This chapter examines the conative construction, e.g., I kicked at the ball, using
collexeme analysis. Previous studies report that strong collexemes of a construction
provide an indication of its central meaning, from which polysemic extensions
are derived. However, the conative construction does not seem to attract
a particular kind of verb that could be used to characterize its central meaning.
To address this problem, a variant of collexeme analysis is suggested that
consists in splitting the verbal distribution into semantic classes and consider
“verb-class-specific” constructions independently. For the three classes tested,
the most significant collexemes are found to be verbs whose inherent meaning
contains the semantic contribution of the construction in that class. Hence, the
most attracted collexemes do provide an indication of the constructional meaning,
albeit specific to each verb class.
Boas, H. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Broccias, C. (2001). Allative and ablative at-constructions. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), CLS 37: The main session: Papers from the 37th meeting of the Chicago linguistic society. Volume 1 (pp. 67–82). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dixon, R. (1991). A new approach to English grammar: On semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fellbaum, C. (1998) (Ed.). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fillmore, C., & Kay, P. (MS). Construction Grammar (course reader). University of California, Berkeley.
Fillmore, C. (2001). Mini-grammars of some time-when expressions in English. In J. Bybee, & M. Noonan (Eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson (pp. 31–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Glynn, D. (2010). Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–270). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316.
Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31(2), 91–113.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43.
Van der Leek, F. (1996). The English conative construction: A compositional account. In L. Dobrin, K. Singer, & L. McNair (Eds.), CLS 32: The main session: Papers from the 32th meeting of the Chicago linguistic society (pp. 363–378). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
2024.
A Collostructional and Constructional Approach to the Transitive
out of
-
ing
Construction
. English Studies 105:2 ► pp. 263 ff.
Suethanapornkul, Sakol & Sarut Supasiraprapa
2024. Usage events and constructional knowledge: A study of two variants of the introductory-it construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 46:2 ► pp. 355 ff.
GRIES, STEFAN T.
2023. New Technologies and Advances in Statistical Analysis in Recent Decades. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 561 ff.
Kim, Jungsoo & Okgi Kim
2023.
Diachronic Developments of the Concessive
Though
-Fronting Construction in American English: A Corpus-Based Perspective
. English Studies 104:5 ► pp. 804 ff.
Liu, Yingying & Kevin McManus
2023. Investigating the psychological reality of argument structure constructions and N1 of N2 constructions: a comparison between L1 and L2 speakers of English. Cognitive Linguistics 34:3-4 ► pp. 503 ff.
PEREK, FLORENT
2023. Construction Grammar and Usage‐Based Theory. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 215 ff.
2023. Functional idiosyncrasies of suggesting constructions in British English. English Language and Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 321 ff.
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman & Antal van den Bosch
2022. Generating hypotheses for alternations at low and intermediate levels of schematicity. The use of Memory-based Learning. Linguistics Vanguard 8:1 ► pp. 305 ff.
Romain, Laurence
2022. Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 35 ff.
Francis, Elaine J.
2021. Gradient Acceptability and Linguistic Theory,
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Freek Van de Velde & Stefan Grondelaers
2021. Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics 32:3 ► pp. 487 ff.
Dattner, Elitzur
2019. The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions. Linguistics 57:5 ► pp. 1073 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. 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.