Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article builds on the work reported in Butler and Gonzálvez-García (2014), in which 16 functional and/or cognitive/constructionist theories were compared on the basis of questionnaires completed by experts and a reading of the literature on each approach. The aim is to extend this work to cover Valency Theory (VT henceforth), arguably the most widely used approach to the study of German syntax. We first report on a statistical analysis (correlation, multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis) of the data from the questionnaires completed by two VT experts, in relation to those completed by experts in other approaches. We then present an analysis of each item in the questionnaire in relation to VT, leading to a positive or negative evaluation for each questionnaire item. The results are again analysed statistically. The picture that emerges is of a theory which, though distinctive, has clear relationships with a broad group of cognitively-oriented approaches.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ágel, V.
    (2000) Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allerton, D.
    (1975) Deletion and proform reduction. Journal of Linguistics, 11, 213–238. 10.1017/S0022226700004540
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700004540 [Google Scholar]
  3. (1982) Valency and the English verb. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M.
    (2011) Child language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975073
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975073 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beckner, C., Ellis, N. C., Blythe, R., Holland, J., Bybee, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1–26. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Behrens, H.
    (2011) Grammatik und Lexikon im Spracherwerb: Konstruktionsprozesse. InS. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp.375–396). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110262339.375
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110262339.375 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 2nd edn.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2014) Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 89–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A.
    (Eds.) (2012) Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bondzio, W.
    (1971) Valenz, Bedeutung und Satzmodelle. InG. Helbig (Ed.), Beiträge zur Valenztheorie (pp.85–103). The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Breindl, E.
    (2006) Präpositionalphrasen. InW. Ágel, L. M. Eichinger, H. W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. J. Heringer, & H. Lobin (Eds.), Dependenz und Valenz/Dependency and valency: Ein internationals Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forsschung/An international handbook of contemporary research 2. Halbband/Volume 2 (pp.936–951). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Busse, W., & Dubost, J. P.
    (1983) Französisches Verblexikon: Die Konstruktion der Verben im Französischen. Stuttgart: Klett.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2014) Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee, J.
    (2007) Review of Adele Goldberg, Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Journal of Child Language, 34, 692–697. 10.1017/S0305000906007987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007987 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1st edn.10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chomsky, N.
    (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Coseriu, E.
    (1973) Probleme der structurellen Semantik. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft, W.
    (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  19. Emons, R.
    (1974) Valenzen Englischer Prädikatsverben. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111354552
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354552 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1978) Valenzgrammatik für das Englische: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Engel, U.
    (1977) Syntax der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: Schmidt.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Engel, U., & Schumacher, H.
    (1976)[1978]Kleines Valenzlexikon Deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Faulhaber, S.
    (2011a) Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110240788
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240788 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2011b) Idiosyncrasy in verb valency patterns. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59, 347–367. 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0405
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0405 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fillmore, C. F.
    (2009) A valency dictionary of English. International Journal of Lexicography, 22(1), 55–85. 10.1093/ijl/ecn037
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecn037 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fillmore, C. F., & Kay, P.
    (1995) Construction Grammar coursebook, chapters 1 thru 11 (Reading materials for Ling. X20). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 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: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.10fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.10fra [Google Scholar]
  28. Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. K., & Sag, I. A.
    (1985) Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press. 1st edn.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Habermann, M.
    (2007) Aspects of a diachronic valency syntax of German. InT. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues (pp.85–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1970) Language structure and language function. InJ. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in Linguistics (pp.140–165). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hartmann, I., Haspelmath, M., & Taylor, B.
    (Eds.) (2013) Valency patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atvalpal.info, Accessed on2017-05-04).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Helbig, G.
    (1971) Beiträge zur Valenztheorie. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (1992) Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110938326
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110938326 [Google Scholar]
  36. Herbst, T.
    (1983) Untersuchungen zur Valenz Englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (1988) A valency model for nouns in English. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 265–301. 10.1017/S0022226700011804
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011804 [Google Scholar]
  38. (1996) How obligatory are obligatory complements?: An alternative approach to the categorization of subjects and other complements in valency grammar. English Studies, 2, 179–199. 10.1080/00138389608599018
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138389608599018 [Google Scholar]
  39. (1999) English valency structures: A first sketch. Technical Report EESE 2/99.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2007) Valency complements or valency patterns?InT. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues (pp.15–35). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198775.1.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198775.1.15 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2009a) Valency: Item-specificity and idiom principle. InU. Römer & R. Schulze (Eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface (pp.49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.35.05her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.35.05her [Google Scholar]
  42. (2009b) Patterns in syntax, lexicography and corpus linguistics. InL. Eckstein & C. Reinfandt (Eds.), Anglistentag 2008 proceedings (pp.379–389). Trier: WVT.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2010a) English Linguistics: A coursebook for students of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215489 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2010b) Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino. InH. J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns: Empirical studies (pp.225–255). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216035.225
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216035.225 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2011) The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59, 347–367. 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0406
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0406 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2014a) Idiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles and the valency realization principle. InM. Hilpert & S. Flach (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kognitive Linguistik, Vol.II. (pp.253–289). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2014b) The valency approach to argument structure constructions. InT. Herbst, H. J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns (pp.167–216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (2015a) Why Construction Grammar catches the worm and corpus data can drive you crazy: Accounting for idiomatic and nonidiomatic idiomaticity. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 91–110. Online version available at: thescipub.com/PDF/jssp.2015.91.110.pdf. AccessedOctober, 15, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2015b) Corpora, constructions and cognition. ΠΕДΑГОГИУЕСΚИЙ ЖУРНАЛ БАШΚОРТОСТАНА, 56(1), 243–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2016) Foreign language learning is construction learning – What else?: Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp.21–51). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-003 [Google Scholar]
  51. Herbst, T., Heath, D., & Dederding, H. M.
    (1980) Grimm’s grandchildren: Current topics in German Linguistics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I., & Götz, D.
    (2004) A valency dictionary of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1st edn.10.1515/9783110892581
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892581 [Google Scholar]
  53. Herbst, T., & Faulhaber, S.
    (2015) Do constructions make a difference? Introduction to a special issue of ZAA on aspects of Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 249–252. 10.1515/zaa‑2015‑0028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0028 [Google Scholar]
  54. Herbst, T., & Schüller, S.
    (2008) Introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency approach. Tübingen: Narr. 1st edn.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Heringer, H. J.
    (1970/1973): Theorie der Deutschen Syntax. München: Hueber.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (1996) Deutsche Syntax – dependentiell. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Jacobs, J.
    (1994) Kontra Valenz. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (2009) Valenzbindung oder Konstruktionsbindung?: Eine Grundfrage der Grammatiktheorie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 37(3), 490–513. 10.1515/ZGL.2009.033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ZGL.2009.033 [Google Scholar]
  59. Kay, P.
    (2013) The limits of (Construction) Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.32–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.225–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.17lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.17lan [Google Scholar]
  63. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Lieven, E.
    (2014) First language learning from a usage-based approach. InT. Herbst, H. J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns (pp.1–24). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. MacWhinney, B.
    (2001) The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.69–90). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.005 [Google Scholar]
  66. (2005) A unified model of language acquisition. InJ. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Matthews, P. H.
    (1981) Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. (1990) Language as mental faculty. InN. E. Collinge (Ed.), An encyclopedia of language (pp.112–138). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Müller, S.
    (2008) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Eine Enführung. Tübingen: Stanffenburg Verlag. 2nd edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  71. Proisl, T., & Kabashi, B.
    (2015) Using high-quality resources in NLP: The valency dictionary of English as a resource for left-associative grammars. InN. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on language resources and evaluation, LREC 2010 (pp.17–23).
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. 1st edn.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Rall, D., Rall, M., & Zorrilla, O.
    (1980) Diccionario de valencias verbales: Alemán-español. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Reichardt, R.
    (2013) Valency sentence patterns and meaning interpretation: Case study of the verb “consider”. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Birmingham. etheses.bham.ac.uk/4645/1/Reichardt13PhD.pdf. AccessedMarch, 10, 2017.
  75. Rostila, J.
    (2014) Inventarisierung als Grammatikalisierung: Produktive Präpositionalobjekte und andere grammatikalisierte Linking-Muster. InA. Lasch & A. Ziem (Eds.), Grammatik als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen: Sprachwissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp.97–116). Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110353693.97
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110353693.97 [Google Scholar]
  76. (forthcoming). Argument structure constructions among German prepositional objects. InH. C. Boas & A. Ziem Eds. German argument structure constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110457155‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-011 [Google Scholar]
  77. Schøsler, L.
    (2003) Les verbes supports dans une perspective diachronique: Le cas de garde, noyau prédicatif. InAncien et moyen français sur le web: Enjeux méthodologiques et analyse du discours (pp.221–271). Ottawa: Les Éditions David.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sgall, P., Hajicová, E., & Panevová, J.
    (1986) The meaning of sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht/Prague: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Sinclair, J.
    (2004) Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Somers, H. L.
    (1987) Valency and case in computational linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Spevak, O.
    (Ed.) (2014) Noun valency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.158
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.158 [Google Scholar]
  82. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2011) Argument structure: Item-based or distributed?Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 369–386. 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0407
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0407 [Google Scholar]
  83. Tomasello, M.
    (2005) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Van Valin, R. D., & LaPolla, R.
    (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  85. Welke, K.
    (1988) Einführung in die Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. (2005) Deutsche Syntax funktional: Perspektiviertheit syntaktischer Strukturen. Tübigen: Stauffenburg. Second edition revised. First edition 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. (2011) Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen: Eine Einführung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110254198
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110254198 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2015) Wechselseitigkeit von Valenz und Konstruktion: Valenz als Grundvalenz. InS. Engelberg, M. Meliss, K. Proost, & E. Winkler (Eds.) Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion (pp.35–59). Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B.
    (1997) Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Zöfgen, E.
    (1985) Definitionswörterbuch kontra Valenzwörterbuch: Zur lexikographischen Darstellung der Verbsyntax aus pragmatischer Sicht. InH. Bergenholtz & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Lexikographie und Grammatik (pp.130–158). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111635637‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111635637-005 [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