Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-zc66z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-11T05:16:05.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Constructional Syntax

from Part I - The Constructional View of Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Hans C. Boas
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents an overview of some of the central concepts of constructional syntax. Focusing on key insights from Berkeley Construction Grammar and Cognitive Construction Grammar, it discusses how construction entries of different types from the inventory of constructions interact with each other to license constructs. This chapter also outlines a novel methodology for discovering constructions in a corpus that allows for a systematic way of compiling construction entries that are relevant for research in Construction Grammar and constructicography.

Keywords

Construction GrammarFrame Semanticssyntaxargumentstructure constructionsword order constructionsconstructicography
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 44 - 70
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, W., ed. (1978a). Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, W. (1978b). Valence and case: Remarks on their contribution to the identification of grammatical relations. In Abraham, W., ed., Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 695–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, F. & Webelhuth, G. (1998). A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Cronin, B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. In COLING-ACL ’98: Proceedings of the Conference. Montreal, pp. 86–90. https://doi.org/10.3115/980845.980860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, W. (2008). Precategoriality and argument structure in Late Archaic Chinese. In Leino, J., ed., Constructional Reorganization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 55–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2004). You wanna consider a constructional approach to wanna-contraction? In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S., eds., Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 479–491.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., ed. (2009). Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography. Methods and Applications. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., ed. (2010a). Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2010b). Comparing constructions across languages. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2010c). The syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2011a). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2011b). Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In Engelberg, S., Holler, A., & Proost, K., eds., Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2017). Computational resources: FrameNet and constructicon. In Dancygier, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2019). Zur methodologischen Grundlage der empirischen Konstruktikographie. In Czicza, D., Dekalo, V., & Diewald, G., eds., Konstruktionsgrammatik VI. Varianz in der konstruktionalen Schematizität. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 237–263.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2020). Constructions in English grammar. In Aarts, B., McMahon, A., & Hinrichs, L., eds., The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley, pp. 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2021). Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. In Wen, X. & Taylor, R. J., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, pp. 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Dux, R. (2017). From the past into the present: From case frames to semantic frames. Linguistics Vanguard, 3, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 35(1), 15–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A. (2018a). Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective. In Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A., eds., Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A. (2018b). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 183–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A. (2022). Debunking some myths about the role and relevance of (restricted) semantic role sets: Some thoughts on Ágel & Höllein 2021. In Gallez, F. & Hermann, M., eds., Cognition and Contrast. Festschrift for Sabine De Knop. Brussels: Saint-Louis University Press, pp. 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouveret, M. & Legallois, D., eds. (2012). Constructions in French. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, P. G. (1972). Review of Stockwell, Schachter & Hall Partee (1968), Integration of transformational theories on English syntax. Language, 48, 645–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Government and Binding Theory. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. (2010). Revising Talmy’s typolological classification of complex event constructions. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dux, R. (2020). Frame-Constructional Verb Classes. Change and Theft Verbs in English and German. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, P. (2006). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik, Band 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Eroms, W. (1986). Funktionale Satzperspektive. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977a). Topics in lexical semantics. In Cole, R. W., ed., Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 76–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). The case for case reopened. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985a). Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Niepokuj, M. et al., eds., Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: BLS, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985b). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, (6)2, 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 35–55. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Webelhuth, G., Koenig, J.-P., & Kathol, A., eds., Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2003). Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. I: Papers on Semantic Roles. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame Semantics. In Geeraerts, D., ed., Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 49–68.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–132.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2020). Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. II, ed. by Gras, P., Östman, J.-O. & Verschueren, J.. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Baker, C. F. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 313–340.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar Course Book. Manuscript. University of California at Berkeley: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhodes, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 309–372.Google Scholar
Fox, A. (1990). The Structure of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (2004). Predicate semantics and event construal in Czech case marking. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. A. (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–31.Google Scholar
Gonzalvez-Garcia, F. (2010). Contrasting constructions in English and Spanish: The influence of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 43–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurevich, O. (2010). Conditional constructions in English and Russian. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R., Ohara, K. H., Fujii, S., & Fillmore, C. J. (2010). On expressing measurement and comparison in English and Japanese. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. (1982). Über Komposition und Derivation: zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 1(1), 76–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. (1986). Der Begriff “Mittelfeld,” Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In Weiss, W., Wiegand, H. E., & Reis, M., eds., Akten des VII. Kongresses der Internationalen Vereinigung für germanische Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften. Göttingen 1985, vol. 3. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 329–340.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Construction Grammar: Introduction. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Iwata, S. (2005). The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Tyers, F. M. (2018). A constructicon for Russian. Filling the gaps. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1992). An On-Line Computational Model of Human Sentence Interpretation: A Theory of the Representation and Use of Linguistic Knowledge. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathol, A. (2000). Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2005). Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 32–48.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J.-B. & Michaelis, L. A. (2020). Syntactic Constructions in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klotz, M. (2000). Grammatik und Lexik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. & Lemoine, K. (2005). Definite null objects in (spoken) French: A Construction-Grammar account. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 13–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasch, A. (2016). Nonagentive Konstruktionen des Deutschen. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leino, J. (2010). Results, cases, and constructions: Argument structure constructions in English and Finnish. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 103–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leino, J. & Östman, J.-O. (2008). Language change, variability, and functional load: Finnish genericity from a constructional point of view. In Leino, J., ed., Constructional Reorganization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenerz, J. (1977). Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tuebingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R. (2018a). Constructicography at work: Theory meets practice in the Swedish constructicon. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 41–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T., eds. (2018b). Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., Goria, E., & Fiorentini, I. (2019). Non-exhaustive lists in spoken language. A construction grammatical perspective. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 290–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–152.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(1), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond Alternations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2006). Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language, 82(4), 850–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemoto, N. (2005). Verbal polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, N., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. K. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohara, K. (2018). Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 142–163.Google Scholar
Petruck, M. R. L. (1996). Frame Semantics. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O., Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Potts, T. C. (1978). Case-grammar as componential analysis. In Abraham, W., ed., Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 399–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reis, M. (1985). Wer glaubst Du hat recht? On the so-called extractions from verb-second clauses and verb-first parenthetical constructions in German. Sprache und Pragmatik, 36, 27–83.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2010). English filler-gap constructions. Language, 86(3), 486–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 69–201.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Boas, H. C., & Kay, P. (2012). Introducing Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Somers, H. L. (1987). Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R., Schachter, P., & Partee, B. (1973). The Major Syntactic Structures of English. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1959). Les éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Timyam, N. & Bergen, B. K. (2010). A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Trijp, R. (2013). A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 88–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G. (1992). Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G. (2012). The distribution of that-clauses in English: An SBCG account. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 203–228.Google Scholar
Wöllstein-Leisten, A., Heilmann, A., Stepan, P., & Vikner, S. (1997). Deutsche Satzstruktur. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Ziem, A. (2008). Frames und sprachliches Wissen. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ziem, A., Boas, H. C., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2014). Grammatische Konstruktionen und semantische Frames für die Textanalyse. In Hagemann, J. & Staffeldt, S., eds., Syntaxtheorien. Analysen im Vergleich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 297–333.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×