1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

This paper relates two levels of constructional analysis in accounting for the functions of verb-forming suffixation in English: argument structure constructions and suffix schemas. The function of verbal-forming suffixation expressed by the four suffixes in English -, -, -, and -, has been shown to exhibit a wide range of semantic categories that correspond to a number of argument structure constructions (Laws 2023). The current paper extends that semantic analysis. Firstly, by using a Construction Morphology approach (Booij 2010) to formalize the relationship between argument structure and suffix schemas proposed by Laws. Secondly, a hierarchical view of verb-class and subclass argument structure constructions is articulated by using semantic rules that involve selection and enrichment by coercion within suffix subschemas. Thirdly, it is demonstrated that the motivation for partially opaque complex verbs with these suffixes can be expressed by referring to paradigmatic relationships between these complex verbs and other related words.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.24009.law
2025-04-28
2026-07-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.24009.law
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cf.24009.law.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/cf.24009.law&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Audring, J. & Booij, G.
    (2016) Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54(4), 617–637. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0012 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauer, L., Lieber, R. & Plag, I.
    (2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Booij, G.
    (1997) Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. InG. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996 (pp.35–53). Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3718‑0_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3718-0_4 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (2019) The role of schemas in Construction Morphology. Word Structure, 121, 385–395. 10.3366/word.2019.0154
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0154 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2023) Paradigmatic relations in Construction Morphology: The case of Dutch Noun+Verb compounds. InK. Hein & S. Michel (Eds.), Zeitschrift für Wortbilding / Journal of Word Formation, 7(2), 13–33. 10.21248/zwjw.2023.2.98
     https://doi.org/10.21248/zwjw.2023.2.98 [Google Scholar]
  7. Booij, G. & Masini, F.
    (2015) The role of second order schemas in word formation. InL. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp.47–66). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑14102‑2_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Gunter Radden (pp.49–68). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  10. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  12. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (2014) Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712367.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712367.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 327–356. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2013a) Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28(4), 435–465. 10.1111/mila.12026
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12026 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013b) Constructionist approaches. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hampe, B.
    (2014) More on the as-predicative: Granularity issues in the description of construction networks. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 21, 207–234. 10.1515/gcla‑2014‑0013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2014-0013 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoffmann, T.
    (2022) Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139004213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139004213 [Google Scholar]
  21. Iwata, S.
    (2008) Locative alternation. A lexical-constructional approach. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackendoff, R.
    (1991) Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 411, 9–45. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90031‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90031-X [Google Scholar]
  23. (2002) Foundations of language. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2013) Constructions in the parallel architecture. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.70–92). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Jackendoff, R. & Audring, J.
    (2020) The texture of the lexicon. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Laws, J.
    (2023) A constructional account of verb-forming suffixation. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.36
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.36 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2024) Complex verbs in Spoken English: Meanings, senses and frequencies. Retrieved from: https://morphoquantics.co.uk/complexverbs/April 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lieber, R.
    (2004) Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Marchand, H.
    (1969) The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach (2nd ed.). C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Nunberg, G.
    (1979) The nonuniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 143–184. 10.1007/BF00126509
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126509 [Google Scholar]
  31. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  32. Plag, I.
    (1999) Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English. Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1995) The generative lexicon. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2011) Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49(6), 1401–1431. 10.1515/ling.2011.039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.039 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pustejovsky, J. & Ježek, E.
    (2008) Semantic coercion in language: Beyond distributional analysis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 181–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Ryder, M. E.
    (1999) Bankers and blue-chippers: An account of -er formations in present-day English. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 269–297. 10.1017/S1360674399000246
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674399000246 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E.
    (2020) (Eds.). Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  38. Štekauer, P.
    (2014) Derivational paradigms. InR. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp.354–369). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Talmy, L.
    (2000) The relation of grammar to cognition. Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Ungerer, T.
    (2021) Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0016 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2024) Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin?Constructions and Frames, 16(1), 30–63. 10.1075/cf.22011.ung
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22011.ung [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.24009.law
Loading
Complex verbs in English
Constructions and Frames 17, 211 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.24009.law
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.24009.law
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.24009.law
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): affix schema; argument structure construction; coercion; paradigmatic relationship; semantic class; verb-forming suffix

Most Cited

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