Meaning construction and motivation in the English benefactive double object construction

References

1. Allerton, D. J.
   (1978) Generating indirect objects in English. J. Linguistics, 14, 21–33. 10.1017/S0022226700005648
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700005648 [Google Scholar]
2. Colleman, T.
   (2010a) The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’ constructions: A case study of English, German, French and Dutch. InF. Zúniga & S. Kittila (Eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies (pp.219–243). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.92.09col
   https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.92.09col [Google Scholar]
3. Colleman, T.
   (2010b) Lectal variation and constructional semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. InD. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Recent advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp.119–221). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226461.191
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461.191 [Google Scholar]
4. 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 honor of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
5. Davies, M.
   (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coca/
6. Galera Masegosa, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
   (2012) Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences, 34, 54–64. 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.017
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.017 [Google Scholar]
7. Geeraerts, D.
   (2006) Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219128
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219128 [Google Scholar]
8. Goldberg, A. E.
   (1992) The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74. 10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37
   https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37 [Google Scholar]
9. Goldberg, A. E.
   (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
11. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2013) Constructionist approaches. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2009) The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31, 663–723. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003 [Google Scholar]
14. Green, G. M.
    (1974) Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Groefsema, M.
    (2001) The real-world colour of the dative alternation. Language Sciences, 23, 525–550. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00035‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00035-8 [Google Scholar]
16. Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.
    (1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257. 10.2307/415332
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415332 [Google Scholar]
17. Hoffmann, M.
    (1995) The structure and surface form of benefactives and other prepositional grammatical relations. InC. S. Burgess, K. Dziwirek & D. Gerdts (Eds.), Grammatical relations. Theoretical approaches to empirical questions (pp117–129). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kay, P.
    (2005) Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. InFried, M. & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp71–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4.05kay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.05kay [Google Scholar]
19. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning constructionInC. B. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
22. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2003) Headless constructions and coercion by construction. InE. Francis & L. A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp.259–310). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Panther, K.-U.
    (2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.355–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
    (1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
25. Paszenda, J.
    (2017) Motivation behind the extended senses of the Polish ditransitive construction. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, A. Luzondo Oyón & P. Pérez Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp.219–243). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.58.09pas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.09pas [Google Scholar]
26. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
28. Rosca, A.
    (2012) Accounting for the constructional behavior of “fetch”, “find”, “gather” and “reach”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 64, 163–175.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Rosca, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2016) Why *John can’t contribute Mary money. Constructional behavior of contribute verbs. Odisea, 17, 139–157.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
    (1996) The Polish dative. InW. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck, (Eds.), The dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive studies (pp.341–394). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cagral.2.14rud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.2.14rud [Google Scholar]
31. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. InB. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225 [Google Scholar]
32. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Mairal Usón, R.
    (2011) Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model. InP. Guerrero Medina (Ed.) Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp.62–82). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Shibatani, M.
    (1996) Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. InM. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp.157–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Visser, F. T.
    (1963) An historical syntax of the English language, Part 1: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]