Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 17:2 (2025) ► pp.211–235

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Complex verbs in English

The relationship between verb-forming suffix schemas and argument structure constructions

ORCiD logo with link | University of Reading
 | Leiden University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Reading.

Published online: 28 April 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.24009.law
Abstract
This paper relates two levels of constructional analysis in accounting for the functions of verb-forming suffixation in English: argument structure constructions and suffix schemas. The function of verbal-forming suffixation expressed by the four suffixes in English -ize, -ify, -en, and -ate, has been shown to exhibit a wide range of semantic categories that correspond to a number of argument structure constructions (Laws, J. (2023). A constructional account of verb-forming suffixation. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). The current paper extends that semantic analysis. Firstly, by using a Construction Morphology approach ( (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) to formalize the relationship between argument structure and suffix schemas proposed by Laws. Secondly, a hierarchical view of verb-class and subclass argument structure constructions is articulated by using semantic rules that involve selection and enrichment by coercion within suffix subschemas. Thirdly, it is demonstrated that the motivation for partially opaque complex verbs with these suffixes can be expressed by referring to paradigmatic relationships between these complex verbs and other related words.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Complex verb semantic categories and polysemy
    • 2.2An argument structure construction analysis of complex words
  • 3.A construction morphology analysis of complex words
    • 3.1The generalized affix schema for verb-forming suffixation
    • 3.2The analysis of complex verb subclasses
      • 3.2.1Coercion mechanisms and semantic rules of interpretation
        • 3.2.1.1Selection by coercion
        • 3.2.1.2Enrichment by coercion
    • 3.3The alignment of argument structure constructions and suffix schemas
  • 4.The relationship between the base of a complex verb and its argument role
  • 5.Summary and future directions
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (41)
References
Audring, J. & Booij, G. (2016). Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54(4), 617–637. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (1997). Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996 (pp. 35–53). Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). The role of schemas in Construction Morphology. Word Structure, 121, 385–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Paradigmatic relations in Construction Morphology: The case of Dutch Noun+Verb compounds. In K. Hein & S. Michel (Eds.), Zeitschrift für Wortbilding / Journal of Word Formation, 7(2), 13–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. & Masini, F. (2015). The role of second order schemas in word formation. In L. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 47–66). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Gunter Radden (pp. 49–68). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2014). Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013a). Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28(4), 435–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013b). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (2014). More on the as-predicative: Granularity issues in the description of construction networks. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 21, 207–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 411, 9–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Foundations of language. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Constructions in the parallel architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 70–92). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & Audring, J. (2020). The texture of the lexicon. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Complex verbs in Spoken English: Meanings, senses and frequencies. Retrieved from: [URL] April 2024.
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach (2nd ed.). C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1979). The nonuniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 143–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49(6), 1401–1431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. & Ježek, E. (2008). Semantic coercion in language: Beyond distributional analysis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 181–214.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ryder, M. E. (1999). Bankers and blue-chippers: An account of -er formations in present-day English. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 269–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2014). Derivational paradigms. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 354–369). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). The relation of grammar to cognition. Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Laws, Jacqueline
2025. The role of coercion in the productivity and creativity of complex verb formation: a constructional approach. English Language and Linguistics 29:2 ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue