In:Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar
Edited by Jiyoung Yoon and Stefan Th. Gries
[Constructional Approaches to Language 19] 2016
► pp. 11–38
A constructional perspective on conceptual constituency
Dutch postpositions or particles?
Published online: 8 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.19.02bel
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.19.02bel
Cognitive Grammar distinguishes three types of constituents: phonological,
conceptual, and grammatical constituents. This study argues that this distinction
offers a new and promising perspective on constructions whose constituent
structure, or ‘constituency’, has seemed to defy analysis in the past. In particular,
the study proposes a method to analyze conceptual constituency, which crucially
relies on semantic considerations. The method is applied to constructions
from Dutch with adpositions whose syntactic status has been unclear: they have
been analyzed as postpositions by some, yet as particles by others. Using corpus
data rather than constructed data with grammaticality judgments, the study
concludes that the method provides new arguments for a ‘particle analysis’.
References (35)
Beavers, J. (2006). Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
Beckner, C., & Bybee, J. (2009). A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 27–46.
Beeken, J. (1993). Spiegelstructuur en variabiliteit: Pre- en postposities in het Nederlands [Mirror structure and variability: Prepositions and postpositions in Dutch]. Leuven: Peeters.
Beliën, M. (2008). Constructions, constraints, and construal: Adpositions in Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, VU Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
. (2012). Dutch manner of motion verbs: Disentangling auxiliary choice, telicity and syntactic function. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 1–26.
Blom, C. (2005). Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Ph.D. dissertation, VU Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT.
Booij, G. (1998). Samenkoppelingen en grammaticalisatie [Separable complex verbs and grammaticalization]. In E. Hoekstra & C. Smits (Eds.), Morfologiedagen 1996 (pp. 6–20). Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.
Bybee, J. (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón & B.F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cappelle, B. (2013). De aaneenschrijfregels de prullenmand in gooien of ingooien [Throwing orthographic rules into the bin]? Over Taal, 52(3), 66–67.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Haas, W., & Trommelen, M. (1993). Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming [Morphological handbook of Dutch: An overview of word formation]. The Hague: SDU.
de Schutter, G. (1974). De Nederlandse zin: Poging tot beschrijving van zijn structuur [The Dutch sentence: An attempt to describe its structure]. Brugge: De Tempel.
de Vries, J.W. (1975). Lexicale morfologie van het werkwoord in modern Nederlands [Lexical morphology of the verb in modern Dutch]. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden.
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [General Dutch grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.
Helmantel, M. (2002). Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOT.
Hoekstra, T. (1984). Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
. (1995). Conceptual grouping and constituency in cognitive grammar. In I.-H. Leek (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning Calm 3 (pp. 149–172). Seoul: Hanshin.
. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Carvel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Luif, J. (1992). Over richtingsbepalingen [On directional phrases]. In E.C. Schermer-Vermeer, W.G. Klooster, & A.F. Florijn (Eds.), De kunst van de grammatica [The art of grammar] (pp. 157–167). Amsterdam: Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde, University of Amsterdam.
Paardekooper, P.C. (1959). Voor- en achterzetsels [Prepositions and postpositions]. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 52, 310–320.
Rice, S. (1987). Towards a cognitive model of transitivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Talmy, L. (2003). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Vandenbosch, L. (1992). Aspekten van passiefvorming in het Nederlands: Een kognitief-pragmatische benadering [Aspects of passive formation in Dutch: a cognitive-pragmatic approach]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Antwerp.
van der Leek, F.C. (1996). The English conative construction: A compositional account. Chicago Linguistics Society, 32, 363–378.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Th. Gries, Stefan
Pijpops, Dirk
2017. Jiyoung Yoon & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.). 2016.Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 9:2 ► pp. 329 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
