Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In English, sequences consisting of the verb , a noun phrase and a past participle vary in meaning. This meaning variation has been discussed both in the context of grammatical description and language change, mostly based on a handful of examples. This study seeks to combine theoretical and methodological approaches from construction grammar and interactional linguistics in the description of this meaning variation. Theoretically, this implies distinguishing between abstracted meaning potential and situated meaning of linguistic elements. Methodologically, this means taking both a coarse-grained view by means of a quantitative corpus-based approach that abstracts over a number of instances and a fine-grained view by means of qualitative analysis of talk-in-interaction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allwood, J.
    (1999) Semantics as meaning determination with semantic-epistemic operations. InJ. Allwood & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Cognitive semantics: Meaning and cognition (pp. 1–17). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.55.02all
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.55.02all [Google Scholar]
  2. Bittner, T. & Smith, B.
    (2001) A unified theory of granularity, vagueness, and approximation. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Spatial Vagueness, Uncertainty, and Granularity (SVUG-01) (pp. 1–39). Url: https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~bittner3/BittnerSmithSVUG01.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brinton, L.
    (1994) The differentiation of statives and perfects in Early Modern English: The development of the conclusive perfect. InD. Stein & I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Eds.), Towards a standard English, 1600–1800 (pp. 135–170). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Businger, M.
    (2013) Haben-statives in German. InA. Alexiadou & F. Schäfer (Eds.), Non-canonical passives (pp. 141–161). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.205.07bus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.205.07bus [Google Scholar]
  6. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chovanec, J.
    (2014) Pragmatics of tense and time in news: From canonical headlines to online news texts. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.253
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.253 [Google Scholar]
  8. COBUILD = COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. (n.d.). Url: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/
  9. Croft, W.
    (2005) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. InJ.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273–314). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.11cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.11cro [Google Scholar]
  10. Curme, G. O.
    (1935) A Grammar of the English language. Heath.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. de Acosta, D.
    (2013) The Old English have-perfect and its congeners. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(1), 33–64. 10.1177/0075424212441706
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424212441706 [Google Scholar]
  12. Deppermann, A.
    (2011) Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik: Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. InA. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III: Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze (pp. 205–238). Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dowty, D.
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisenberg, P.
    (2013) Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Band 2: Der Satz (4., aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage). Metzler.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Emonds, J.
    (2013) Indirect passives and the selection of English participles. Lingua, 125, 58–75. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fischer, K.
    (2006) Konstruktionsgrammatik und situationales Wissen. InS. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 343–364). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894158.343
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894158.343 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2015) Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7(04), 563–588. 10.1017/langcog.2015.23
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.23 [Google Scholar]
  19. Flach, S.
    (2017) Collostructions: An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods (Version R package version 0.1.0). Url: www.bit.ly/sflach
  20. Gilquin, G.
    (2010) Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.39 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gries, S. Th. & Divjak, D.
    (2009) Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–75). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.07gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.07gri [Google Scholar]
  25. Hanks, P.
    (2000) Do word meanings exist?Computers and the Humanities, 34(1/2), 205–215. 10.1023/A:1002471322828
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002471322828 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 391–404). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.15hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.15hil [Google Scholar]
  27. Hopper, P. J.
    (2011) Emergent Grammar and temporality in Interactional Linguistics. InP. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 22–44). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.22
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  28. Huddleston, R. D. & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  29. Imo, W.
    (2009) Where does the mountain stop? A granular approach to the concept of constructions-as-signs. Url: https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/germanistik/lehrende/imo_w/granularityandconstructions.pdf
  30. (2015) Interactional Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1). 10.1515/lingvan‑2015‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  31. Inoue, K.
    (1995) Causative have and experiential have. English Linguistics, 12, 73–95. 10.9793/elsj1984.12.73
    https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.12.73 [Google Scholar]
  32. Johannsen, B.
    (2021a) Between causative and passive: Agentivity in the affactive construction. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 69(3), 321–328. 10.1515/zaa‑2021‑2025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2021-2025 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2021b) Meaning variation of have-NP-past participle-sequences (Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin). Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
  34. Kemmer, S. & Verhagen, A.
    (1994) The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 115–156. 10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.115
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.115 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kirchner, G.
    (1952) Die zehn Hauptverben des Englischen im Britischen und Amerikanischen: Eine semasiologisch-syntaktische Darstellung ihrer gegenwärtigen Funktionen mit sprachgeschichtlichen Rückblicken. Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Langacker, R. W.
    (2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Leirbukt, O.
    (1997) Untersuchungen zum “bekommen”-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110928013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110928013 [Google Scholar]
  39. Levshina, N., Geeraerts, D. & Speelman, D.
    (2013) Mapping constructional spaces: A contrastive analysis of English and Dutch analytic causatives. Linguistics, 51(4), 825–854. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0028 [Google Scholar]
  40. Linell, P.
    (1998) Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  41. Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. & McEnery, T.
    (2017) The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Love, R., Hawtin, A. & Hardie, A.
    (2018) The British National Corpus 2014: User manual and reference guide (Version 1.1). Lancaster University: CASS. Url: corpora.lancs.ac.uk/bnc2014/doc/BNC2014manual.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nielsen, P. J.
    (2018) The affactive ‘get’ construction in Danish: Afficiaries, agentivity and voice. Paper presented at the51st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, August 29-September 1, in Tallinn, Estonia.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Norén, K. & Linell, P.
    (2007) Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics, 17(3), 387–416.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Palmer, F. R.
    (1988) ‘I had a book stolen’. InJ. Klegraf & D. Nehls (Eds.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th birthday (pp. 47–54). Groos.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pietsch, L.
    (2009) Hiberno-English medial-object perfects reconsidered: A case of contact-induced grammaticalisation. Studies in Language, 33(3), 528–568. 10.1075/sl.33.3.02pie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.3.02pie [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R. & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2010) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Url: https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.5/book.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Schultze-Berndt, E. & Himmelmann, N. P.
    (2004) Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology, 8(1). 10.1515/lity.2004.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.004 [Google Scholar]
  49. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2001) Constructing causation: A construction grammar approach to analytic causatives (Dissertation, Rice University). Rice University, Houston, Texas.
  50. Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  51. Zúñiga, F.
    (2011) Why should beneficiaries be subjects (or objects)? Affaction and grammatical relations. InS. Kittilä, K. Västi & J. Ylikoski (Eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (pp. 329–348). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.12zun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.12zun [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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