Article In:
Constructions and Frames: Online-First Articles

Complex verbs in English

The relationship between verb-forming suffix schemas and argument structure constructions

ORCID logo | University of Reading
 | Leiden University
This paper relates two levels of constructional analysis in accounting for the functions of verb-forming suffixation in English: argument structure constructions and suffix schemas. The function of verbal-forming suffixation expressed by the four suffixes in English, -ize, -ify, -en, and -ate, has been shown to exhibit a wide range of semantic categories that correspond to a number of argument structure constructions (Laws 2023). The current paper extends that semantic analysis. Firstly, by using a Construction Morphology approach (Booij 2010) to formalize the relationship between argument structure and suffix schemas proposed by Laws. Secondly, a hierarchical view of verb-class and subclass argument structure constructions is articulated by using semantic rules that involve selection and enrichment by coercion within suffix subschemas. Thirdly, it is demonstrated that the motivation for partially opaque complex verbs with these suffixes can be expressed by referring to paradigmatic relationships between these complex verbs and other related words.
Keywords: argument structure construction, affix schema, semantic class, verb-forming suffix, coercion, paradigmatic relationship
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Complex verb semantic categories and polysemy
    • 2.2An argument structure construction analysis of complex words
  • 3.A construction morphology analysis of complex words
    • 3.1The generalized affix schema for verb-forming suffixation
    • 3.2The analysis of complex verb subclasses
      • 3.2.1Coercion mechanisms and semantic rules of interpretation
        • 3.2.1.1Selection by coercion
        • 3.2.1.2Enrichment by coercion
    • 3.3The alignment of argument structure constructions and suffix schemas
  • 4.The relationship between the base of a complex verb and its argument role
  • 5.Summary and future directions
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (42)
References
Audring, J., & Booij, G. (2016). Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54 (4), 617–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (1997). Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996 (pp. 35–53). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). The role of schemas in Construction Morphology. Word Structure, 12 1, 385–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Paradigmatic relations in Construction Morphology: The case of Dutch Noun+Verb compounds. In K. Hein & S. Michel (Eds.), Zeitschrift für Wortbilding / Journal of Word Formation, 7 (2), 13–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. & Masini, F. (2015). The role of second order schemas in word formation. In L. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 47–66). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Gunter Radden (pp. 49–68). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2014). Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (3), 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013a). Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28 (4), 435–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (2014). More on the as-predicative: Granularity issues in the description of construction networks. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2 1, 207–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41 1, 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Constructions in the parallel architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 70–92). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & Audring, J. (2020). The texture of the lexicon. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laws, J. (2023). A constructional account of verb-forming suffixation. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Complex verbs in Spoken English: meanings, senses and frequencies. Retrieved from: [URL] April 2024.
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach (2nd ed.). C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1979). The nonuniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 3 1, 143–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary (OED online). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from [URL] April 2024.
Perek, F. (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49 (6), 1401–1431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. & Ježek, E. (2008). Semantic coercion in language: Beyond distributional analysis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20 (1), 181–214.Google Scholar
Ryder, M. E. (1999). Bankers and blue-chippers: An account of -er formations in present-day English. English Language and Linguistics, 3 (2), 269–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E. (2020) (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. (2014). Derivational paradigms. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 354–369). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). The relation of grammar to cognition. Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32 (3), 389–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin? Constructions and Frames, 16 (1), 30–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar