Abstract
This paper studies, on the basis of corpus data, the licensing and blocking factors in the lexical-constructional integration process of causative frighten verbs into a number of constructions. This study is particularly compatible with the central postulates of Goldberg’s (1995, 2006) Cognitive Construction Grammar. Thus, the analysis is carried out on the basis of construction-specific and more general constraints spelled out in order to avoid the mismatch between coercing and coerced constructional elements. We devote our attention to constraints involving conceptual compatibility between lexical items and constructional configurations, and to the metonymic and metaphoric activity which underlies such compatibility. We also explore the pragmatic and discourse-functional features which influence acceptability in constructional environments. In addition, two families of constructions are identified and discussed as separate from other constructions: the fake intransitive and the cause subject constructions. We offer a fine-grained analysis of both constructional families and of each of the members that each accommodates.
Funding statement: Funding: This article is based on research supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grants no. FFI2011-29798-C02-01 and FFI2013-43593-P.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza and the anonymous reviewers of this article for their insightful comments and suggestions. Any remaining errors are, of course, my own.
References
Aït-Kaci, Hassan. 1984. A lattice-theoretic approach to computation based on a calculus of partially ordered type structures. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Baicchi, Annalisa. 2007. The high-level metaphor in the caused-motion construction. Paper presented at the workshop Bridging the gap between functionalism and cognitivism: The Lexical Constructional Model. 40th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea: Functionalism in Linguistics, University of Joensuu, 29 August–1 September.Search in Google Scholar
Baicchi, Annalisa. 2008. Quantitative valency addition within the Lexical-Constructional Model. Paper presented at the 27th Conference on Lexis and Grammar, L’Aquila, 10–13 September.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F. & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2002. FrameNet’s frames vs. Levin’s verb classes. In Julie Larson & Mary Paster (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 27–38. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley Linguistics Department.10.3765/bls.v28i1.3816Search in Google Scholar
Barcelona, Antonio. 2005. The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza & María Sandra Peña (eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 313–352. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. & Nancy Chang. 2005. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive groundings and theoretical extensions, 121–141. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.3.08berSearch in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2011a. Coercion and leaking argument structures in construction grammar. Linguistics 49(6). 1271–1303.10.1515/ling.2011.036Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2011b. A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: The case of build verbs. In Pilar Guerrero (ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, 207–234. Sheffield & Oakville: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2013. Cognitive construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0013Search in Google Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2009. Constructions at work or at rest? Cognitive Linguistics 20(1). 129–134.10.1515/COGL.2009.006Search in Google Scholar
Cortés, Francisco J. 2007. The English constructicon. University of La Laguna, Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Cortés, Francisco J. 2009. The inchoative construction: Semantic representation and unification constraints. In Christopher Butler & Javier Martín (eds.), Deconstructing constructions, 247–270. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.107.10theSearch in Google Scholar
Cortés, Francisco J. & Ricardo Mairal. 2013. Constraints on English middle structures: A lexical-constructional analysis. Onomázein 27. 221–239.10.7764/onomazein.27.15Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Thomas Berg, René Dirven, Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.243.07croSearch in Google Scholar
Díez, Olga I. 2002. Body part metonymies in action and perception frames: A cognitive analysis. EPOS XVIII. 309–323.Search in Google Scholar
Díez, Olga I. 2005. A cognitive analysis of body part metonymies: Taxonomic, constructional, and interactional aspects. Logroño: University of La Rioja dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Dirven, René. 1993. Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. Leuvense bijdragen 82. 1–25.Search in Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela & Ricardo Mairal. 1999. Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110800623Search in Google Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1986. On the middle construction in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles & Collin Baker. 2010. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 313–339. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Galera, Alicia & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza. 2012. Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the lexical constructional model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences 34(1). 54–64.10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.017Search in Google Scholar
Gatto, Maristella. 2014. Web as corpus: Theory and practice. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka. 2014. Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668434.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2001. Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 23. 503–524.10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00034-6Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive groundings and theoretical extensions, 17–43. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.3.03golSearch in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 131–153.10.1515/9783110335255.57Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3). 532–568.10.1353/lan.2004.0129Search in Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco. 2007. ‘Saved by the reflexive’: Evidence from coercion via reflexives in verbless complement clauses in English and Spanish. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5. 193–238.10.1075/arcl.5.09gonSearch in Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco. 2009. The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based, constructionist analysis. Language Sciences 31(5). 663–723.10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003Search in Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco. 2011. Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics 49(6). 1305–1358.10.1515/ling.2011.037Search in Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph. 1997. Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Sten Vikner. 1993. Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events. In Eric Reuland & Werner Abraham (eds.), Knowledge and language II: Lexical and conceptual structure, 143–155. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-011-1842-2_7Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. & J Keyser. 1987. A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 10, Center for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–243.10.1017/S0022226700016613Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Education.Search in Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 2010. Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino. In Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susanne Handl (eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns: Empirical studies, 225–255. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110216035.225Search in Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 2011. The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. In Thomas Herbst & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Argument structure. Valency and/or constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (ZAA) 59.4. 347–367. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.10.1515/zaa-2011-0406Search in Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, Susen Faulhaber & Peter Uhrig (eds.). 2011. A phraseological view of language: A tribute to John Sinclair. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110257014Search in Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110903706Search in Google Scholar
Hodgson, Miren J. 2006. Telicity and the syntax-semantics of the object and subject. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3242352 (accessed 25 January 2014).Search in Google Scholar
Iwata, Seize. 2008. Locative alternation. A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.6Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jiménez, Rocío. 2004. Lexical templates and the frighten type verbs: An enriched approach to RRG logical structures. In Proceedings of the 2004 international conference on Role and Reference Grammar, 120–134. Dublin. http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/rrg/RRG2004%20Book%20of%20Proceedings.pdf (accessed 2 December 2013).Search in Google Scholar
Jiménez, Rocío. 2006. Lexical templates: A lexico-functional approach to the syntax-semantics interface in English and Spanish. In Cristina Mourón & Teresa I. Moralejo (eds.), Studies in contrastive linguistics: Proceedings of the 4th International Contrastive Linguistics Conference, 407–417. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark & George Lakoff. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark & George Lakoff. 2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics 13(3). 245–263.10.1515/cogl.2002.016Search in Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 71–98. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.4.05kaySearch in Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Laura A. Michaelis. 2012. Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, 2271–2296. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Kehoe, Andrew. 2006. Diachronic linguistic analysis on the Web with WebCorp. In Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds.), The changing face of corpus linguistics, 297–307. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401201797Search in Google Scholar
Kehoe, Antoinette & Matt Gee. 2007. New corpora from the web: Making web text more ‘text-like’. In Päivi Pahta, Irma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Jukka Tyrkkö (eds.), Towards multimedia in corpus studies 2. University of Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/02/kehoe_gee/ (accessed 27 November 2013).Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán & Günter Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9. 37–77.10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37Search in Google Scholar
Kuperberg, Gina R., Arim Choi, Neil Cohn, Martin Paczynski & Ray Jackendoff. 2010. Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(12). 2685–2701.10.1162/jocn.2009.21333Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 236–287.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Cognitive (construction) grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1). 167–176.10.1515/COGL.2009.010Search in Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter & Dominique Willems. 2011. Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49(6). 1219–1235.10.1515/ling.2011.034Search in Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2006. More on objectless transitives and ergativization patterns in English. Constructions Special Volume 1. http://elanguage.net/journals/constructions/article/view/2821 (accessed 25 September 2013).Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mairal, Ricardo & Francisco Gonzálvez-García. 2010. Verbos y construcciones en el espacio cognitivo-funcional del siglo XXI. In Álvaro Val, José Francisco & María del Carmen Horno (eds.), La gramática del sentido: Léxico y sintaxis en la encrucijada: Conocimiento, lenguaje y comunicación, 123–152. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.Search in Google Scholar
Mairal, Ricardo & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza. 2008a. Internal and external constraints in meaning construction: The lexicon-grammar continuum. In María Teresa Gibert & Laura Alba (eds.), Estudios de Filología Inglesa: Homenaje a la Dra. Asunción Alba Pelayo, 219–237. Madrid: Colección Varia UNED.Search in Google Scholar
Mairal, Ricardo & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza. 2008b. New challenges for lexical representation within the lexical-constructional model. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57. 137–158.Search in Google Scholar
Mairal, Ricardo & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza. 2009. Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Christopher Butler & Javier Martín (eds.), Deconstructing constructions, 153–198. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.107.08levSearch in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2003a. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven & John R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 163–209. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219074.163Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2003b. Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In Elaine Francis & Laura A. Michaelis (eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar, 259–310. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004a. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1). 1– 67.10.1515/cogl.2004.001Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004b. The evidence for Construction Grammar. Plenary talk presented at the Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, University of Aix-Marseilles, July 2004.Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2011. Stative by construction. Linguistics 49(6). 1359–1399.10.1515/ling.2011.038Search in Google Scholar
Moens, Marc & Mark Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2). 15–28.Search in Google Scholar
Morley, Barry. 2006. WebCorp: A tool for online linguistic information retrieval and analysis. In Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds.), The changing face of corpus linguistics, 283–296. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401201797_019Search in Google Scholar
Nemoto, Noriko. 2005. Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in construction grammar: Some observations about the locative alternation. In Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 119–138. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.4.08nemSearch in Google Scholar
van Oosten, Jeanne. 1986. The nature of subjects, topics, and agents: A cognitive explanation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola & Mirjam Fried (eds.). 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive groundings and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.3Search in Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, 333–359. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.4.19panSearch in Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 2003. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.113Search in Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 2005. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza & María Sandra Peña (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 353–86. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 2007. Metonymy. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 236–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (GRASS 8), 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783112420027-006Search in Google Scholar
Peña, María Sandra. 2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences 31(6). 740–765.10.1016/j.langsci.2009.05.003Search in Google Scholar
Pérez, Lorena & María Sandra Peña. 2009. Pragmatic and cognitive constraints on lexical-constructional subsumption. Atlantis 31(2). 57–73.Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Piñango, María Mercedes, Edgar Zurif & Ray Jackendoff. 1999. Real-time processing implications of enriched composition at the syntax–semantics interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28. 395–414.10.1023/A:1023241115818Search in Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior. Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 712–738.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00073.xSearch in Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina & Brian McElree. 2007. An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19. 1905–1921.10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1905Search in Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Zöltán Kövecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, 17–59. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.4.03radSearch in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Renouf, Antoinette, Andrew Kehoe & Jayeeta Banerjee. 2007. Webcorp: An integrated system for web text search. In Marianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web, 47–68. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401203791_005Search in Google Scholar
Renouf, Antoinette, Andrew Kehoe & David Mezquiriz. 2004. The accidental corpus: Some issues in extracting linguistic information from the Web. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), Advances in corpus linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 23), 403–419. Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Search in Google Scholar
Rice, Sally. 1988. Unlikely lexical entries. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 202–212.10.3765/bls.v14i0.1797Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Timothy E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 111–144. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50010-4Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1977. Human categorization. In Neil Warren (ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology, vol. 1, 1–49. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads, 109–132. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894677.109Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2007. High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In Krzysztof Kosecki (ed.), Perspectives on metonymy, 11–30. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2008. Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In Sabine De Knop & Teun De Rycker (eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven, 121–152. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2013. Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar, 231–270. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Olga I. Díez. 2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, 489–532. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Alicia Galera. 2014. Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.45Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García. 2011. Constructional integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. BAS (British and American studies) XVII. 75–95.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Alba Luzondo. 2012. Lexical constructional-subsumption in resultative constructions in English. In Mario Brdar, Ida Raffaelli & Milena Žic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Between universality and variation, 117–136. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Ricardo Mairal. 2007a. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg & Peter Siemund (eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar, 33–49. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.136.05ruiSearch in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Ricardo Mairal. 2007b. Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlíngüística 17. 26–47.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Ricardo Mairal. 2008. Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica 42(2). 355–400.10.1515/FLIN.2008.355Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Ricardo Mairal. 2011. Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Pilar Guerrero (ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives, 62–82. Sheffield & Oakville: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & María Sandra Peña. 2008. Grammatical metonymy within the “action” frame in English and Spanish. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Lachlan Mackenzie & Elsa M. González-Álvarez (eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: functional and cognitive perspectives, 251–280. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sfsl.60.15ruiSearch in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Lorena Pérez. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and communication 21. 321–357.10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Francisco Santibáñez. 2003. Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15(2). 293–320.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1970. Jespersen’s ‘Move and Change’ class and causative verbs in English. In Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé & Werner Winter (eds.), Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald A. Hill: Volume II: Descriptive studies, 101–109. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995 [1986]. Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steSearch in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 1–43.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Suttle, Laura & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics 49(6). 1237–1269.10.1515/ling.2011.035Search in Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 16. 347–385.10.1023/A:1005916004600Search in Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1891. A new English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003a. Meaning and context. In Thomas Berg, René Dirven, Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden, 27–47. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.243.06taySearch in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003b. Cognitive grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4). 523–557.10.1515/COG.2007.027Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Saundra & Beth Levin. 2000. Unspecified object contexts with activity and change of state verbs. Paper presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, 6–10 January.Search in Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2007. A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics 39(5). 990–1028.10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.014Search in Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2010. Count-mass coercion, and the perspective of time and variation. Constructions and Frames 2(1). 33–73.10.1075/cf.2.1.02zieSearch in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
