Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 16:2 (2018) ► pp. 348–398

Situating Valency Theory in functional-cognitive space

| University of Almería
| Swansea University | University of Huddersfield
This article builds on the work reported in Butler and Gonzálvez-García (2014), in which 16 functional and/or cognitive/constructionist theories were compared on the basis of questionnaires completed by experts and a reading of the literature on each approach. The aim is to extend this work to cover Valency Theory (VT henceforth), arguably the most widely used approach to the study of German syntax. We first report on a statistical analysis (correlation, multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis) of the data from the questionnaires completed by two VT experts, in relation to those completed by experts in other approaches. We then present an analysis of each item in the questionnaire in relation to VT, leading to a positive or negative evaluation for each questionnaire item. The results are again analysed statistically. The picture that emerges is of a theory which, though distinctive, has clear relationships with a broad group of cognitively-oriented approaches.
Keywords: Valency Theory, functional linguistics, cognitive/constructional theories, functional-cognitive space
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Statistical analysis of the questionnaires
    • 3.1The ratings given by the VT experts
    • 3.2Correlational analysis
    • 3.3Multidimensional scaling
    • 3.4Hierarchical clustering
    • 3.5Conclusions from the statistical analysis of the questionnaires
  • 4.Discussion of VT in the light of the questionnaire data and the literature
    • 4.1Some preliminary remarks on “valency” and “valency theory”
    • 4.2Communication and motivation
    • 4.3Coverage
    • 4.4The database for description
    • 4.5Explanation
    • 4.6The form of the grammar
    • 4.7Applications
  • 5.Statistical analysis of the final ratings
    • 5.1Correlational analysis
    • 5.2Multidimensional scaling
    • 5.3Hierarchical clustering
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 05 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00015.gon
References
Ágel, V.
(2000) Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Allerton, D.
(1975) Deletion and proform reduction. Journal of Linguistics, 111, 213–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1982) Valency and the English verb. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M.
(2011) Child language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Ellis, N. C., Blythe, R., Holland, J., Bybee, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
(2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 591, 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, H.
(2011) Grammatik und Lexikon im Spracherwerb: Konstruktionsprozesse. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 375–396). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 2nd edn.Google Scholar
(2014) Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 89–112.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A.
(Eds.) (2012) Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bondzio, W.
(1971) Valenz, Bedeutung und Satzmodelle. In G. Helbig (Ed.), Beiträge zur Valenztheorie (pp. 85–103). The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breindl, E.
(2006) Präpositionalphrasen. In W. Ágel, L. M. Eichinger, H. W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. J. Heringer, & H. Lobin (Eds.), Dependenz und Valenz/Dependency and valency: Ein internationals Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forsschung/An international handbook of contemporary research 2. Halbband/Volume 2 (pp. 936–951). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Busse, W., & Dubost, J. P.
(1983) Französisches Verblexikon: Die Konstruktion der Verben im Französischen. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez-García, F.
(2014) Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2007) Review of Adele Goldberg, Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . Journal of Child Language, 341, 692–697. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1st edn. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E.
(1973) Probleme der structurellen Semantik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emons, R.
(1974) Valenzen Englischer Prädikatsverben. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1978) Valenzgrammatik für das Englische: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Engel, U.
(1977) Syntax der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Engel, U., & Schumacher, H.
(1976)[1978] Kleines Valenzlexikon Deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S.
(2011a) Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Idiosyncrasy in verb valency patterns. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 591, 347–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. F.
(2009) A valency dictionary of English. International Journal of Lexicography, 22(1), 55–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. F., & Kay, P.
(1995) Construction Grammar coursebook, chapters 1 thru 11 (Reading materials for Ling. X20). Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Francis, G.
(1993) A corpus-driven approach to grammar: Principles, methods and examples. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 137–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. K., & Sag, I. A.
(1985) Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press. 1st edn.Google Scholar
Habermann, M.
(2007) Aspects of a diachronic valency syntax of German. In T. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues (pp. 85–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1970) Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in Linguistics (pp. 140–165). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Hartmann, I., Haspelmath, M., & Taylor, B.
(Eds.) (2013) Valency patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://​valpal​.info, Accessed on 2017-05-04).
Helbig, G.
(1971) Beiträge zur Valenztheorie. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T.
(1983) Untersuchungen zur Valenz Englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(1988) A valency model for nouns in English. Journal of Linguistics, 241, 265–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) How obligatory are obligatory complements?: An alternative approach to the categorization of subjects and other complements in valency grammar. English Studies, 21, 179–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) English valency structures: A first sketch. Technical Report EESE 2/99.Google Scholar
(2007) Valency complements or valency patterns? In T. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues (pp. 15–35). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009a) Valency: Item-specificity and idiom principle. In U. Römer & R. Schulze (Eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Patterns in syntax, lexicography and corpus linguistics. In L. Eckstein & C. Reinfandt (Eds.), Anglistentag 2008 proceedings (pp. 379–389). Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
(2010a) English Linguistics: A coursebook for students of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino. In H. J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns: Empirical studies (pp. 225–255). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 591, 347–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014a) Idiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles and the valency realization principle. In M. Hilpert & S. Flach (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kognitive Linguistik, Vol. II1. (pp. 253–289). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2014b) The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H. J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns (pp. 167–216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2015a) Why Construction Grammar catches the worm and corpus data can drive you crazy: Accounting for idiomatic and nonidiomatic idiomaticity. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 91–110. Online version available at: http://​thescipub​.com​/PDF​/jssp​.2015​.91​.110​.pdf. Accessed October, 15, 2016.
(2015b) Corpora, constructions and cognition. ΠΕДΑГОГИУЕСΚИЙ ЖУРНАЛ БАШΚОРТОСТАНА, 56(1), 243–248.Google Scholar
(2016) Foreign language learning is construction learning – What else?: Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 21–51). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., Heath, D., & Dederding, H. M.
(1980) Grimm’s grandchildren: Current topics in German Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I., & Götz, D.
(2004) A valency dictionary of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1st edn. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., & Faulhaber, S.
(2015) Do constructions make a difference? Introduction to a special issue of ZAA on aspects of Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 249–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., & Schüller, S.
(2008) Introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency approach. Tübingen: Narr. 1st edn.Google Scholar
Heringer, H. J.
(1970/1973): Theorie der Deutschen Syntax. München: Hueber. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Deutsche Syntax – dependentiell. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J.
(1994) Kontra Valenz. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
(2009) Valenzbindung oder Konstruktionsbindung?: Eine Grundfrage der Grammatiktheorie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 37(3), 490–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P.
(2013) The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 32–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 225–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, E.
(2014) First language learning from a usage-based approach. In T. Herbst, H. J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns (pp. 1–24). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2001) The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H.
(1981) Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Language as mental faculty. In N. E. Collinge (Ed.), An encyclopedia of language (pp. 112–138). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Müller, S.
(2008) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Eine Enführung. Tübingen: Stanffenburg Verlag. 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Perek, F.
(2015) Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Proisl, T., & Kabashi, B.
(2015) Using high-quality resources in NLP: The valency dictionary of English as a resource for left-associative grammars. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on language resources and evaluation, LREC 2010 (pp. 17–23).Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. 1st edn.Google Scholar
Rall, D., Rall, M., & Zorrilla, O.
(1980) Diccionario de valencias verbales: Alemán-español. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Reichardt, R.
(2013) Valency sentence patterns and meaning interpretation: Case study of the verb “consider”. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Birmingham. etheses​.bham​.ac​.uk​/4645​/1​/Reichardt13PhD​.pdf. Accessed March, 10, 2017.
Rostila, J.
(2014) Inventarisierung als Grammatikalisierung: Produktive Präpositionalobjekte und andere grammatikalisierte Linking-Muster. In A. Lasch & A. Ziem (Eds.), Grammatik als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen: Sprachwissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp. 97–116). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forthcoming). Argument structure constructions among German prepositional objects. In H. C. Boas & A. Ziem Eds. German argument structure constructions Berlin Mouton de Gruyter Crossref
Schøsler, L.
(2003) Les verbes supports dans une perspective diachronique: Le cas de garde, noyau prédicatif. In Ancien et moyen français sur le web: Enjeux méthodologiques et analyse du discours (pp. 221–271). Ottawa: Les Éditions David.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajicová, E., & Panevová, J.
(1986) The meaning of sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht/Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(2004) Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Somers, H. L.
(1987) Valency and case in computational linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Spevak, O.
(Ed.) (2014) Noun valency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2011) Argument structure: Item-based or distributed? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 369–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2005) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., & LaPolla, R.
(1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Welke, K.
(1988) Einführung in die Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
(2005) Deutsche Syntax funktional: Perspektiviertheit syntaktischer Strukturen. Tübigen: Stauffenburg. Second edition revised. First edition 2002.Google Scholar
(2011) Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen: Eine Einführung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Wechselseitigkeit von Valenz und Konstruktion: Valenz als Grundvalenz. In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, K. Proost, & E. Winkler (Eds.) Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion (pp. 35–59). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B.
(1997) Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zöfgen, E.
(1985) Definitionswörterbuch kontra Valenzwörterbuch: Zur lexikographischen Darstellung der Verbsyntax aus pragmatischer Sicht. In H. Bergenholtz & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Lexikographie und Grammatik (pp. 130–158). Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

No author info given
2022.  In Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.