Volume 24, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Recent research in construction grammar has been marked by increasing efforts to create constructicons: detailed inventories of form-meaning pairs to describe the grammar of a given language, following the principles of construction grammar. This paper describes proposals for building a new constructicon of English, based on the combination of the COBUILD Grammar Patterns and the semantic frames of FrameNet. In this case study, the valency information from FrameNet was automatically matched to the verb patterns of COBUILD, in order to identify the frames that each pattern is associated with. We find that the automatic procedure must be complemented by a good deal of manual annotation. We examine the “V that” pattern in particular, illustrating how the frame information can be used to describe this pattern in terms of constructions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144. 10.1075/arcl.6.06boa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.06boa [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
    (2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. 10.1353/lan.2006.0081
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0081 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, W.
    (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honour of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  8. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, VI(2), 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1999) Inversion and constructional inheritance. InG. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation (pp.113–128). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T.
    (1992) Towards a frame-based Lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. InA. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp.75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhomieux, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet Constructicon. InI. A. Sag & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.283–322). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Francis, G.
    (1993) A corpus-driven approach to grammar – principles, methods and examples. InM. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp.137–156). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.10fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.10fra [Google Scholar]
  14. Francis, G., Hunston, S. & Manning, E.
    (1996) Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1998) Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
    (2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. InM. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective (pp.11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C.
    (2014) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th Edition). London & New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  18. Healy, A. & Miller, G.
    (1970) The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 20(6), 372. 10.3758/BF03335697
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335697 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
    (2000) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hunston, S. & Su, H.
    (2017) Patterns, Constructions, and Local Grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. doi:  10.1093/applin/amx046
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx046 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  24. Iwata, S.
    (2008) Locative Alternation: A Lexical-constructional Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, R. W.
    (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp.1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee-Goldman, R., & Petruck, M. R. L.
    (2018) The FrameNet Constructicon in action. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages (pp.19–40). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.02lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.02lee [Google Scholar]
  28. Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Sköldberg, E., & Tingsell, S.
    (2012) Adding a Constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. InProceedings of KONVENS 2012 (LexSem 2012 workshop) (pp.452–461). Vienna. Retrieved fromwww.oegai.at/konvens2012/proceedings/66_lyngfelt12w/66_lyngfelt12w.pdf (last accessedApril 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T.
    (Eds.) (2018) Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ohara, K. H.
    (2013) Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas, 17(1), 11–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Perek, F.
    (2014) Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. InD. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and Synonymy: Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.03per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.03per [Google Scholar]
  32. (2015) Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-based Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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 (last accessedApril 2019). 10.4000/cognitextes.331
    https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.331 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: ICSI. Retrieved fromhttps://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.7/book.pdf (last accessedApril 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sinclair, J.
    (Eds.) (1995) Collins COBUILD English Dictionary 2nd Edition. London: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Talmy, L.
    (1996) The windowing of attention in language. InM. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (pp.235–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., Tavares, T. S., & Matos, E. E. S.
    (2014) Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 34–51. 10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): COBUILD , constructicon , construction grammar , FrameNet and lexicogrammar
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