Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics
Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics
Can we analyze AHTY as a sub- type of caused-motion Cx? C is a CONSTRUCTION iff def C is a formmeaning pair such that some aspect of F i or some aspect of S i is not strictly predictable from C’s component parts or from other previously established constructions. (Goldberg 1995: 4) ‘X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z by V-ing’ [NP V NP PP] 52
Verb classes • Class II verbs share a common meaning with “verbs of creation and transformation” • Levin 1993: These verbs take “as one argument an agent that creates or transforms an entity.” They take “what are called ‘effected objects’ – objects brought into existence as a result of the action named by the verb.” 53
- 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 44 and 45: What’s Frame Semantic Information
- 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 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
Can we analyze AHTY as a sub-<br />
type of caused-motion Cx?<br />
C is a CONSTRUCTION iff def C is a formmeaning<br />
pair such that some<br />
aspect of F i or some aspect of S i is not<br />
strictly predictable from C’s component<br />
parts or from other previously established<br />
constructions. (Goldberg 1995: 4)<br />
‘X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z by V-ing’<br />
[NP V NP PP]<br />
52
Change language