Formalization of linking information in the FrameNet lexicon: The case of ‘notion’ verbs. Constructions and Frames 4(2). 103–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2003 Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1. 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Corpus 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Data 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
2004 Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.) 2006 Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 172). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1993 Semantic structure and semantic content. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander & Richard Goldberg
1991 Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition 41. 153–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S.
1965 Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Guerssel, Mohamed, Kenneth Hale, Mary Laughren, Beth Levin & Josie White Eagle
1985 A 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
1986 Some 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
1993 On 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
2005 A pattern dictionary for natural language processing. Revue Française de linguistique appliquée 10(2). 63–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko, Russell Lee-Goldman, Albert Kong & Kimi Akita
2011 FrameNet as a resource for paraphrase research. Constructions and Frames 3(1). 104–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. Causatives and Transitivity 23. 87–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard
1992 Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Wolfgang Schenkel
1969 Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas
1983 Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2011 The 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
2014 The 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
2004 A valency dictionary of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Susen Schüller
2008 Introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency approach. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber
(eds.) 2014 Constructions – collocations – patterns. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2013 Abstract 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
2013a Construction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 1–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(eds.) 2013b The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan, Gill Francis & Elizabeth Manning
1996 Verbs (Cobuild Grammar Patterns 1). London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Iwata, Seizi
2008 Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach (Constructional Approaches to Language Series 6). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1975 Semantic and morphological regularities in the lexicon. Language 51. 639–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 Semantic 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
2003 FrameNet: Theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel
1992 An 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
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? Construction. Language 75. 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupietz, Marc, Cyril Belica, Holger Keibel & Andreas Witt
2010 The 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
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999 Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 A dynamic usage-based model. In S. Kemmer & M. Barlow (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lapata, Maria
1999 Acquiring 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
1993 English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2015 Verb classes within and across languages. In B. Comrie & A. Malchukov (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
2005 Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke
2001 On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke & Merja Kytö
(eds.) 2009 Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin
2012 Rethinking FNI: On null instantiation and control in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 4(1). 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1963 Structural semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meliss, Meike
2015 Argumentstrukturen, 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
2001 Beyond alternations: A constructional account of the applicative pattern in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, George A.
1995 WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11). 39–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Motsch, Wolfgang
1999 Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D.
1981 Events, processes, and states. In P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (eds.), Tense and aspect (Syntax and Semantics 14), 191–212. London and New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Stephen Wechsler
2014 Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nemoto, Noriko
2005 Verbal 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1951 A system for the description of semantic elements. Word 7(1). 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 Componential analysis of meaning: An introduction to semantic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Don L. F.
1973 The instrumental case in English: Syntactic and semantic considerations. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko Hirose
2009 Frame-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
2014 Framenet, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent
2015 Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petruck, Miriam R. L., Charles J. Fillmore, Collin F. Baker, Michael Ellsworth & Josef Ruppenhofer
2004 Reframing 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
1989 Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1999 Case and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Princeton University
2010 “About WordNet”. [URL]
Quine, Willard V. O.
1951 Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60. 20–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin
1998 Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2002 Change 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
2010 Reflections 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
1973 Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4. 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1978 Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef
2018 Argument 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Johnson & Jan Scheffczyk
2010 FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report available at [URL]
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis
2010 A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2. 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Frames 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Johnson, Collin Baker & Jan Scheffczyk
2016 FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report available at [URL]
Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow & Emily M. Bender
2003 Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand
1916 Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas
2008 The 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
2009 The 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
2000 Clustering verbs semantically according to their alternation behaviour. In Proceedings of the 18th conference on Computational linguistics, vol. 2, 747–753. Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulte im Walde, Sabine
2003 Experiments on the automatic induction of German semantic verb classes. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart dissertation.Google Scholar
2009 The 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
2007 Valenzforschung 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
2004 VALBU – Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Scott, Graham G., Anne Keitel, Marc Becirspahic, Bo Yao, and Sara C. Sereno
2019 The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales. Behavior research methods 51(3). 1258–1270.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
(ed.) 1987 Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I.
1987 Thinking 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
1997 Mind, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Language 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.
1983 Verb-descriptivity in English and German. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stringer, David
2003 Acquisitional 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.
1996 On running and jogging. Cognitive Linguistics 7(1). 21–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol L.
1994 Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003 Constructing 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
2014 Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese constructicon. Constructions and Frames 6(1). 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trier, Jost
1931 Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Urban, Margaret & Josef Ruppenhofer
2001 Shouting and screaming: Manner and noise verbs in communication. Literary and Linguistic Computing 16. 77–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D.
1990 Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 A 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
1999 Generalized 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
2005 Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & David P. Wilkins
1996 The 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
1997 Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1957 Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Welke, Klaus
2009 Valenztheorie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37. 81–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1972 Semantic primitives. Bonn: Athenäum-Verl.Google Scholar
2006 English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Edeltraud
2015 Die 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
1993 Categorial grammars. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie
2006 Go-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
2008 Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London and New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch
2005 Brutal 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
2008 Frame-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Frames of understanding in text and discourse: Theoretical foundations and descriptive applications. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar