Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar

Experimental and corpus-based perspectives

image of Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar

The argument structure of verbs, defined as the part of grammar that deals with how participants in verbal events are expressed in clauses, is a classical topic in linguistics that has received considerable attention in the literature. This book investigates argument structure in English from a usage-based perspective, taking the view that the cognitive representation of grammar is shaped by language use, and that crucial aspects of grammatical organization are tied to the frequency with which words and syntactic constructions are used. On the basis of several case studies combining quantitative corpus studies and psycholinguistic experiments, it is shown how a usage-based approach sheds new light on a number of issues in argument realization and offers frequency-based explanations for its organizing principles at three levels of generality: verbs, constructions, and argument structure alternations.


  1. Akhtar, N. , & Tomasello, M
    (1997) Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 952–965. doi: 10.1037/0012‑1649.33.6.952
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.952 [Google Scholar]
  2. Albright, A. , & Hayes, B
    (2003) Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00146‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-X [Google Scholar]
  3. Allerton, D
    (1982) Valency and the English verb. London/New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, S.R
    (1971) On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7(3), 387–396.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnon, I. , & Snider, N
    (2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baayen, H
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baayen, H. , & Lieber, R
    (1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29, 801–844. doi: 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baayen, H. , & Milin, P
    (2010) Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.10.21500/20112084.807
    https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baayen, H. , Davidson, D.J. , & Bates, D.M
    (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baayen, R.H
    (1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G.E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2516‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker, C.F. , & Ruppenhofer, J
    (2002) FrameNet’s Frames vs. Levin’s Verb Classes. In J. Larson & M. Paster (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 27–38). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Baker, C.L
    (1979) Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4), 533–581.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bannard, C. , & Matthews, D
    (2008) Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19(3), 241–248. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02075.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02075.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Barðdal, J
    (2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Barlow, M. , & Kemmer, S
    (Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Barsalou, L.W
    (1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 211–227. doi: 10.3758/BF03196968
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1992) Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In E. Kittay & A. Lehrer (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 21–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bates, E. , Bretherton, I. , & Snyder, L
    (1988) From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bencini, G.M.L. , & Goldberg, A.E
    (2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2757
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757 [Google Scholar]
  20. Biber, D
    (1993) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. doi: 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243 [Google Scholar]
  21. Blumenthal-Dramé, A
    (2012) Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110294002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Boas, H.C
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144. doi: 10.1075/arcl.6.06boa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.06boa [Google Scholar]
  24. (2010) Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 54–82. doi: 10.1075/bjl.24.03boa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.24.03boa [Google Scholar]
  25. (2011a) A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations with build-verbs. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English (pp. 207–234). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2011b) Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.036 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2014) Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 89–112. doi: 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Bod, R
    (1998) Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Borer, H
    (2003) Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In J. Moore & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp. 31–67). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Bowerman, M
    (1982a) Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di Semantica, III, 5–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1982b) Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In E. Wanner & L.R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319–346). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1988) The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar?In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73–101). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Boyd, J.K. , & Goldberg, A.E
    (2011) Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87(1), 55–83. doi: 10.1353/lan.2011.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  34. Boyd, J.K. , Gottschalk, E.A. , & Goldberg, A.E
    (2009) Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 64–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00536.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00536.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Braine, M.D.S
    (1963) The ontogeny of English phrase structure: The first phase. Language, 39(1), 1–14. doi: 10.2307/410757
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410757 [Google Scholar]
  36. Bresnan, J
    (1982) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2001) Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2007) Is knowledge of syntax probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In S. Featherston & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (pp. 75–96). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Bresnan, J. , & Ford, M
    (2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0189
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  40. Bresnan, J. , & Nikitina, T
    (2009) The gradience of the dative alternation. In L. Uyechi & L.-H. Wee (Eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life (pp. 161–184). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Bresnan, J. , Cueni, A. , Nikitina, T. , & Baayen, H
    (2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume , I. Kraemer , & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Briscoe, T. , & Copestake, A
    (1999) Lexical rules in constraint-based grammars. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 487–526.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 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 (Vol. 1, pp. 67–82). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Brooks, P.J. , & Tomasello, M
    (1999) Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 29–44. doi: 10.1037/0012‑1649.35.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  45. Bybee, J. , & McClelland, J.L
    (2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. In N.A. Ritter (Ed.), The role of linguistics in cognitive science. Special issue of The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 381–410. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.381
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.381 [Google Scholar]
  46. Bybee, J
    (1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  47. (1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2000) The phonology of the Lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 65–85). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of construction grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Bybee, J. , & Eddington, D
    (2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0081
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0081 [Google Scholar]
  53. Bybee, J. , & Hopper, P
    (Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  54. Bybee, J. , & Moder, C.L
    (1983) Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270. doi: 10.2307/413574
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413574 [Google Scholar]
  55. Bybee, J. , & Scheibman, J
    (1999) The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37, 575–596. doi: 10.1515/ling.37.4.575
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.4.575 [Google Scholar]
  56. Bybee, J. , & Slobin, D.I
    (1982) Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265–289. doi: 10.1353/lan.1982.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1982.0021 [Google Scholar]
  57. Bybee, J. , & Thompson, S
    (1997) Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23, 65–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Cappelle, B
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.”Constructions, Special Volume 1 , 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Casenhiser, D. , & Goldberg, A.E
    (2005) Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8(6), 500–508. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2005.00441.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00441.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Chang, F. , Bock, K. , & Goldberg, A.E
    (2003) Can thematic roles leave traces of their places?Cognition, 90, 29–49. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00123‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00123-9 [Google Scholar]
  61. Chomsky, N
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (1981) Lectures on government and binding: The pisa lectures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Clahsen, H. , & Rothweiler, M
    (1992) Inflectional rules in children’s grammars: Evidence from the development of participles in German. InYearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp. 1–34).
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Clark, E. , & Clark, H
    (1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55(4), 767–811. doi: 10.2307/412745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412745 [Google Scholar]
  66. Clark, E.V
    (1978) Discovering what words can do. Chicago Linguistic Society, 14, 34–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Clifton, C. , Frazier, L. , & Connine, C
    (1984) Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 696–708. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(84)90426‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90426-2 [Google Scholar]
  68. Colleman, T
    (2009) The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–221. doi: 10.1075/cf.1.2.02col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.02col [Google Scholar]
  69. (2010) Beyond the dative alternation: The semantics of the Dutch aan-dative. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 271–303). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423.271
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.271 [Google Scholar]
  70. Colleman, T. , & De Clerck, B
    (2009) ‘Caused motion?’ The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 5–42. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2009.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.002 [Google Scholar]
  71. Collins, P
    (1995) The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33, 35–49. doi: 10.1515/ling.1995.33.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  72. Connine, C. , Ferreira, F. , Jones, C. , Clifton, C. , & Frazier, L
    (1984) Verb frame preferences: Descriptive norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(4), 307–319. doi: 10.1007/BF01076840
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01076840 [Google Scholar]
  73. Conwell, E. , & Demuth, K
    (2007) Early syntactic productivity: Evidence from dative shift. Cognition, 103, 163–179. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  74. Croft, W
    (1998) Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 151–173. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.151
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.151 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens , T. Berg , R. Dirven , & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  77. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  78. Croft, W. , Taoka, C. , & Wood, E.J
    (2001) Argument linking and the commercial transaction frame in English, Russian and Japanese. Language Sciences, 23, 579–602. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00037‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00037-1 [Google Scholar]
  79. Dang, T.H. , Kipper, K. , Palmer, M. , & Rosenzweig, J
    (1998) Investigating regular sense extensions based on intersective Levin classes. Proceedings of COLING-ACL , Montréal (pp. 293–299).
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Davies, M
    (2008) The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Desmet, T. , & Gibson, E
    (2003) Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in noun phrase conjunction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 353–374. doi: 10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00025‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00025-1 [Google Scholar]
  82. Desmet, T. , De Baecke, C. , Drieghe, D. , Brysbaert, M. , & Vonk, W
    (2006) Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(4), 453–485. doi: 10.1080/01690960400023485
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400023485 [Google Scholar]
  83. Diessel, H
    (2007) Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  84. Dik, S.C
    (1989) The theory of functional grammar, Parts 1 & 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Dixon, R.M.W
    (1991) A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Dowty, D.R
    (1978) Lexically governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 393–426.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  88. Eddington, D. , & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F
    (2010) Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop , F. Boers , & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 213–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110245837.213
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245837.213 [Google Scholar]
  89. Ellis, N.C. , & O’Donnell, M.B
    (2011) Robust language acquisition – an emergent consequence of language as a complex adaptive system. In L. Carlson , C. Hölscher , & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 3512–3517). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. (2012) Statistical construction learning: Does a Zipfian problem space ensure robust language learning?In J. Rebuschat & J. Williams (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 265–304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Ellis, N.C
    (1996) Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014698
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014698 [Google Scholar]
  92. (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102002024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  93. Ellis, N.C. , & Ferreira-Junior, F
    (2009) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(iii), 370–385. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00896.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x [Google Scholar]
  94. Ellis, N.C. , O’Donnell, M.B. , & Römer, U
    (2014) The processing of verb-argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency and prototypicality. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(1), 55–98. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0031 [Google Scholar]
  95. Emonds, J
    (1972) Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language, 8(4), 546–561.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Erman, B. , & Warren, B
    (2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  97. Erteschik-Shir, N
    (1979) Discourse constraints on dative movement. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 12. Discourse and syntax (pp. 441–467). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Faber, P.B. , & Mairal Usón, R
    (1999) Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800623
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800623 [Google Scholar]
  99. Faulhaber, S
    (2011a) Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110240788
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240788 [Google Scholar]
  100. (2011b) Idiosyncrasy in verb valency patterns. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346. doi: 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0405
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0405 [Google Scholar]
  101. Fellbaum, C
    (Ed.) (1998) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Ferreira, F. , & Henderson, J
    (1991) Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 725–745. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(91)90034‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90034-H [Google Scholar]
  103. Ferretti, T.R. , McRae, K. , & Hatherell, A
    (2001) Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516–547. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2728
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2728 [Google Scholar]
  104. Fillmore, C.J. , & Atkins, B.T
    (1992) Towards a frame-based Lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. (1994) Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. In B.T. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approaches to the Lexicon (pp. 349–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Fillmore, C.J
    (1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. (1970) The grammar of hitting and breaking. In R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp.120–133). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. (1977) Topics in lexical semantics. In R.W. Cole (Ed.)Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, VI(2), 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. (1999) Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth , J.-P. Koenig , & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (pp. 113–128). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Fillmore, C.J. , & Kay, P
    . (ms.). Construction grammar (course reader). Berkeley: University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Fillmore, C.J. , Lee-Goldman, R.R. , & Rhodes, R
    (2012) The framenet constructicon. In H.C. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Forster, K.I
    (2010) Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 347–357. doi: 10.1075/ml.5.3.05for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.3.05for [Google Scholar]
  114. Forster, K.I. , Guerrera, C. , & Elliot, L
    (2009) The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 163–171. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.1.163
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.163 [Google Scholar]
  115. Fried, M. , & Östman, J.-O
    (2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  116. Gahl, S
    (2008)  Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474–496. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0035
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0035 [Google Scholar]
  117. Gahl, S. , & Garnsey, S.M
    (2004) Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0185
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0185 [Google Scholar]
  118. Gahl, S. , Jurafsky, D. , & Roland, D
    (2004) Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behavior Research Methods, 36(3), 432–443. doi: 10.3758/BF03195591
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195591 [Google Scholar]
  119. García Velasco, D
    (2009) Innovative coinage: its place in the grammar. In C. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107.03inn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.03inn [Google Scholar]
  120. García Velasco, D
    (2011) The causative/inchoative alternation in functional discourse grammar. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 115–136). London/Oakville: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Garnsey, S.M. , Pearlmutter, N.J. , Myers, E. , & Lotocky, M.A
    (1997) The contribution of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2512
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2512 [Google Scholar]
  122. Gawron, J.-M
    (1983) Lexical representations and the semantics of complementation. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Givón, T
    (1984) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700010434
    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700010434 [Google Scholar]
  124. (1990) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700015322
    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700015322 [Google Scholar]
  125. Glynn, D
    (2010) Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In K. Fischer & D. Glynn (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–270). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423 [Google Scholar]
  126. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  127. (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  128. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. (2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 131–153. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2011.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.006 [Google Scholar]
  130. (2013) Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28(4), 435–465. doi: 10.1111/mila.12026
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12026 [Google Scholar]
  131. (2014) Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 113–135. doi: 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0004 [Google Scholar]
  132. Goldberg, A.E. , & Casenhiser, D.M
    (2006) Learning argument structure constructions. In E.V. Clark & B. Kelly (Eds.), Constructions in acquisition (pp. 185–204). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Goldberg, A.E. , Casenhiser, D.M. , & Sethuraman, N
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  134. Goldwater, M.B. , Tomlinson, M.T. , Echols, C.H. , & Love, B.C
    (2011) Structural priming as structure-mapping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production. Cognitive Science, 35, 156–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01150.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01150.x [Google Scholar]
  135. Green, G
    (1974) Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Gregory, M.L. , Raymond, W.D. , Bell, A. , Fosler-Lussier, E. , & Jurafsky, D
    (1999) The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Chicago Linguistic Society, 35, 151–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Gries, S.T
    (2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  138. (2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. doi: 10.1007/s10936‑005‑6139‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 [Google Scholar]
  139. (2007) New perspectives on old alternations. In J.E. Cihlar , A.L. Franklin , & D.W. Kaiser (Eds.), Papers from the 39th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Vol. II, the panels (pp. 274–292). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Gries, S.T. , & Stefanowitsch, A
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.”International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 97–129. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  141. Gries, S.T. , Hampe, B. , & Schönefeld, D
    (2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635 [Google Scholar]
  142. Gropen, J. , Pinker, S. , Hollander, M. , Goldberg, R. , & Wilson, R
    (1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65(2), 203–257. doi: 10.2307/415332
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415332 [Google Scholar]
  143. Gruber, J.S
    (1965) Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  144. (1967) Look and See. Language, 43(4), 937–947. doi: 10.2307/411974
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411974 [Google Scholar]
  145. Guerrero Medina, P
    (2011) An antipassive interpretation of the English “conative alternation”: Semantic and discourse-pragmatic dimensions. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives (pp. 182–203). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Habert, B
    (2001) Des corpus représentatifs: De quoi, pour quoi, comment?InLinguistique sur corpus: Études et réflexions (pp.11–58). Presses Universitaires de Perpignan.
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Hall, B.C
    (1965) Subject and object in modern English. MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1994) Introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed.London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Hare, M.L. , Ford, M. , & Marslen-Wilson, W.D
    (2001) Ambiguity and frequency effects in regular verb inflection. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 181–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.10har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.10har [Google Scholar]
  150. Hare, M. , McRae, K. , & Elman, J.L
    (2003) Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 281–303. doi: 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00516‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00516-8 [Google Scholar]
  151. Harris, C.L
    (1998) Psycholinguistic studies of entrenchment. In J.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap (pp. 55–70). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Hay, J
    (2001) Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative?Linguistics, 39, 1041–1070. doi: 10.1515/ling.2001.041
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.041 [Google Scholar]
  153. Helbig, G
    (1992) Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110938326
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110938326 [Google Scholar]
  154. Herbst, T. , & Uhrig, P
    (2010) Erlangen valency patternbank. Available at: www.patternbank.uni-erlangen.de/
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Herbst, T
    (1983) Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  156. (2009) Valency – item-specificity and idiom principle. In U. Römer & R. Schulze (Eds.), Exploring the lexis–grammar interface (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.35.05her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.35.05her [Google Scholar]
  157. (2010) 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/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110216035.225
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216035.225 [Google Scholar]
  158. (2011) The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346. doi: 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0406
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0406 [Google Scholar]
  159. Herbst, T. , & Schüller, S
    (2008) An introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency approach. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Herbst, T. , Heath, D. , Roe, I.F. , & Götz, D
    (2004) A valency dictionary of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110892581
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892581 [Google Scholar]
  161. Hilpert, M
    (2008) New evidence against the modularity of grammar: Constructions, collocations, and speech perception. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 483–503. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2008.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.019 [Google Scholar]
  162. (2010) The force dynamics of English complement clauses: A usage-based account. In K. Fischer & D. Glynn (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 155–178). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423.155
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.155 [Google Scholar]
  163. Hooper, J
    (1976) Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In W. Christie (Ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics (pp. 96–105). Amsterdam: NorthHolland.
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Hopper, P
    (1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 139–157. doi: 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  165. Hopper, P. , & Thompson, S
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  166. Hunn, E.S
    (1975) A measure of the degree of correspondence of folk to scientific biological classification. American Ethnologist, 2(2), 309–327. doi: 10.1525/ae.1975.2.2.02a00080
    https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1975.2.2.02a00080 [Google Scholar]
  167. Hunston, S. , & Francis, G
    (2000) Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  168. Iwata, S
    (2005) The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 101–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.4.07iwa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.07iwa [Google Scholar]
  169. (2008) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  170. Jackendoff, R
    (1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  171. (1975) Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671. doi: 10.2307/412891
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412891 [Google Scholar]
  172. (1976) Towards an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 89–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  173. (1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  174. (1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  175. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  176. Johnson, K
    (2008) Quantitative methods in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  177. Jurafsky, D. , Bell, A. , Gregory, M. , & Raymond, W.D
    (2001) Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.13jur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.13jur [Google Scholar]
  178. Kaschak, M.P. , & Glenberg, A.M
    (2000) Constructing Meaning: The Role of Affordances and Grammatical Constructions in Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 508–529. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2705
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2705 [Google Scholar]
  179. Kay, P
    (2005) Argument-structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 71–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.4.05kay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.05kay [Google Scholar]
  180. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C.J
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  181. Kilgariff, A
    (1997) I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31(2), 91–113. doi: 10.1023/A:1000583911091
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000583911091 [Google Scholar]
  182. Klotz, M
    (2007) Valency rules? The case of verbs with propositional complements. In T. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues (pp. 117–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  183. Koenig, J.-P. , Mauner, G. , & Bienvenue, B
    (2003) Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89(2), 67–103. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00082‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00082-9 [Google Scholar]
  184. Kuperman, V. , & Bresnan, J
    (2012) The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 588–611. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  185. Laffut, A
    (1997) The spray/load alternation: Some remarks on a textual and constructionist approach. Leuvense Bijdragen, 86, 457–487.
    [Google Scholar]
  186. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  187. Lakoff, G
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  188. Langacker, R.W
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  189. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  190. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  191. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  192. (2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 225–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.24.17lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.17lan [Google Scholar]
  193. Lapata, M. , Keller, F. , & Schulte im Walde, S
    (2001) Verb frame frequency as a predictor of verb bias. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(4), 419–435. doi: 10.1023/A:1010473708413
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010473708413 [Google Scholar]
  194. Lauwers, P. , & Willems, D
    (2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.034 [Google Scholar]
  195. Leech, G. , Rayson, P. , & Wilson, A
    (2001) Word frequencies in written and spoken English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  196. Lemmens, M
    (1998) Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity: Causative constructions in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.166
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.166 [Google Scholar]
  197. Levin, B
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  198. Levin, B. , & Rappaport Hovav, M
    (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  199. Lieven, E.V.M. , Pine, J.M. , & Baldwin, G
    (1997) Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–220. doi: 10.1017/S0305000996002930
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000996002930 [Google Scholar]
  200. Luce, R.D
    (1986) Response times. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  201. Marcotte, J.-P
    (2005) Causative alternation errors in child language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University). Retrieved fromwww.tc.umn.edu/~marco043/files/MarcotteThesis2005.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  202. (2006) Causative alternation errors as event-driven construction paradigm completions. In E.V. Clark & B. Kelly (Eds.), Constructions in acquisition (pp. 205–232). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  203. Mazurkewich, I. , & White, L
    (1984) The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning Overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16, 261–283. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(84)90030‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(84)90030-1 [Google Scholar]
  204. McClure, K , Pine, J.M. , & Lieven, E.V.M
    (2006) Investigating the abstractness of children’s early knowledge of argument structure. Journal of Child Language, 33, 693–720. doi: 10.1017/S0305000906007525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007525 [Google Scholar]
  205. McRae, K. , Ferretti, T. , & Amyote, L
    (1997) Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3), 137–176. doi: 10.1080/016909697386835
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386835 [Google Scholar]
  206. Medin, D.L. , & Schaffer, M.M
    (1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.85.3.207
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.207 [Google Scholar]
  207. Michaelis, L.A. , & Ruppenhofer, J
    (2001) Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  208. Michaelis, L.A
    (2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual Coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 1–67. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  209. (2005) Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.04mic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.04mic [Google Scholar]
  210. Miller, G.A
    (1995) WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41. doi: 10.1145/219717.219748
    https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219748 [Google Scholar]
  211. Müller, S. , & Wechsler, S
    (2014) Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 1–76. doi: 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  212. Müller, S
    (2006) Phrasal or lexical constructions?Language, 82(4), 850–883. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0213
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0213 [Google Scholar]
  213. Nemoto, N
    (2005) Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in construction grammar: some observations about the locative alternation. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 119–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.4.08nem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.08nem [Google Scholar]
  214. Nosofsky, R.M
    (1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.115.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  215. (1988) Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 54–65. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.14.1.54
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.1.54 [Google Scholar]
  216. Nosofsky, R.M. , Pothos, E.M. , & Wills, A.J
    (2011) The generalized context model: An exemplar model of classification. In E.M. Pothos & A.J. Wills (Eds.), Formal approaches in categorization (pp. 18–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921322.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921322.002 [Google Scholar]
  217. Ogura, M
    (1993) The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica, 10(1), 51–85. doi: 10.1075/dia.10.1.04ogu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.10.1.04ogu [Google Scholar]
  218. Payne, T.E
    (1997) Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  219. Perek, F. , & Goldberg, A.E
    . (to appear). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter.
  220. Perek, F
    (2010) Identification de constructions grammaticales en corpus : Une approche quantitative de l’augmentation de valence. In P. Cappeau , H. Chuquet , & F. Valetopoulos (Eds.), Travaux linguistiques du CerLiCO: Vol. 23. L’exemple et le corpus: Quel statut? (pp.165–180). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
    [Google Scholar]
  221. (2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  222. (2014a) Vector spaces for historical linguistics. InProceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland USA, June 23–25 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  223. (2014b) Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and synonymy. Corpus methods and applications in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43.03per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.03per [Google Scholar]
  224. . (to appear). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study.
  225. Perek, F. , & Lemmens, M
    (2010) Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes, 5. Retrieved fromcognitextes.revues.org/331
    [Google Scholar]
  226. Pickering, M.J. , Traxler, M.J. , & Crocker, M.W
    (2000) Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447–475. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2708
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2708 [Google Scholar]
  227. Pierrehumbert, J
    (2001) Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.08pie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.08pie [Google Scholar]
  228. Pinker, S. , & Prince, A
    (1994) Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In S.D. Lima , R.L. Corrigan , & G.K. Iverson (Eds.), The reality of linguistic rules (pp. 353–388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.26.21pin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.26.21pin [Google Scholar]
  229. Pinker, S
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  230. (1991) Rules of language. Science, 253, 530–535. doi: 10.1126/science.1857983
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1857983 [Google Scholar]
  231. Pinker, S. , Lebeaux, D.S. , & Frost, L.A
    (1987) Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26, 195–267. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(87)80001‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(87)80001-X [Google Scholar]
  232. Plag, I
    (2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511841323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  233. Pollard, C. , & Sag, I.A
    (1994) Head-Driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  234. Ramchand, G.C
    (2008) Verb meaning and the Lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  235. Randall, J.M
    (2010) Linking: The geometry of argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑8308‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8308-2 [Google Scholar]
  236. Rappaport Hovav, M. , & Levin, B
    (1998) Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97–134). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  237. (2008) The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167.
    [Google Scholar]
  238. Rappaport, M. , & Levin, B
    (1988) What to do with θ-roles?In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 21. Thematic relations (pp. 7–36). San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  239. Ratcliff, R
    (1993) Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.114.3.510
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510 [Google Scholar]
  240. Reali, F. , & Christiansen, M.H
    (2007) Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 1–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014 [Google Scholar]
  241. Reddy, M.J
    (1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  242. Rosch, E. , Mervis, C.B. , Gray, W.D. , Johnson, D.M. , & Boyes-Braem, P
    (1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(76)90013‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X [Google Scholar]
  243. Salkoff, M
    (1983) Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language, 59(2), 288–346. doi: 10.2307/413576
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413576 [Google Scholar]
  244. Schlesinger, I.M
    (1995) On the semantics of the object. In B. Aarts & C.F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description (pp. 54–74). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  245. Schmid, H.-J. , & Küchenhoff, H
    (2013) Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  246. Schmid, H.-J
    (2010) Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment?In K. Fischer & D. Glynn (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–133). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.101 [Google Scholar]
  247. Sethuraman, N
    (2004) Influence of parental input on learning argument structure constructions. In A. Brugos , L. Micciulla , & C.E. Smith (Eds.), On-line Proceedings supplement of Boston University Child Development 28. Retrieved fromwww.bu.edu/bucld/proceedings/supplement/vol28/
    [Google Scholar]
  248. Stefanowitsch, A
    (2011) Argument structure: Item-based or distributed?Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346. doi: 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0407
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0407 [Google Scholar]
  249. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, S.T
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  250. (2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. doi: 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  251. Stemberger, J.P. , & MacWhinney, B
    (1986) Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition, 14(1), 17–26. doi: 10.3758/BF03209225
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209225 [Google Scholar]
  252. (1988) Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon?In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics (pp. 101–116). San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  253. Suttle, L. , & Goldberg, A
    (2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.035 [Google Scholar]
  254. Szmrecsanyi, B
    (2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197808
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197808 [Google Scholar]
  255. Talmy, L
    (1985) Lexicalisation patterns: Semantic structures in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 55–149). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  256. (1996) The windowing of attention in language. In M. Shibatani & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 235–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  257. (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  258. Tao, H
    (2001) Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember . In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 symposium (pp. 116–144). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  259. (2003) A usage-based approach to argument structure: ‘Remember’ and ‘forget’ in spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(1), 75–95. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.1.04tao
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.1.04tao [Google Scholar]
  260. Taylor, J.R
    (1995) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  261. Tenny, C
    (1994) Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1150‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8 [Google Scholar]
  262. Tesnière, L
    (1959) Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  263. Theijssen, D. , ten Bosch, L. , Boves, L. , Cranen, B. , & van Halteren, H
    (2013) Choosing alternatives: Using Bayesian Networks and memory-based learning to study the dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(2), 227–262. doi: 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0007 [Google Scholar]
  264. Thompson, S.A
    (1990) Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In J.A. Edmonson , C. Feagin , & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space (pp.239–253). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
    [Google Scholar]
  265. Thompson, S.A. , & Hopper, P
    (2001) Transitivity, clause, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 27–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  266. Tily, H. , Gahl, S. , Arnon, I. , Snider, N. , Kothari, A. , & Bresnan, J
    (2009) Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 147–165. doi: 10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.008 [Google Scholar]
  267. Tomasello, M
    (1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527678
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527678 [Google Scholar]
  268. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  269. Tomasello, M. , & Brooks, P.J
    (1998) Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(4), 379–395. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.4.379
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.4.379 [Google Scholar]
  270. Tremblay, A. , Derwing, B. , & Libben, G
    (2009) Are lexical bundles stored and processed as single units?Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria, 19(1), 258–279.
    [Google Scholar]
  271. Tremblay, A. , Derwing, B. , Libben, G. , & Westbury, C
    (2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61, 569–613. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00622.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x [Google Scholar]
  272. Trueswell, J.C. , Tanenhaus, M.K. , & Kello, C
    (1993) Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528–553. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.19.3.528
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.528 [Google Scholar]
  273. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  274. Van Valin, R.D. , & LaPolla, R.J
    (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  275. Van Valin, R.D
    (2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  276. Van Valin, R.D. , & Wilkins, D.P
    (1993) Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations: Remember in English and its equivalents in Mpartntwe Arrernte. In R.D. Van Valin (Ed.), Advances in role and reference grammar (pp. 499–534). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.82.13van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.82.13van [Google Scholar]
  277. Vasilyeva, M. , & Waterfall, H
    (2011) Beyond syntactic priming: Evidence for activation of alternative syntactic structures. Journal of Child Language, 39(2), 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  278. Wiechmann, D
    (2008) Initial parsing decisions and lexical bias: Corpus evidence from local NP/S-ambiguities. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 447–463. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2008.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.017 [Google Scholar]
  279. Willems, D
    (1981) Syntaxe, lexique et sémantique: Les constructions verbales. Ghent: Publicaties van de Faculteit van de Letteren en Wijsbegeerte.
    [Google Scholar]
  280. Wilson, M.P. , & Garnsey, S.M
    (2009) Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368–392. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  281. Wonnacott, E
    (2011) Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  282. Wonnacott, E. , Boyd, J. , Thompson, J. , & Goldberg, A.E
    (2012) Input effects on the acquisition of a novel phrasal construction in 5 year olds. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 458–478. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  283. Wonnacott, E. , Newport, E.L. , & Tanenhaus, M.K
    (2008) Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 165–209. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  284. Zeldes, A
    (2013) Productive argument selection: Is lexical semantics enough?Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(2), 263–291. doi: 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0006 [Google Scholar]
  285. Zeschel, A
    (2009) What’s (in) a construction?In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 185–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.24.15zes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.15zes [Google Scholar]
  286. (2012) Incipient productivity. A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110274844
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274844 [Google Scholar]
  287. Zwicky, A.M
    (1971) In a manner of speaking. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(2), 223–233.
    [Google Scholar]
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error