Cover not available
Article published In:
The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research
Edited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 135–147

The issue of specifying slots in argument structure constructions in terms of form and meaning

| FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg
| FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg
In Construction Grammar theory, constructions are generally described as form-meaning pairings. It will be argued here that the formal specifications of some abstract constructions are so vague that the notion of form needs to be discussed rather critically. We aim to demonstrate how, in the English predicative and intransitive-motion constructions, the slots of more general constructions can be seen as being specified indirectly through sets of mini-constructions.
Keywords: construction, form-meaning pairing, argument structure, locatives, definition of construction, prepositional phrases
Article outline
  • 1.Form and meaning
  • 2.The concept of form
    • 2.1Subject and object as formal categories
    • 2.2Obliques and resultative phrases
    • 2.3Underspecification of form
  • 3.The English predicative construction
  • 4.The form side of the English intransitive-motion construction
  • 5.Form of constructions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00041.her
References (40)
References
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Spike Gildea. 2015. “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea (eds.), 1–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morton H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, and Tom Schoenemann. 2009. “Language is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper.” Language Learning 591: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Heike. 2011. “Grammatik und Lexikon im Spracherwerb: Konstruktionsprozesse.” In Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, ed. by Stefan Engelberg, Anke Holler, and Kristel Proost, 375–396. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2005. “Determining the Productivity of Resultative Constructions: A Reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff.” Language 81(2): 448–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. “Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen.” In Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, ed. by Stefan Engelberg, Kristel Proost, and Anke Holler, 37–69. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C., and Alexander Ziem. 2018. “Constructing a Constructicon for German: Empirical, Theoretical and Methodological Issues.” In Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages, ed. by Benjamin Lyngfelt, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara, and Tiago Timponi Torrent, 183–228. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bußmann, Hadumod. 2008. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 4th edn. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at [URL]
Dirven, René, and Günter Radden. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2013. “Casus obliquus.” Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (WSK) Online (2013). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. [URL] (Last accessed 29 August, 2020).
Faulhaber, Susen. 2011. Verb Valency Patterns: A Challenge for Semantics-Based Accounts. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. “The Case for Case.” In Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Emmon Bach, and Robert T. Harms, 0–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
2007. “Valency Issues in FrameNet.” In Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, ed. by Thomas Herbst, and Katrin Götz-Votteler, 129–160. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2014. “Frames, Constructions and FrameNet.” In Constructions – Collocations – Patterns, ed. by Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid, and Susen Faulhaber, 121–166. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele 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. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., and Ray Jackendoff. 2004. “The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions.” Language 80(3): 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Tor Arne. 2012. Polyvalent Adjectives in Norwegian: Aspects of their Semantics and Complementation Patterns. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard, and Wolfgang Schenkel. 1973. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 2011. “The Status of Generalizations: Valency and Argument Structure Constructions.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4): 347–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “The Valency Approach to Argument Structure Constructions.” In Constructions – Collocations – Patterns, ed. by Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid, and Susen Faulhaber, 167–216. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Foreign Language Learning is Construction Learning – what else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar.” In Applied Construction Grammar, ed. by Sabine de Knop, and Gaëtanelle Gilquin, 21–51. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, Ian F. Roe, and Dieter Götz. 2004. A Valency Dictionary of English. London/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, and Thomas Hoffmann. 2018. “Construction Grammar for Students: A Constructionist Approach to Syntactic Analysis (CASA).” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 61: 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, and Susen Schüller. 2008. Introduction to Syntactic Analysis: A Valency Approach. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2020. “Constructional Approaches.” In The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, ed. by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova, 106–123. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2015. “Cognitive Sociolinguistic Aspects of Football Chants: the Role of Social and Physical Context in Usage-Based Construction Grammar.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3): 273–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale (Ed. by Charles Bally & Albert Séchehaye). Lausanne: Payot.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut, Jacqueline Kubczak, Renate Schmidt, and Vera de Ruiter. 2004. valbu – Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Uhrig, Peter. 2018. Subjects in English: From Valency Grammar to a Constructionist Treatment of Non-Canonical Subjects. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2024. Capturing meaningful generalizations at varying degrees of resolution. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.