Cover not available
Article published In:
Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 41–77

She has a stadium named after her

Meaning variation in spoken interaction

| Universität Greifswald

In English, sequences consisting of the verb have, a noun phrase and a past participle vary in meaning. This meaning variation has been discussed both in the context of grammatical description and language change, mostly based on a handful of examples. This study seeks to combine theoretical and methodological approaches from construction grammar and interactional linguistics in the description of this meaning variation. Theoretically, this implies distinguishing between abstracted meaning potential and situated meaning of linguistic elements. Methodologically, this means taking both a coarse-grained view by means of a quantitative corpus-based approach that abstracts over a number of instances and a fine-grained view by means of qualitative analysis of talk-in-interaction.

Keywords: have + noun phrase + past participle, meaning change, construction grammar, interactional linguistics, affactive, resultative, depictive, ambiguity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructional meaning in construction grammar and interactional linguistics
    • 2.1Theoretical background
    • 2.2Data and methodology
  • 3.The constructions
    • 3.1The affactive construction
    • 3.2Complex-transitive constructions
      • 3.2.1The have-resultative construction
      • 3.2.2The have-depictive construction
      • 3.2.3Optional depictive construction
    • 3.3Past participial NP-internal modifier construction
  • 4.Ambiguity
    • 4.1Ambiguity without context
    • 4.2Ambiguity with context
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00057.joh
References
Allwood, J.
(1999) Semantics as meaning determination with semantic-epistemic operations. In J. Allwood & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Cognitive semantics: Meaning and cognition (pp. 1–17). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bittner, T. & Smith, B.
(2001) A unified theory of granularity, vagueness, and approximation. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Spatial Vagueness, Uncertainty, and Granularity (SVUG-01) (pp. 1–39). Url: [URL]
Boas, H. C.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.
(1994) The differentiation of statives and perfects in Early Modern English: The development of the conclusive perfect. In D. Stein & I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Eds.), Towards a standard English, 1600–1800 (pp. 135–170). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Businger, M.
(2013)  Haben-statives in German. In A. Alexiadou & F. Schäfer (Eds.), Non-canonical passives (pp. 141–161). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
COBUILD COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. (n.d.). Url: [URL]
Croft, W.
(2005) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273–314). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curme, G. O.
(1935) A Grammar of the English language. Heath.Google Scholar
de Acosta, D.
(2013) The Old English have-perfect and its congeners. Journal of English Linguistics, 41 (1), 33–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A.
(2011) Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik: Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. In A. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III: Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze (pp. 205–238). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Dowty, D.
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67 (3), 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, P.
(2013) Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Band 2: Der Satz (4., aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage). Metzler.Google Scholar
Emonds, J.
(2013) Indirect passives and the selection of English participles. Lingua, 125 1, 58–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fischer, K.
(2006) Konstruktionsgrammatik und situationales Wissen. In S. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 343–364). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7 (04), 563–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flach, S.
(2017) Collostructions: An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods (Version R package version 0.1.0). Url: [URL]
Gilquin, G.
(2010) Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R.
(2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80 (3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Divjak, D.
(2009) Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–75). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P.
(2000) Do word meanings exist? Computers and the Humanities, 34 (1/2), 205–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2014) Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 391–404). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(2011) Emergent Grammar and temporality in Interactional Linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 22–44). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. D. & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, W.
(2009) Where does the mountain stop? A granular approach to the concept of constructions-as-signs. Url: [URL]
(2015) Interactional Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 1 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inoue, K.
(1995) Causative have and experiential have . English Linguistics, 12 1, 73–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johannsen, B.
(2021a) Between causative and passive: Agentivity in the affactive construction. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 69(3), 321–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b) Meaning variation of have-NP-past participle-sequences (Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin). Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Kemmer, S. & Verhagen, A.
(1994) The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (2), 115–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, G.
(1952) Die zehn Hauptverben des Englischen im Britischen und Amerikanischen: Eine semasiologisch-syntaktische Darstellung ihrer gegenwärtigen Funktionen mit sprachgeschichtlichen Rückblicken. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leirbukt, O.
(1997) Untersuchungen zum “bekommen”-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N., Geeraerts, D. & Speelman, D.
(2013) Mapping constructional spaces: A contrastive analysis of English and Dutch analytic causatives. Linguistics, 51 (4), 825–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. & McEnery, T.
(2017) The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22 (3), 319–344.Google Scholar
Love, R., Hawtin, A. & Hardie, A.
(2018) The British National Corpus 2014: User manual and reference guide (Version 1.1). Lancaster University: CASS. Url: [URL]
Nielsen, P. J.
(2018) The affactive få ‘get’ construction in Danish: Afficiaries, agentivity and voice. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, August 29-September 1, in Tallinn, Estonia.
Norén, K. & Linell, P.
(2007) Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics, 17 (3), 387–416.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R.
(1988) ‘I had a book stolen’. In J. Klegraf & D. Nehls (Eds.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th birthday (pp. 47–54). Groos.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R. & Scheffczyk, J.
(2010) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Url: [URL]
Schultze-Berndt, E. & Himmelmann, N. P.
(2004) Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology, 8 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2001) Constructing causation: A construction grammar approach to analytic causatives (Dissertation, Rice University). Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, F.
(2011) Why should beneficiaries be subjects (or objects)? Affaction and grammatical relations. In S. Kittilä, K. Västi & J. Ylikoski (Eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (pp. 329–348). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Johannsen, Berit
2021. Between Causative and Passive: Agentivity in the Affactive Construction. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 69:3 ► pp. 321 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.