Cover not available

In:Changing Structures: Studies in constructions and complementation
Edited by Mark Kaunisto, Mikko Höglund and Paul Rickman
[Studies in Language Companion Series 195] 2018
► pp. 55–68

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

Goldberg’s Rely On construction

Overreliance on generalization?

 | University of Helsinki
Published online: 22 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.195.04ros
Goldberg (2014) proposes one polysemous argument structure construction (ASC) for cases as varied as nibble/rely/bet on something. Inspired by ASCs needed for a semantically similar domain in German, my analysis suggests that a more adequate solution can be reached with three constructions that are semantically further apart than the two sub-senses of Goldberg’s Rely On construction. The solution makes use of Israel’s (1996) empirical findings regarding the historical development of the English way ASC to model the development and interrelationships of the required constructions. Overall, the chapter advocates the advantages of a contrastive approach and the use of diachronic studies to inform synchronic Construction Grammar analyses of specific domains.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Goldberg’s Rely On construction
  • 3.Preliminaries for an alternative solution
  • 4.Improved solution
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2010. Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics 49(6): 1271–1303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. 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
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21(2): 151–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. OUP: Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 113–135.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), 217–230. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Wechsler, Stephen. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 1–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 17]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rostila, Jouni. 2005. Zur Grammatikalisierung bei Präpositionalobjekten. In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah De Groodt (eds), 135–166. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Construction Grammar as a functionalist generative grammar. In At the Crossroads of Linguistics Sciences, Piotr P. Chruszczewski, Michał Garcarz & Tomasz P. Górski (eds), 365–376. Cracow: Tertium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Konstruktionsansätze zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. PhD dissertation, University of Tampere. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Inventarisierung als Grammatikalisierung: Produktive Präpositionalobjekte und andere grammatikalisierte Linking-Muster. In Grammatik als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen. Sprachwissen im Fokus in der Konstruktionsgrammatik, Alexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds), 127–153. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Inside out: Productive German prepositional objects as an example of complements selecting heads. In Perspectives on Complementation. Structure, Variation and Boundaries, Mikko Höglund, Paul Rickman, Juhani Rudanko & Jukka Havu (eds), 34–51. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Zur Integration von Argumentstrukturkonstruktionen in das Historisch syntaktische Verbwörterbuch . In Historisch syntaktisches Verbwörterbuch. Valenz- und konstruktionsgrammatische Beiträge, Jarmo Korhonen & Albrecht Greule (eds), 261–276. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. In press. Argument structure constructions among German prepositional objects . In Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs], Hans C. Boas & Alexander Ziem (eds). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rudanko, Juhani. 1989. Complementation and Case Grammar. A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Selected Patterns of Complementation in Present-Day English. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schøsler, Lene. 2007. The status of valency patterns. In Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, Thomas Herbst & Katrin Götz-Votteler (eds.) 51–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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
Uhrig, Peter & Zeschel, Arne. 2016. On means auf : The semantics of English and German prepositional complements in contrast. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Construction Grammar, Juiz de Fora, 5 October .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Pottelberge, Jeroen. 2004. Der am‑Progressiv: Struktur und parallele Entwicklung in den kontinentalwestgermanischen Sprachen . Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, Frederik. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part Three, Second Half: Syntactical Units with Two and with More Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue