Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 27:3 (2020) ► pp.280–306

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

Give as a light verb

 | Complutense University of Madrid
 | Complutense University of Madrid
Published online: 6 July 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16036.mar
Abstract
Light Verb Constructions (LVCs) have received widespread attention. Research on these constructions, however, has for the most part focused exclusively on their syntactic and lexical-semantic properties. Additionally, studies devoted to specific LVCs tend to neglect the phrasal-semantic and pragmatic variation brought about by the combination of a light verb with different nominal complements. This paper tries to fill those gaps by means of a quantitative and qualitative corpus-based study of Light give Constructions (LgiveCs). The quantitative analysis investigates frequencies of LgiveCs in British English and compares them across spoken and written (fiction) discourse, which reveals a high frequency of this construction in speech, especially in combinations of give with a ring, a kiss and an answer. When these combinations are excluded, LgiveCs are significantly more frequent in writing. In a complementary qualitative approach, we highlight the structural and discursive features of the construction and attempt to explore the factors that motivate the frequent use of the LgiveC in British English.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. give as a light verb
  • 3.Research goals and methodology
  • 4.Light give in spoken and written (fiction) discourse: Frequency and distribution
  • 5.The form and meaning of the LgiveC
    • 5.1Semantic features
    • 5.2Patterns of modification and transitivity
    • 5.3Grammatical choices within the verb phrase
    • 5.4Summary
  • 6.The LgiveC in context
    • 6.1Discourse-organisation and textual meanings
    • 6.2Intersubjective and interactional meanings
    • 6.3Summary
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Algeo, John. 1995. Having a look at the expanded predicate. In Bas Aarts & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description, 203–217. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1993. Predicate composition: A theory of syntactic function alternations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PhD thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 2001. Light verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences 23(4.5). 551–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. The light verb jungle. In Gülsat Aygen, Claire Bowern & Conor Quinn (eds.), Harvard working papers in linguistics. Volume 9 of papers from the GSAS/Dudley house workshop on light verbs, 1–49. Harvard, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker & Mark Harvey (eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure, 48–78. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at [URL]
Downing, Angela. 2015. English grammar: A university course. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 15–31. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane & Fanny Meunier (eds.). 2008. Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hannay, Mike & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2017. Effective writing in English: A sourcebook, 3rd edn. Bussum: Coutinho.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 391–404. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. The clause: Complements. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), 213–321.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & John Sinclair. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 74–101. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 1988/2002. Light verbs in English. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44(3). 569–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Live, Anna H. 1973. The take-have phrasal in English. Linguistics 11(95). 31–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Kazuhiro Teruya. 2014. Projection as a fractal motif: Semantic and lexicogrammatical manifestations. Draft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2016. “Snake legs it to freedom”: Dummy it as pseudo-object. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(1). 73–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muller, Ernst-August. 1978. Funktionsverbgefuge vom Typ ‘give a smile’ und ähnliche Konstruktionen. Eine textorientierte Untersuchung im Ahmen eines doppelschichtigen Semantikmodells. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 1998. The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, John and Sally Rice. 2006. Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 225–260. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, Martha, David Gildea & Paul Kingsbury. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics 31(1). 71–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, John (ed. in chief). 1990. Collins COBUILD English grammar. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan T. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stein, Gabriele. 1991. The phrasal verb type “to have a look” in Modern English. International Review of Applied Linguistics 291. 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have an eat? Language 58(4). 753–799. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Andrew. 2009. Speech, writing and discourse type. In Jonathan Culpeper, Francis Katamba, Paul Kerswill, Ruth Wodak & Tony McEnery (eds.), English language: Description, variation and context, 425–438. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva. 2016. With light verb constructions from syntax to concepts. Potsdam Cognitive Science Series, vol. 7. Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva, Ray Jackendoff, Gina Kuperberg, Martin Paczynski, Jesse Snedeker & Heike Wiese. 2014. The processing and representation of light verb constructions. In Asaf Bachrach, Isabelle Roy & Linnaea Stockall (eds.), Structuring the argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure (Language Faculty and Beyond 10), 61–80. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Kopeć, Zbigniew & Pilar Guerrero Medina
2025. Metaphoric and metonymic motivation in the Light Verb Construction with GIVE. Complutense Journal of English Studies 33 ► pp. e103616 ff. DOI logo
夏, 其瑛
2025. A Contrastive Analysis of Argument Structure of Light Verbs in English and Chinese. Modern Linguistics 13:10 ► pp. 784 ff. DOI logo
Giparaitė, Judita
2024. A corpus-based analysis of light verb constructions with MAKE and DO in British English. Kalbotyra 76 ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 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