Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constructions License Verb Frames

  • Chapter
Perspectives on Complementation

  • 105 Accesses

Abstract

Where does a verb’s frame come from? The obvious answer is the verb itself, and this is the answer that syntacticians have traditionally provided, whether they describe predicator-argument relations as syntactic sisterhood relations or as lexical properties (the predicator’s combinatoric potential, or valence). Thus, Haegeman, in her introduction to Government and Binding theory, states, “the thematic structure of a predicate, encoded in the theta grid, will determine the minimal components of the sentence” (Haegeman 1994: 55). Similarly, Bresnan, in her introduction to Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), states, “[o]n the semantic side, argument structure represents the core participants and events (states, processes) designated by a single predicator. […] On the syntactic side, argument structure represents the minimal information needed to characterize the syntactic dependents of an argument-taking head” (Bresnan 2001: 304). In lexicalist theories like LFG, whenever the arguments of a verb can have more than one set of syntactic realizations, each distinct realization pattern corresponds to a different mapping from semantic roles to grammatical functions, as expressed in a unique lexical entry, and lexical entries, or classes of lexical entries, are related by lexical rules (Neidle 1994).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Basilico, D. (1998) ‘Object Position and Predication Forms’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16 (3): 491–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, E. and J.C. Goodman (1997) ‘On the Inseparability of Grammar and the Lexicon: Evidence from Acquisition, Aphasia and Real-Time Processing’. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12 (5/6): 507–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bender, E. and A. Kathol (2001) ‘Constructional Effects of Just Because … doesn’t Mean …’, paper presented at the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Resolution: Global Berkeley, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birner, B.J. and G. Ward (1998) Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boas, H. and I.A. Sag (eds) (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar (Stanford: CSLI Publications).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenier, J.M. and L.A. Michaelis (2005) ‘Optimization via Syntactic Amalgam: Syntax-Prosody Mismatch and Copula Doubling’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1): 45–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J. (1994) ‘Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar’. Language, 70 (1): 72–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J. (2001) Lexical-Functional Syntax (Oxford: Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. (2001) Phonology and Language Use (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (2003) ‘Language, Thought and Reality after Chomsky’ Resolution: Global unpublished MS, University of Milan-Bicocca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delahunty, G. (2001) ‘Discourse Functions of Inferential Sentences’. Linguistics, 39 (3): 517–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: the Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C.J. (1986) ‘Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora’ in V. Nikiforidou, M. Van Clay, M. Niepokuj, and D. Feder (eds) The Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Berkeley: BLS, Inc.), pp. 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C.J. and P. Kay (1995) ‘Construction Grammar’, Resolution: Global unpublished MS, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C.J., P. Kay and M.C. O’Connor (1988) ‘Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: the Case of Let Alone’. Language, 64 (3): 501–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J. and I.A. Sag (2000) Interrogative Investigations: the Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives (Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. (1995) Constructions: a Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. (2001) ‘Patient Arguments of Causative verbs Can be Omitted: the Role of Information Structure in Argument Distribution’. Language Sciences, 23 (4/5): 503–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. (2002) ‘Surface Generalizations: an Alternative to Alternations’. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (4): 327–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. (2005) ‘Constructions, Lexical Semantics and the Correspondence Principle: Accounting for Generalizations and Subregularities in the Realization of Arguments’ in N. Erteschik-Shir and T. Rapoport (eds) The Syntax of Aspect (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 212–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. (2006) Constructions at Work: the Nature of Generalization in Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haegeman, L. (1994) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioup, G. (1975) ‘Some Universals for Quantifier Scope’ in J. Kimball (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 4 (New York: Academic Press), pp. 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1990) Semantic Structures (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1997) The Architecture of the Language Faculty (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaschak, M. and A. Glenberg (2000) ‘Constructing Meaning: the Role of Affordances and Grammatical Constructions in Language Comprehension’. Journal of Memory and Language, 43 (3): 508–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaschak, M. and A. Glenberg (2002) ‘Grounding Language in Action’. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3): 558–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, P. (2002) ‘English Subjectless Tag Sentences’. Language, 78 (3): 453–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, P. and C.J. Fillmore (1999) ‘Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: the ‘what’s X doing Y’ Construction’. Language, 75 (1): 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, P. and L.A. Michaelis (2012) ‘Constructional Meaning and Compositionality’ in C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds) Semantics: an International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3 (Berlin: de Gruyter), pp. 2271–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuno, S. (1991) ‘Remarks on Quantifier Scope’ in H. Nakajima (ed.) Current English Linguistics in Japan (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 261–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, K. (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. (2000) ‘Aspect, Lexical Semantic Representation and Argument Expression’ in L.J. Conathan, J. Good, D. Kavitskaya, A.B. Wulff and A. Yu (eds) The Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Berkeley: BLS, Inc.), pp. 413–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity: at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav (2005) Argument Realization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, L.A. (2004) ‘Type Shifting in Construction Grammar: an Integrated Approach to Aspectual Coercion’. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1): 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, L.A. (2009) ’sign-Based Construction Grammar’ in B. Heine and H. Narrog (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 155–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, L.A. (2012) ‘Making the Case for Construction Grammar’ in H. Boas and I.A. Sag (eds) Sign-Based Construction Grammar (Stanford: CSLI Publications), pp. 29–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, L.A. and K. Lambrecht (1996) ‘Toward a Construction-Based Model of Language Function: the Case of Nominal Extraposition’. Language, 72 (2): 215–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, L.A. and J. Ruppenhofer (2001) Beyond Alternations: a Construction-Based Approach to the Applicative Pattern in German (Stanford: CSLI Publications).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, M. (1991) ‘The Role of Motivation in the Emergence of Grammatical Categories: the Grammaticization of Subjects’ in E.C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds) Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 159–84.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moens, M. and M. Steedman (1988) ‘Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference’. Computational Linguistics, 14 (2): 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neidle, C. (1994) ‘Lexical Functional Grammar’. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 5 (New York: Pergamon Press), pp. 2147–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. and V. Borschev (2007) ‘Existential Sentences, BE and the Genitive of Negation in Russian’ in K. von Heisenger and I. Comorovski (eds) Existence: Semantics and Syntax (Berlin: Springer Verlag), pp. 147–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and Cognition (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C. and I.A. Sag (1987) Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1: Fundamentals (Stanford: CSLI Publications).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C. and I.A. Sag (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (1998) ‘Building Verb Meanings’ in M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds) The Projection of Arguments (Stanford: CSLI Publications), pp. 97–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppenhofer, J. (2012) ‘Fictive Motion: Construction or Construal?’ in Z. Antic, M. Babel, C. Chang, J. Hong, M. Houser, F.-C. Liu, M. Toosarvandani and Y. Yao (eds) The Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Parasession on Theoretical Approaches to Argument Structure (Berkeley: BLS, Inc.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppenhofer, J., C.F. Baker and C.J. Fillmore (2002) ‘Collocational Information in the FrameNet Database’ in A. Braasch and C. Povlsen (eds) Proceedings of the Tenth Euralex International Congress, Vol. I (Copenhagen, Denmark), pp. 359–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppenhofer, J. and L. A Michaelis (2014) ‘Frames and the Interpretation of Omitted Arguments in English’ in S. Katz Bourns and L. Myers (eds) Linguistic Perspectives on Structure and Context: Studies in Honor of Knud Lambrecht (Amsterdam: Benjamins), pp. 57–86.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sag, I.A. (2010) ‘English Filler-Gap Constructions’. Language, 86 (3): 486–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sag, I.A. (2012) ’sign-Based Construction Grammar: an Informal Synopsis’ in H.C. Boas and I.A. Sag (eds) Sign-Based Construction Grammar (Stanford: CSLI Publications), pp. 69–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobin, D.I. (2008) ‘Relations between Paths of Motion and Paths of Vision: a Crosslinguistic and Developmental Exploration’ in V.M. Gathercole (ed.) Routes to Language: Studies in Honor of Melissa Bowerman (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), pp. 197–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, R.D. and R.J. La Polla (1997) Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Colorado Boulder, USA

    Laura A. Michaelis

Authors
  1. Laura A. Michaelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm University, Sweden

    Mikko Höglund

  2. University of Tampere, Finland

    Paul Rickman , Juhani Rudanko  & Jukka Havu ,  & 

Copyright information

© 2015 Laura A. Michaelis

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Michaelis, L.A. (2015). Constructions License Verb Frames. In: Höglund, M., Rickman, P., Rudanko, J., Havu, J. (eds) Perspectives on Complementation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137450067_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation