Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics
Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics
What’s Frame Semantic Information good for in CxG? • It helps us with figuring out what types of constructions can “fuse” (“unify”) with what types of verbs • Frame-semantic information is crucial in determining whether a verb’s basic semantics is compatible with the semantics of a (Goldbergtype) construction • “Can the verb be construed as an instance of construction X?” 44
Interaction between constructions and verbs: Caused-motion construction in Goldberg (1995) A verb's argument structure may be expanded by an independently existing meaningful construction (certain constraints apply to restrict productivity. (5) Basic lexical entry of sneeze: < sneezer > (6) Caused-Motion Construction (Goldberg 1995: 162) (7) a. Frank sneezed. (intransitive Cx) b. Frank sneezed the tissue off the table. (caused-motion Cx) 45
- Page 1 and 2: Expanding Construction Grammar and
- Page 3 and 4: Chomsky’s Principles and Paramete
- Page 5 and 6: Chomsky’s Principles and Paramete
- Page 7 and 8: Chomsky (1981) (c) Organization of
- Page 9 and 10: • Movement is “structure preser
- Page 11 and 12: Minimalism • Lexicon • Operatio
- Page 13 and 14: Differences between frameworks Chom
- Page 15 and 16: Symbolic link between form and func
- Page 17 and 18: Another difference Although most of
- Page 19 and 20: Uniform representation of all gramm
- Page 21 and 22: wanna-contraction (Boas 2004) 21
- Page 24 and 25: All levels of grammatical analysis
- Page 26 and 27: Organization of constructional know
- Page 28 and 29: Taxonomic relations allow us to dis
- Page 30 and 31: Combination of different constructi
- Page 32 and 33: Interaction between constructions a
- Page 34 and 35: Frame Semantics •A “frame” is
- Page 36 and 37: Sample Event Frame: Commercial Tran
- Page 38 and 39: Different Perspectives Lexical Unit
- Page 40 and 41: Frame Description 40
- Page 42 and 43: Lexical Entry Report 42
- Page 46 and 47: Polysemy at different levels: argum
- Page 48 and 49: Constructional Polysemy of Caused M
- Page 50 and 51: Distribution of AHTY (class I verbs
- Page 52 and 53: Can we analyze AHTY as a sub- type
- Page 54 and 55: Verb classes • But not all of Lev
- Page 56 and 57: The AHTY Construction (decoding) 56
- Page 58 and 59: Proposal • Conventionalized meani
- Page 60 and 61: Mini-constructions: distribution of
- Page 62 and 63: Mini-constructions capture item-spe
- Page 64 and 65: Joe knocked a hole through the wall
- Page 66 and 67: Partial Productivity - Constraint 1
- Page 68 and 69: Constraint 3 • Physical propertie
- Page 70 and 71: Narrow scope of application / Produ
- Page 72 and 73: Fillmore et al. (1988): [the X-er t
- Page 74 and 75: Construction Grammar(s) • Constru
- Page 76 and 77: Different constructionist approache
- Page 78 and 79: syntax, semantics, phonology 78
- Page 80: Give-construction (Kay & Fillmore 1
What’s <strong>Frame</strong> Semantic<br />
Information good for in CxG?<br />
• It helps us with figuring out what types of<br />
constructions can “fuse” (“unify”) with what types<br />
of verbs<br />
• <strong>Frame</strong>-semantic information is crucial in<br />
determining whether a verb’s basic semantics is<br />
compatible with the semantics of a (Goldbergtype)<br />
construction<br />
• “Can the verb be construed as an instance of<br />
construction X?”<br />
44
Change language