Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics
Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics
Different constructionist approaches 76
Notational differences (we’ve already seen Goldberg’s and Boas’ notations) • Fillmore et al’s “Unification Construction Grammar” - Uniform representation of all grammatical properties, formal and functional - Feature structures with features and values: [cat v], [gf – subj] 77
- 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 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 78 and 79: syntax, semantics, phonology 78
- Page 80: Give-construction (Kay & Fillmore 1
Different constructionist approaches<br />
76