Cover not available

In:Frame-Constructional Verb Classes: Change and Theft verbs in English and German
Ryan Dux
[Constructional Approaches to Language 28] 2020
► pp. 300–311

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Bibliography

Published online: 24 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.28.bib
Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore. 2001. Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atzler, Judith K. 2011. Twist in the list: Frame Semantics as vocabulary teaching and learning tool: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bäckström, Linnéa, Benjamin Lyngfelt, and Emma Sköldberg. 2014. Towards interlingual constructicography: On correspondence between constructicon resources for English and Swedish. Constructions and Frames 6(1). 9–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F. & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2002. FrameNet’s frames vs. Levin’s verb classes. In J. Larson & M. Paster (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 27–38. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F. & Christiane Fellbaum. 2009. WordNet and FrameNet as complementary resources for annotation. In Proceedings of the third linguistic annotation workshop, 125–129. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Charles J. Fillmore & John B. Lowe. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. In COLING-ACL ‘98: Proceedings of the conference, 86–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. The role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic inchoative. In A. Holmer, J.-O. Svantesson & Å. Viberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 2000, 127–137. Lund: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2010. The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language 86. 821–864. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, John & Andrew Koontz-Garboden. 2012. Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3). 331–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, John, Beth Levin & Shiao Wei Tham. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46. 331–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bertoldi, Anderson, Rove Chishman & Hans C. Boas. 2010. Verbs of judgment in English and Portuguese: What contrastive analysis can say about Frame Semantics. Calidoscopio 8(3). 210–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1970. Semantics. In J. Lyons (ed.), New horizons in linguistics, 166–184. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans & Alexander Ziem. In press. Constructional approaches to argument structure in German. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Boas, Hans C. 2001. Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie & S. Khoja (eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001, 64–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Bilingual FrameNet dictionaries for machine translation. In M. González Rodríguez & C. P. Suárez Araujo (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, vol. IV, 1364–1371. Las Palmas, Spain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005a. Determining the productivity of resultatives: A reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language 81(2). 448–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005b. From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer & D. Schnorbusch (eds.), Semantik im lexikon, 129–160. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005c. Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography 18(4). 445. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning. In P. Steiner, H. C. Boas & S. Schierholz (eds.), Contrastive studies and valency: Studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas, 119–149. Frankfurt and New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008b. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. In E. Sosa Acevedo & F. J. Cortés Rodríguez (eds.), Grammar, constructions, and interfaces: Special issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, (57). 17–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2009a. Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009b. Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. In H. C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications, 59–100. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010a. Comparing constructions across languages. In H. C. Boas (ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar, 1–20. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2010b. Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011a. Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics 49(6). 1271–1303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011b. A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: The case of Build verbs. In P. Guerrero Medina (ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English, 207–234. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2011c. Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler & K. Proost (eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, 37–69. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014a. Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 89–112.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ivan A. Sag (eds.). 2012. Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ryan Dux. 2013. Semantic frames for foreign-language education: Towards a German frame-based dictionary. Veridas On-Line (17)1. 82–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C., Ryan Dux & Alexander Ziem. 2016. Frames and constructions in a German-English online learner’s dictionary. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (eds.), Constructionist approaches to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ryan Dux. 2017. From the past into the present: From case frames to semantic frames. In Linguistics Vanguard (3)1. 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Alexander Ziem 2018. Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. Timponi Torrent (eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages, 183–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, Gerd. 2013. Morphology in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 255–274. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Amy Beth Warriner & Victor Kuperman. 2014. Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 46(3). 904–911.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burchardt, Aljoscha, Katrin Erk, Anette Frank, Andrea Kowalski, Sebastian Padó & Manfred Pinkal. 2009. FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: Annotation and representation and automation. In H. C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography, 209–244. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Busse, Dietrich. 2012. Frame-semantik. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Exemplars and constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Clay Beckner. 2009. Usage-based theory. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 915–950. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 1. 1–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2008. Accounting for ditransitive constructions with envy and forgive . Functions of Language 15(2). 187–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 183–209.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In W. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, 329–394. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugen. 1964. Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale. In Travaux de linguistique et de littérature, 139–186. Strasbourg: Centre de philologie et de littératures romanes de l’Université de Strasbourg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William A. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William A. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In: Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William A. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William A., Chiaki Taoka & Esther J. Wood. 2001. Argument linking and the commercial transaction frame in English, Russian and Japanese. Language Sciences 23(4). 579–602. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 450 million words, 1990–present. Web database. [URL]
De Clerck, Bernard, Annelies Bloem & Timothy Colleman. 2012. Transfer verbs with prepositional themes in English and Dutch and French: A contrastive analysis. In M. van Peteghem (ed.), Le verbe en verve: réflexions sur la syntaxe et la sémantique verbales: En hommage à Dominique Willems à l’occasion de son éméritat, 5–24. Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert. 1979. Ergativity Language 55(1), 59–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991. A new approach to English grammar: On semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 2000. ‘The garden swarms with bees’ and the fallacy of ‘argument alternation’. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, 111–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dux, Ryan. 2011. A frame-semantic analysis of five English verbs evoking the Theft frame. University of Texas at Austin M.A. Thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. A usage-based approach to verb classes in English and German. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Frames, verbs and constructions: German constructions with verbs of stealing. In A. Ziem & H. C. Boas (eds.), Constructional approaches to argument structure in German. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dux, Ryan & Hans C. Boas. 2011. On categorizing semantic roles and frame elements: What is the proper level of granularity? Conference presentation at Role Complexes: (New) Approaches to Defining Semantic Roles. The University of Zurich.
Engelberg, Stefan, Meike Meliss, Christel Proost & Edeltraud Winkler (eds.). 2015. Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata, and Kim Wylin. 2015. Expressing the source of dispossession acts in French and Spanish. Languages in Contrast 15(1). 102–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faulhaber, Susen. 2011. Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, Jerome, Ellen Dodge & John Bryant. 2009. Embodied Construction Grammar. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 111–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. WordNet and WordNets. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edition, 665–670. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández Méndez, Manuel. 2015. Argumentstrukturmuster und valenzgrammatisch orientierte Information im deutsch-spanischen Kontrast: Exemplarische Analyse der Lexikalisierungsmöglichkeiten des Konzepts “entführen”. In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, C. Proost & E. Winkler (eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 353–364. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking . In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 120–133. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1971. Types of lexical information. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood, K. Whistler & J. Wright (eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–131. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977a. The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical relations, 59–81. London and New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977b. Scenes-and-frames semantics. Linguistic Structures Processing 59. 55–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni Di Semantica 6(2). 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In V. Nikiforidou, M. VanClay, M. Niepokuj & D. Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Valency and semantic roles: The concept of deep structure case. In V. Agel, L. M. Eichinger, H.-W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. J. Heringer & H. Lobin (eds.), Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, 457–475. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Valency issues in FrameNet. In T. Herbst & K. Götz-Vetteler (eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive, and cognitive issues, 129–160. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In E. Bernal & J. De Cesaris (eds.), Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress, 49–68. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. A valency dictionary of English. International Journal of Lexicography 22(1). 55–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64. 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & B. T. S. Atkins. 1992. Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Describing polysemy: The case of Crawl. In Y. Ravin & C. Laecock (eds.), Polysemy, 91–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin F. Baker. 2009. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 313–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Russell Lee-Goldman & Russell Rhomieux. 2012. The FrameNet-Constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar, 283–299. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel, Carl Pollard & Thomas Wasow. 1985. Structure-sharing in lexical representation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 262–267. Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frense, Juta & Paul Bennett. 1996. Verb alternations and semantic classes in English and German. Language Sciences 18(1). 305–317. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.). 2004. Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fujita, Koji. 1996. Double objects, causatives, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 146–173.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2009. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1998. Semantic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13. 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele, Devin M. Casenhiser & Nitya Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3). 289–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Corpus data in usage-based linguistics: What’s the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument structure constructions? In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries & M. Žic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Convergence and expansion, 237–256. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Data in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 93–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds.). 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 172). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Semantic structure and semantic content. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander & Richard Goldberg. 1991. Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition 41. 153–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guerssel, Mohamed, Kenneth Hale, Mary Laughren, Beth Levin & Josie White Eagle. 1985. A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. In W. H. Eilfort, P. D. Kroeber & K. L. Peterson (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, 48–63. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel J. Keyser. 1986. Some transitivity alternations in English. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo”: International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 20(3). 605–638.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, Patrick & James Pustejovsky. 2005. A pattern dictionary for natural language processing. Revue Française de linguistique appliquée 10(2). 63–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko, Russell Lee-Goldman, Albert Kong & Kimi Akita. 2011. FrameNet as a resource for paraphrase research. Constructions and Frames 3(1). 104–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard. 1992. Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Wolfgang Schenkel. 1969. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 1983. Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst & A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), Argument structure: Valency and/or construction? Special issue of Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4). 347–367.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid & S. Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns, 167–216. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, Ian Roe & Dieter Götz. 2004. A valency dictionary of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Susen Schüller. 2008. Introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency approach. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.). 2014. Constructions – collocations – patterns. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2013. Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 307–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. 2013a. Construction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 1–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds.). 2013b. The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, Gill Francis & Elizabeth Manning. 1996. Verbs (Cobuild Grammar Patterns 1). London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach (Constructional Approaches to Language Series 6). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1975. Semantic and morphological regularities in the lexicon. Language 51. 639–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Christopher R., Charles J. Fillmore, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Collin F. Baker, Michael Ellsworth, Josef Ruppenhofer & Esther J. Wood. 2003. FrameNet: Theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1992. An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation. In American Association for Artificial Intelligence (ed.), Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-92), 302–308. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? Construction. Language 75. 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kupietz, Marc, Cyril Belica, Holger Keibel & Andreas Witt. 2010. The German reference corpus DeReKo: A primordial sample for linguistic research. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner, D. Tapias (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010), 1848–1854. Valletta, Malta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In S. Kemmer & M. Barlow (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lapata, Maria. 1999. Acquiring lexical generalizations from corpora: A case study for diathesis alternations. In R. Dale & K. Church (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 397–404. College Park, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Verb classes within and across languages. In B. Comrie & A. Malchukov (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke. 2001. On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke & Merja Kytö (eds.). 2009. Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1963. Structural semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meliss, Meike. 2015. Argumentstrukturen, Valenz und Konstruktionen: Eine korpusbasierte Studie deutscher und spanischer “Geruchsverben” im Kontrast. In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, C. Proost & E. Winkler (eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen valenz und konstruktion, 317–340. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2001. Beyond alternations: A constructional account of the applicative pattern in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, George A. 1995. WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11). 39–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Motsch, Wolfgang. 1999. Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1981. Events, processes, and states. In P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (eds.), Tense and aspect (Syntax and Semantics 14), 191–212. London and New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Stephen Wechsler. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 1–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nemoto, Noriko. 2005. Verbal polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1951. A system for the description of semantic elements. Word 7(1). 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1975. Componential analysis of meaning: An introduction to semantic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nilsen, Don L. F. 1973. The instrumental case in English: Syntactic and semantic considerations. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko Hirose. 2009. Frame-based contrastive lexical semantics in Japanese FrameNet: The case of risk and kakeru . In H. C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osswald, R. & Robert D. Van Valin 2014. Framenet, frame structure and the syntax-semantics interface. In R. Osswald, T. Gamerschlag, D. Gerland & W. Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy, 125–156. Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petruck, Miriam R. L., Charles J. Fillmore, Collin F. Baker, Michael Ellsworth & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2004. Reframing FrameNet data. In G. Williams & S. Vessier (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress (EURALEX 2004). Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Case and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Princeton University. 2010. “About WordNet”. [URL]
Quine, Willard V. O. 1951. Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60. 20–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect, 274–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 269–280. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4. 328–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2018. Argument omissions in multiple German corpora. In H. C. Boas & A. Ziem (eds.), Constructional approaches to argument structure in German. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Johnson & Jan Scheffczyk. 2010. FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report available at [URL]
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis. 2010. A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2. 158–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Frames and the interpretation of omitted arguments. In S. Katz Bourns & L. Myers (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht, 57–86. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Johnson, Collin Baker & Jan Scheffczyk. 2016. FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Technical report available at [URL]
Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow & Emily M. Bender. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas. 2008. The kicktionary: Combining corpus linguistics and lexical semantics for a multilingual football dictionary. In E. Lavric, G. Pisek, A. Skinner & W. Stadler (eds.), The linguistics of football (Language in Performance 38), 11–23. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The kicktionary – a multilingual lexical resource of football language. In H. C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography, 101–132. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulte im Walde, Sabine. 2000. Clustering verbs semantically according to their alternation behaviour. In Proceedings of the 18th conference on Computational linguistics, vol. 2, 747–753. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulte im Walde, Sabine. 2003. Experiments on the automatic induction of German semantic verb classes. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulte im Walde, Sabine. 2009. The induction of verb frames and verb classes from corpora. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2, 952–971. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut. 2007. Valenzforschung am IDS. In H. Kämper & L. M. Eichinger (eds.), Sprachperspektiven: Germanistische Linguistik und das Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 243–282. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut, Jacqueline Kubczak, Renate Schmidt & Vera de Ruiter. 2004. VALBU – Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, Graham G., Anne Keitel, Marc Becirspahic, Bo Yao, and Sara C. Sereno. 2019. The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales. Behavior research methods 51(3). 1258–1270.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, John (ed.). 1987. Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1987. Thinking for speaking. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis, H. Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, 435–445. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. Mind, code, and text. In J. L. Bybee, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 437–467. Amsterdam and Philadelpha: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 157–191. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, M. 1983. Verb-descriptivity in English and German. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stringer, David. 2003. Acquisitional evidence for a universal syntax of directional PPs. ACL SIGSEM workshop: The linguistic dimensions of prepositions and their use in computational linguistics formalisms and applications, 44–55. Toulouse: IRIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1996. On running and jogging. Cognitive Linguistics 7(1). 21–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timponi, Ludmila Meireles Lage, Thais Fernandes Sampaio, Tatiane da Silva Tavares, and Ely Edison da Silva Matos. 2014. Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese constructicon. Constructions and Frames 6(1). 34–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trier, Jost. 1931. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Urban, Margaret & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2001. Shouting and screaming: Manner and noise verbs in communication. Literary and Linguistic Computing 16. 77–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In R. D. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1999. Generalized semantic roles and the syntax-semantics interface. In F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin & J.-M. Marandin (eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 2, 373–389. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & David P. Wilkins. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Welke, Klaus. 2009. Valenztheorie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37. 81–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1972. Semantic primitives. Bonn: Athenäum-Verl.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winkler, Edeltraud. 2015. Die beiden Varianten der Material-Produkt-Alternanz im Deutschen. In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, C. Proost & E. Winkler (eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, 201–216. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, Mary McGee. 1993. Categorial grammars. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2006. Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 101–125. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London and New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2005. Brutal Brits and argumentative Americans: What collostructional analysis can tell us about lectal variation. Conference paper at the Ninth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC 9) . Seoul: Yonsei University.
Ziem, Alexander. 2008. Frame-Semantik und Diskursanalyse: Skizze einer kognitionswissenschaftlich inspirierten Methode zur Analyse gesellschaftlichen Wissens. In I. Warnke & J. Spitzmüller (eds.), Methoden der Diskurslinguistik: Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge zur transtextuellen Ebene, 89–116. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue