Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.644
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.878

CiteScore 2017: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.418
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.386

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 53, Issue 6


A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs

María Sandra Peña Cervel
  • Corresponding author
  • Departamento de Filologías Modernas, University of La Rioja, c/San José de Calasanz 33, Edificio de Filología, 26004 Logroño (La Rioja), Spain
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-10-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0032


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.

Keywords: causative frighten verbs; high-level metaphor; high-level metonymy


  • 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.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.

  • 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.

  • 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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Hans C. 2011a. Coercion and leaking argument structures in construction grammar. Linguistics 49(6). 1271–1303.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Bod, Rens. 2009. Constructions at work or at rest? Cognitive Linguistics 20(1). 129–134.Google Scholar

  • Cortés, Francisco J. 2007. The English constructicon. University of La Laguna, Unpublished manuscript.

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Cortés, Francisco J. & Ricardo Mairal. 2013. Constraints on English middle structures: A lexical-constructional analysis. Onomázein 27. 221–239.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Díez, Olga I. 2002. Body part metonymies in action and perception frames: A cognitive analysis. EPOS XVIII. 309–323.Google Scholar

  • Díez, Olga I. 2005. A cognitive analysis of body part metonymies: Taxonomic, constructional, and interactional aspects. Logroño: University of La Rioja dissertation.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.Google Scholar

  • Dirven, René. 1993. Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. Leuvense bijdragen 82. 1–25.Google Scholar

  • Faber, Pamela & Ricardo Mairal. 1999. Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Fellbaum, Christiane. 1986. On the middle construction in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Gatto, Maristella. 2014. Web as corpus: Theory and practice. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

  • Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka. 2014. Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 131–153.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3). 532–568.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Grady, Joseph. 1997. Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–243.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Education.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.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).Google Scholar

  • Iwata, Seize. 2008. Locative alternation. A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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).

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, Mark & George Lakoff. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, Mark & George Lakoff. 2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics 13(3). 245–263.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.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.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.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).

  • Kövecses, Zoltán & Günter Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9. 37–77.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.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 236–287.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Cognitive (construction) grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1). 167–176.Google Scholar

  • Lauwers, Peter & Dominique Willems. 2011. Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49(6). 1219–1235.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).

  • Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.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.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Michaelis, Laura A. 2004a. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1). 1– 67.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.

  • Michaelis, Laura A. 2011. Stative by construction. Linguistics 49(6). 1359–1399.Google Scholar

  • Moens, Marc & Mark Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2). 15–28.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.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.Google Scholar

  • van Oosten, Jeanne. 1986. The nature of subjects, topics, and agents: A cognitive explanation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

  • Östman, Jan-Ola & Mirjam Fried (eds.). 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive groundings and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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.Google Scholar

  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 2003. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Peña, María Sandra. 2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences 31(6). 740–765.Google Scholar

  • Pérez, Lorena & María Sandra Peña. 2009. Pragmatic and cognitive constraints on lexical-constructional subsumption. Atlantis 31(2). 57–73.Google Scholar

  • Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior. Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 712–738.Google Scholar

  • Pylkkänen, Liina & Brian McElree. 2007. An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19. 1905–1921.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Rice, Sally. 1988. Unlikely lexical entries. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 202–212.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.Google Scholar

  • Rosch, Eleanor. 1977. Human categorization. In Neil Warren (ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology, vol. 1, 1–49. London: Academic Press.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.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.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Alicia Galera. 2014. Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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.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.

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Ricardo Mairal. 2007b. Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlíngüística 17. 26–47.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Lorena Pérez. 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and communication 21. 321–357.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995 [1986]. Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.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

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 1–43.Google Scholar

  • Suttle, Laura & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics 49(6). 1237–1269.Google Scholar

  • de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 16. 347–385.Google Scholar

  • Sweet, Henry. 1891. A new English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, John R. 2003b. Cognitive grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.

  • Ziegeler, Debra. 2007. A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics 39(5). 990–1028.Google Scholar

  • Ziegeler, Debra. 2010. Count-mass coercion, and the perspective of time and variation. Constructions and Frames 2(1). 33–73.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-10-27

Published in Print: 2015-11-01

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.

Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 53, Issue 6, Pages 1247–1302, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0032.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2017, Volume 15, Number 1, Page 183

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in