Licensing and blocking factors in the use of BEGIN verbs
A lexical-constructional and pragmatic analysis
This article investigates the cognitive operations underlying the different uses of four main begin verbs in English, i.e. start, begin, commence and initiate, and the pragmatic implications connected with them. The study follows an analytical approach based on the Lexical Constructional Model and on more general but fundamental assumptions of Cognitive Linguistics, according to which grammar is conceptually motivated. Attention is paid to the effects produced at the structural level by our varying conceptualizations of occurrences indicating the inception of an activity, with a special focus on the metonymic and metaphoric processes governing and affecting lexical-syntactic and semantic-pragmatic representations. begin verbs are observed in their ability to be integrated into constructions that appear to be regulated by a well-defined set of constraints.
Keywords: lexical constraints, metaphor, metonymy, construal, begin verbs, initiate, argument structure, start, begin, commence, cognitive constraints, construction
References (114)
Agrell, S
(
1908)
Aspektänderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitworte: Ein Beitrag zum Studium der indogermanischen Präverbia und ihrer Bedeutungsfunktionen.
Lunds Universitets Arsskrift I (iv.2).
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Austin, J.L
(
1975)
How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bailey, D
(
1993)
The problem of the alternation of to V/V-ing after ‘aspectual verbs’. In
J. Chuquet &
D. Roulland (Eds.),
Subordination, subordinations (pp. 185–197). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes II.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barcelona, A
(
1991)
A contrastive analysis of existential-presentative and presentative sentences in English and Spanish.
Revista Canaria de Estudio Ingleses, 22–231, 165–196.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barcelona, A
(
2002)
Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: An update. In
R. Dirven &
R. Pörings (Eds.),
Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beaver, D
(
1997)
Presupposition. In
J. van Benthem &
A. ter Meulen (Eds.),
The handbook of logic and language (pp. 939–1008). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beaver, D
(
2011)
Presupposition. In
E.N. Zalta (Ed.),
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[URL]
Binnick, R.I
(Ed.) (
2012)
The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect. New York: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blutner, R
(
2002)
Lexical semantics and pragmatics.
Linguistische Berichte, 101, 27–58.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blutner, R
(
2011)
Some perspectives on lexical pragmatics. In
D. Archer &
P. Grundy (Eds.),
Pragmatics reader (pp. 99–114). Routledge: London.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brdar, M
(
2007)
Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J
(Ed.). (
1992)
The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J
(
2001)
Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brinton, L.J
(
1988)
The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, H.H., & Clark, E.V
(
1977)
Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, B
(
1976)
Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W
(
1993)
The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies.
Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (2), 151–174.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W
(
2001)
Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Culicover, P.W., & Jackendoff, R
(
2005)
Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
De Swart, H
(
1998)
Aspect shift and coercion.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 161, 347–385.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dik, S.C
(
1997a)
The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dik, S.C
(
1997b)
The theory of functional grammar. Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(
2010)
Looking back at 30 years of cognitive linguistics. In
E. Tabakowska,
M. Choinski &
L. Wiraszka (Eds.),
Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 13–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, R.M.W
(
2005)
A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Duffley, P
(
1999)
The use of the infinitive and the -ing after verbs denoting the beginning, middle and end of an event.
Folia Linguistica, 931, 295–331.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Egg, M
(
2003)
Beginning novels and finishing hamburgers. Remarks on the semantics of to begin
.
Journal of Semantics, 201, 163–191.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Faber, P., & Mairal, R
(
1999)
Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falkum, I.L
(
2011)
The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. [PhD thesis University College London]. London: UCL.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C.J
(
1985)
Syntactic intrusion and the notion of grammatical construction.
BLS, 111, 73–86.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C.J
(
1988)
The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’.
BLS, 141, 35–55.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C
(
1988)
Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone.
Language, 641, 501–538.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Freed, A.F
(
1979)
The semantics of English aspectual complementation. Dortrecht: D. Reidel.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fukuda, S
(
2007)
On the control/raising ambiguity with aspectual verbs: a structural account.
[URL].
Galera Masegosa, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(
2012)
Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English.
Language Sciences, 34 (1), 54–64.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H
(Eds.) (
2010)
Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Geeraerts, D., & Peirsman, Y
(
2011)
Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy. In
R. Benczes,
A. Barcelona, &
F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.),
Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Godard, J., & Jayez, D
(
1993)
Towards a proper treatment of coercion phenomena. In
S. Krauwer,
M. Moortgat, &
L. des Tombe (Eds.),
Proceedings of the sixth conference of the European chapter of the ACL
(pp. 168–177). Utrecht.
Goossens, L
(
1990)
Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action.
Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (3), 323–340.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A
(
1995)
Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A
(
2006)
Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D.M., & Sethuraman, N
(
2005)
The role of prediction in construction-learning.
Journal of Child Language, 32 (2), 407–426.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gonzálvez García, F., & Butler, C.S
Grice, H.P
(
1975)
Logic and conversation. In
P. Cole &
J.L. Morgan (Eds.),
Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M.A.K
(
2004)
Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, R
(
1997)
The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J
(
1999)
Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction.
Language, 751, 1–33.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G
(
1998)
Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view.
Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G
(
1987)
Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G
(
1993)
The contemporary theory of metaphor. In
A. Ortony (Ed.),
Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(
1980)
Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(
1999)
Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1984)
Active zones.
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 101, 172–188.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1987)
Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1990)
Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1991)
Cognitive Grammar. In
F.G. Droste &
J.E. Joseph (Eds.),
Linguistic theory and grammatical description (pp. 275–306). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1998)
Indeterminacy in semantics and grammar. In
J.L. Cifuentes
Honrubia (Ed.),
Estudios de lingüística cognitiva II (pp. 649–672). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1999)
Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
2008)
Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
2009a)
Metonymic grammar. In
K.-U. Panther,
L. Thornburg, &
A. Barcelona (Eds.),
Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
2009b)
Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levin, B
(
1993)
English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levin, B, & Rappaport, M
(
2005)
Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mair, C
(
2009)
Infinitival complement clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
Michaelis, L
(
2003)
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In
H. Cuyckens,
R. Dirven, &
J. Taylor (Eds.),
Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, L
(
2010)
Sign-based construction grammar. In
B. Heine &
H. Narrog (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp.139–158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Newmeyer, F.J
(
1975)
English aspectual verbs. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nuyts, J
(
2005)
Brothers in arms?: On the relations between cognitive and functional linguistics. In
F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza, &
S. Peña (Eds.),
Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 69–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M
Panther, K.-U
(
2005)
The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In
F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza &
S. Peña (Eds.),
Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G
(
2004)
Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In
G. Radden &
K.-U. Panther (Eds.),
Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
Pustejovsky, J
(
1995)
The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pustejovsky, J., & Bouillon, P
(
1995)
Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy.
Journal of Semantics, 12 (2), 133–162.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruhl, C
(
1989)
On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(
2000)
The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In
A. Barcelona (Ed.),
Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(
2011)
Metonymy and cognitive operations. In
R. Benczes,
A. Barcelona, &
F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.),
Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Díez, O
(
2002)
Patterns of conceptual interaction. In
R. Dirven &
R. Pörings (Eds.),
Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Gonzálvez García, F
(
2011)
Constructional integration in the Lexical-Constructional Model.
B.A.S./British and American Studies, 271, 75–95.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal Usón, R
(
2006)
Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet.
Interlingüística, 171, 26–47.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal Usón, R
(
2008)
Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model.
Folia Linguistica, 42 (2), 355–400.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal Usón, R
(
2011)
Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model. In
P. Guerrero
(Ed.),
Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). Equinox.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Peña, S
(
2005)
Conceptual interactions, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In
F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza &
S. Peña (Eds.),
Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 254–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L
(
2001)
Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction.
Language and Communication, 211, 321–357.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L
(
2011)
The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges.
Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 161–185.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Santibáñez, F
(
2003)
Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning.
Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15 (2), 293–320.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, H.J
(
1996)
Introspection and computer corpora: The meaning and complementation of start and begin. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweep, J
(
2010b)
Metonymical object changes in Dutch: Lexicographical choices and verb meaning. In
A. Dykstra &
T. Schoonheim (Eds.),
Proceedings of the XIV Euralex international congress (pp. 1428–1435). [CD-ROM] Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy/Afuk.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweep, J
(
2012)
Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
Taverniers, M
(
2004)
Grammatical metaphors in English.
Moderna Språk, 98 (1), 17–26.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taverniers, M
(
2006)
Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor: Different perspectives on semantic variation.
Neophilologus, 901, 321–332.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tobin, Y
(
1993)
Aspect in the English verb: Process and result in language. London: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Trousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T
(Eds.) (
2013)
The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Valin, R.D. Jr
(
2005)
The syntax-semantics interface: An introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Valin, R.D. Jr
(
2013)
Lexical representation, Co-composition, and Linking Syntax and Semantics. In
J. Pustejovsky, P. Bouillon, H. Isahara, K. Kanzaki , &
C. Lee (Eds.),
Advances in generative lexicon theory (pp. 67–107). Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Valin, R.D. Jr., & La Polla, R
(
1997)
Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vendler, Z
(
1967)
Verbs and times: Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verkuyl, H
(
1993)
A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verspoor, C.M
(
1997a)
Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. [PhD thesis University of Edinburgh] Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verspoor, C.M
(
1997b)
Conventionality-governed logical metonymy. In
H. Bunt,
L. Kievit,
R. Muskens, &
H. Verlinden (Eds.),
Proceedings of the second international workshop on computational semantics
(pp. 300–312). Tilburg.
Wanner, A
(
2009)
Deconstructing the English passive. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ziegeler, D
(
2007)
Arguing the case against coercion. In
G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, &
P. Siedmund (Eds.),
Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 99–123). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023.
A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020).
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3
► pp. 227 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 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.