In English, sequences consisting of the verb have, a noun phrase and a past participle vary in meaning. This meaning variation has been discussed both in the context of grammatical description and language change, mostly based on a handful of examples. This study seeks to combine theoretical and methodological approaches from construction grammar and interactional linguistics in the description of this meaning variation. Theoretically, this implies distinguishing between abstracted meaning potential and situated meaning of linguistic elements. Methodologically, this means taking both a coarse-grained view by means of a quantitative corpus-based approach that abstracts over a number of instances and a fine-grained view by means of qualitative analysis of talk-in-interaction.
{"title":"She has a stadium named after her","authors":"Berit Johannsen","doi":"10.1075/cf.00057.joh","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00057.joh","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In English, sequences consisting of the verb have, a noun phrase and a past participle vary in meaning. This meaning variation has been discussed both in the context of grammatical description and language change, mostly based on a handful of examples. This study seeks to combine theoretical and methodological approaches from construction grammar and interactional linguistics in the description of this meaning variation. Theoretically, this implies distinguishing between abstracted meaning potential and situated meaning of linguistic elements. Methodologically, this means taking both a coarse-grained view by means of a quantitative corpus-based approach that abstracts over a number of instances and a fine-grained view by means of qualitative analysis of talk-in-interaction.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48441856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper presents the results of a diachronic study of the light verb constructions containing the German verb kommen ‘come’ accompanied by a prepositional phrase containing a deverbal noun and the preposition zu ‘to’. The analysis is based on the corpus data from the DTA (DeutschesTextarchiv) between 1600 and 1900. The aim of the paper is to integrate traditional grammatical descriptions of Funktionsverbgefüge with grammaticalization and lexicalization approaches as well as with more recent usage-based constructionist approaches. In doing so, the view of composite predicates as more or less grammaticalized or more or less lexicalized constructions will be challenged by offering empirical evidence in favor of a more diversified account. It will be argued that it is often a matter of the methodological perspective as to which particular status is assigned to a structure under investigation.
{"title":"Verbo-Nominal Constructions with kommen ‘come’ in German","authors":"E. Smirnova, Vanessa Stöber","doi":"10.1075/cf.00060.smi","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00060.smi","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The paper presents the results of a diachronic study of the light verb constructions containing the German verb kommen ‘come’ accompanied by a prepositional phrase containing a deverbal noun and the preposition zu ‘to’. The analysis is based on the corpus data from the DTA (DeutschesTextarchiv) between 1600 and 1900. The aim of the paper is to integrate traditional grammatical descriptions of Funktionsverbgefüge with grammaticalization and lexicalization approaches as well as with more recent usage-based constructionist approaches. In doing so, the view of composite predicates as more or less grammaticalized or more or less lexicalized constructions will be challenged by offering empirical evidence in favor of a more diversified account. It will be argued that it is often a matter of the methodological perspective as to which particular status is assigned to a structure under investigation.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46685742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper deals with different types of verbal complementation of the German verb verdienen. It focuses on constructions that have been undergoing a grammaticalization process and thus express deontic modality, as in Sie verdient geliebt zu werden (ʽShe deserves to be lovedʼ) and Sie verdient zu leben (ʽShe deserves to liveʼ) (Diewald, Dekalo & Czicza 2021). These constructions are connected to parallel complementation types with passive and active infinitives containing a correlate es, as in Sie verdient es, geliebt zu werden and Sie verdient es, zu leben, as well as finite clauses with the subordinator dass with and without correlative es, as in Sie verdient, dass sie geliebt wird and Sie verdient es, dass sie geliebt wird. This paper attempts to show a close comparative investigation of these six types of constructions based on their relevant semantic and syntactic properties in terms of clause linkage (Lehmann 1988). We analyze the relevant data retrieved from the DWDS corpus of the 20th century and present an expanded grammaticalization path for verdienen-constructions. The finite complementation with dass is regarded as an example of a separate structural option called “elaboration”. Concerning the use of correlative es, it is shown that it does not have any substantial effect on the grammaticalization of modal verdienen-constructions.
本文研究了德语动词verdienen的不同类型的动词补语。它关注的是经过语法化过程的结构，从而表达道义模态，如Sie verdient geliebt zu werden（她值得被爱）和Sie verdeent zu leben（她值得活着）（Diewald，Dekalo&Czicza 2021）。这些结构与包含相关es的被动和主动不定式的平行互补类型有关，如在Sie verdient es、geliebt zu werden和Sie verdeent es、zu leben中，以及带有和不带有相关es的从属词dass的有限从句，如在Sie verdient、dass Sie geliebt wird和Sie verdient es、dass si geliebt wird中。本文试图根据这六种结构在从句连接方面的相关语义和句法特性，对它们进行仔细的比较研究（Lehmann 1988）。我们分析了从20世纪的DWDS语料库中检索到的相关数据，并提出了一条扩展的动词结构语法化路径。与dass的有限互补被视为一个单独的结构选项“精化”的例子。关于相关es的使用，研究表明，它对情态动词结构的语法化没有任何实质性影响。
{"title":"Clause linkage and degrees of grammaticalization","authors":"G. Diewald, Dániel Czicza, Volodymyr Dekalo","doi":"10.1075/cf.00061.czi","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00061.czi","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper deals with different types of verbal complementation of the German verb verdienen. It focuses on constructions that have been undergoing a grammaticalization process and thus express deontic modality, as in Sie verdient geliebt zu werden (ʽShe deserves to be lovedʼ) and Sie verdient zu leben (ʽShe deserves to liveʼ) (Diewald, Dekalo & Czicza 2021). These constructions are connected to parallel complementation types with passive and active infinitives containing a correlate es, as in Sie verdient es, geliebt zu werden and Sie verdient es, zu leben, as well as finite clauses with the subordinator dass with and without correlative es, as in Sie verdient, dass sie geliebt wird and Sie verdient es, dass sie geliebt wird. This paper attempts to show a close comparative investigation of these six types of constructions based on their relevant semantic and syntactic properties in terms of clause linkage (Lehmann 1988). We analyze the relevant data retrieved from the DWDS corpus of the 20th century and present an expanded grammaticalization path for verdienen-constructions. The finite complementation with dass is regarded as an example of a separate structural option called “elaboration”. Concerning the use of correlative es, it is shown that it does not have any substantial effect on the grammaticalization of modal verdienen-constructions.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44582025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As in many other Germanic languages, Modern Danish combines the verb få ‘get’ and a semantic main verb in the supine form (the uninflected perfect participle). Three main types of the construction are found: an agentive type typically interpreted as expressing successful intentional action and two non-agentive types: one with a ditransitive main verb and promotion of the indirect object to subject status, and one with a non-valency-bound subject typically interpreted as a Beneficiary. Based on a functional framework, the paper presents a corpus study of the construction and an analysis unifying all three main types in a common Affactive Construction whose functional contribution is the specification of the subject as an Afficiary (Beneficiary or Maleficiary). The distinction between agentive and non-agentive interpretation is analysed as a voice distinction between active and passive.
{"title":"The affactive få ‘get’ construction in Danish","authors":"P. Nielsen","doi":"10.1075/cf.00059.nie","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00059.nie","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000As in many other Germanic languages, Modern Danish combines the verb få ‘get’ and a semantic main verb in the supine form (the uninflected perfect participle). Three main types of the construction are found: an agentive type typically interpreted as expressing successful intentional action and two non-agentive types: one with a ditransitive main verb and promotion of the indirect object to subject status, and one with a non-valency-bound subject typically interpreted as a Beneficiary. Based on a functional framework, the paper presents a corpus study of the construction and an analysis unifying all three main types in a common Affactive Construction whose functional contribution is the specification of the subject as an Afficiary (Beneficiary or Maleficiary). The distinction between agentive and non-agentive interpretation is analysed as a voice distinction between active and passive.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47467364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Starting from the term “family of constructions”, the present article investigates lexical and syntactic variation in a subtype of German concessive conditionals which is marked by was (‘what’) in combination with expressions of irrelevance like egal (‘no matter’). 12,894 examples from the DeReKo corpus (Deutsches Referenzkorpus) are analysed manually for seven variables. Both the quantitative and the qualitative results suggest that combinations of was with an expression of irrelevance, or “[IRR was]” for short, form part of a recently entrenched constructional schema [IRR w-] of concessive-conditional subordinators which are emerging into the family of concessive-conditional constructions in present-day German.
{"title":"Emerging into your family of constructions","authors":"F. V. Haegen, T. Bossuyt, T. Leuschner","doi":"10.1075/cf.00058.hae","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00058.hae","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Starting from the term “family of constructions”, the present article investigates lexical and syntactic variation\u0000 in a subtype of German concessive conditionals which is marked by was (‘what’) in combination with expressions of\u0000 irrelevance like egal (‘no matter’). 12,894 examples from the DeReKo corpus (Deutsches\u0000 Referenzkorpus) are analysed manually for seven variables. Both the quantitative and the qualitative results suggest\u0000 that combinations of was with an expression of irrelevance, or “[IRR was]” for short, form part\u0000 of a recently entrenched constructional schema [IRR w-] of concessive-conditional subordinators which are\u0000 emerging into the family of concessive-conditional constructions in present-day German.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46782608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper contributes to the study of grammaticalization phenomena from the perspective of Construction Grammar (Coussé et al. 2018). It is concerned with modal uses of the English verb get that express a permitted action, as in The prisoners always get to make one phone call. Different views exist on the contexts in which permissive get emerged. Gronemeyer (1999: 30) suggests that the permissive meaning derives from causative uses (I got him to confess). An alternative is proposed by van der Auwera et al. (2009: 283), who view permissive get as an extension of its acquisitive meaning (I got a present). We revisit these claims in the light of recent historical data from American English. Specifically, we searched the COHA (Davies 2010) for forms of get followed by to and a verb in the infinitive. Besides examples of permissive get, we retrieved examples of obligative got to (I got to leave), causative get (Who did you get to confess?), possessive got (What have I got to be ashamed of?), and a category that we label inchoative get (You’re getting to be a big girl now). Drawing on distributional semantic techniques (Perek 2016, 2018), we analyse how permissive get and inchoative get developed semantically over time. Our results are consistent with an account that represents an alternative to both Gronemeyer (1999) and van der Auwera et al. (2009), namely the idea that permissive get evolved out of inchoative uses that invited the idea of a permission.
本文从构式语法的角度对语法化现象进行了研究(coussise et al. 2018)。它与英语动词get表达允许的动作的情态用法有关，如囚犯总是可以打一个电话。关于permissive出现的语境，存在着不同的观点。Gronemeyer(1999: 30)认为允许的含义来源于使然用法(我让他承认了)。van der Auwera等人(2009: 283)提出了另一种选择，他们认为permissive get是其获取意义(I got a present)的延伸。我们根据美国英语最近的历史数据来重新审视这些说法。具体来说，我们搜索了COHA (Davies 2010)中get后跟to和动词不定式的形式。除了宽容型get的例子，我们还检索了义务型get(我要离开)、使使型get(你要向谁忏悔?)、所有格型get(我有什么可羞愧的?)和我们称之为“早熟型get”的类别(你现在要成为一个大女孩了)。利用分布式语义技术(Perek 2016, 2018)，我们分析了随着时间的推移，允许获取和创新获取在语义上是如何发展的。我们的研究结果与Gronemeyer(1999)和van der Auwera et al.(2009)的另一种说法是一致的，即permissive是从邀请许可概念的初始使用演变而来的。
{"title":"You don’t get to see that every day","authors":"M. Hilpert, Florent Perek","doi":"10.1075/cf.00056.hil","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00056.hil","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper contributes to the study of grammaticalization phenomena from the perspective of Construction Grammar\u0000 (Coussé et al. 2018). It is concerned with modal uses of the English verb\u0000 get that express a permitted action, as in The prisoners always get to make one phone call.\u0000 Different views exist on the contexts in which permissive get emerged. Gronemeyer (1999: 30) suggests that the permissive meaning derives from causative uses (I got him to\u0000 confess). An alternative is proposed by van der Auwera et al. (2009: 283),\u0000 who view permissive get as an extension of its acquisitive meaning (I got a present). We revisit\u0000 these claims in the light of recent historical data from American English. Specifically, we searched the COHA (Davies 2010) for forms of get followed by to and a verb\u0000 in the infinitive. Besides examples of permissive get, we retrieved examples of obligative got\u0000 to (I got to leave), causative get (Who did you get to confess?),\u0000 possessive got (What have I got to be ashamed of?), and a category that we label inchoative\u0000 get (You’re getting to be a big girl now). Drawing on distributional semantic techniques\u0000 (Perek 2016, 2018), we analyse how\u0000 permissive get and inchoative get developed semantically over time. Our results are consistent\u0000 with an account that represents an alternative to both Gronemeyer (1999) and van der Auwera et al. (2009), namely the idea that permissive get\u0000 evolved out of inchoative uses that invited the idea of a permission.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41559165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the wealth of literature on English resultatives, there still remain a number of issues that have not been squarely addressed. This paper addresses two of them through a case study of resultatives based on wipe. First, while the existence of resultatives with objects not selected by verbs is well-known in the literature (e.g., wipe the crumbs off the table/*wipe the crumbs), few studies have addressed the issue of exactly which entities may appear as non-selected objects. Second, there are resultatives whose form is to be analyzed as a mixture of the verb’s lexically-specified syntactic frame and the syntactic frame of resultatives (e.g. wipe the blade clean on his skin coat), but such resultatives have been neglected in previous studies. In order to find an answer to the first issue, this paper adopts a force-recipient account, according to which the post-verbal NP of a resultative is a force-recipient (cf. Croft 1990, 1991, 1998, 2012). It is shown that non-selected objects like crumbs are indeed force-recipients in a conceptual scene. As for the second issue, such resultatives can be accommodated by means of a constructional analysis which holds that verbs contribute the semantics of the resulting expression, and that argument structure constructions simply enable the verb meaning to take its form. Together, these findings indicate that verbs play a far more important role than argument structure constructions in effecting the syntax and semantics of the resulting expression.
尽管关于英语结果体的文献非常丰富，但仍有许多问题没有得到明确的解决。本文通过一个基于wipe的结果式的案例研究来解决其中的两个问题。首先，虽然在文献中，结果语与非动词选择对象的存在是众所周知的(例如，wipe the crumbs off the table/*wipe the crumbs)，但很少有研究解决哪些实体可能作为非选择对象出现的问题。第二，有一种结果式，其形式是动词词汇规定的句法框架和结果式句法框架(如wipe the blade clean on his skin coat)的混合，但这种结果式在以往的研究中被忽略了。为了找到第一个问题的答案，本文采用了力接受者解释，根据该解释，结果句的动后NP是力接受者(cf. Croft 1990, 1991, 1998, 2012)。结果表明，在概念场景中，像面包屑这样的非选择对象确实是力的接受者。至于第二个问题，这样的结果式可以通过结构分析来解决，结构分析认为动词提供了结果表达的语义，而论点结构结构只是使动词的意义具有其形式。综上所述，这些发现表明，在影响最终表达的语法和语义方面，动词比论点结构结构起着更重要的作用。
{"title":"Another look at the interaction between verbs and constructions","authors":"Seizi Iwata","doi":"10.1075/cf.21006.iwa","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.21006.iwa","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Despite the wealth of literature on English resultatives, there still remain a number of issues that have not been\u0000 squarely addressed. This paper addresses two of them through a case study of resultatives based on wipe. First,\u0000 while the existence of resultatives with objects not selected by verbs is well-known in the literature (e.g., wipe the\u0000 crumbs off the table/*wipe the crumbs), few studies have addressed the issue of exactly which entities may appear as\u0000 non-selected objects. Second, there are resultatives whose form is to be analyzed as a mixture of the verb’s lexically-specified\u0000 syntactic frame and the syntactic frame of resultatives (e.g. wipe the blade clean on his skin coat), but such\u0000 resultatives have been neglected in previous studies.\u0000 In order to find an answer to the first issue, this paper adopts a force-recipient account, according to which the\u0000 post-verbal NP of a resultative is a force-recipient (cf. Croft 1990, 1991, 1998, 2012). It is shown that non-selected objects like crumbs are indeed force-recipients in\u0000 a conceptual scene. As for the second issue, such resultatives can be accommodated by means of a constructional analysis which\u0000 holds that verbs contribute the semantics of the resulting expression, and that argument structure constructions simply enable the\u0000 verb meaning to take its form. Together, these findings indicate that verbs play a far more important role than argument structure\u0000 constructions in effecting the syntax and semantics of the resulting expression.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43312592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The linguistic treatment of verbal irony1 has more often than not focused on novel, ad hoc ironies. Research in the last decade, however, suggests that there is a considerable number of utterances that are either schematic or lexically filled and interpreted as ironic by convention. By analyzing three of these, i.e. Tell me about it, XP pro BE not (A Michelangelo he is not) and stand-alone insubordinate as if (As if anyone could pronounce that), the present paper will show that these expressions are best analyzed as constructions (Goldberg 1995, 2006). The paper will further show that the Viewpoint account of irony (Dancygier 2017; Tobin & Israel 2012) describes the data at hand most adequately.
对言语讽刺的语言学处理1往往侧重于新颖的、特别的讽刺。然而，过去十年的研究表明，有相当多的话语要么是示意性的，要么是词汇性的，并被惯例解释为讽刺。通过分析其中的三个，即Tell me about it，XP pro-BE not（他不是米开朗基罗）和standalone insubordinate if（好像任何人都可以这么说），本文将表明这些表达最好作为结构来分析（Goldberg 19952006）。该论文将进一步表明，观点对讽刺的描述（Dancygier 2017；Tobin和Israel 2012）最充分地描述了手头的数据。
{"title":"As if irony was in stock","authors":"Claudia Lehmann, Alexander T. Bergs","doi":"10.1075/cf.00053.leh","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00053.leh","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The linguistic treatment of verbal irony1 has more often than not focused on novel, ad hoc ironies. Research in the last decade, however, suggests that there is a considerable number of utterances that are either schematic or lexically filled and interpreted as ironic by convention. By analyzing three of these, i.e. Tell me about it, XP pro BE not (A Michelangelo he is not) and stand-alone insubordinate as if (As if anyone could pronounce that), the present paper will show that these expressions are best analyzed as constructions (Goldberg 1995, 2006). The paper will further show that the Viewpoint account of irony (Dancygier 2017; Tobin & Israel 2012) describes the data at hand most adequately.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48055114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Petruck (2018): MetaNet","authors":"Lucia Busso","doi":"10.1075/cf.00054.bus","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00054.bus","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49504695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Sommerer (2018): Article Emergence in Old English: A Constructionalist Perspective","authors":"William Standing","doi":"10.1075/cf.00055.sta","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00055.sta","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41743517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：