

Grammar


Tenses


Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous


Past

Past Simple

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous


Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous


Parts Of Speech


Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Animate and Inanimate nouns

Nouns


Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Verbs


Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adverbs


Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective


Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pronouns


Pre Position


Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition


Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

prepositions


Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

conjunctions


Interjections

Express calling interjection

Phrases

Sentences

Clauses

Part of Speech


Grammar Rules

Passive and Active

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Demonstratives

Determiners

Direct and Indirect speech


Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Semiotics


Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced


Teaching Methods

Teaching Strategies

Assessment
Advantages of a constructional approach to verb argument structure
المؤلف:
Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green
المصدر:
Cognitive Linguistics an Introduction
الجزء والصفحة:
C20-P669
2026-03-10
47
Advantages of a constructional approach to verb argument structure
Goldberg argues that there are a number of advantages to adopting a constructional approach to verb argument structure.
Avoids implausible verb senses
Firstly, the constructional approach avoids the necessity of positing several dis tinct senses for one verb (which is necessary in a lexically driven model), in order to account for all the constructions it can appear in; some of these might be implausible senses. Consider the examples in (3).
The verb sneeze is a prototypical intransitive verb (3a). That is, it normally occurs with a single argument: the subject (Lily). Despite this fact, sneeze can occur in a syntactic construction like (3b), which can be represented as XCAUSES Y TO MOVE Z BY SNEEZING:[X Lily] causes [Y the birthday cards] to move [Z off the mantelpiece] by sneezing. As Goldberg points out, if we assume that this ‘cause to move by sneezing’ sense is a property of the verb itself, then we might expect to find a language (or languages) somewhere in the world with a lexical item specialised for this meaning, yet the existence of a verb sense of this kind is not attested.
Avoids circularity
Secondly, Goldberg argues that a constructional account has the advantage of avoiding circularity. If we assume that verbs are ‘in charge’ of everything that happens in a sentence – for example, how many participants are required and in what order – we are forced to posit as many senses for a verb as there are constructions in which that verb can occur:
Goldberg argues that if the properties of the constructions in which a verb can occur are seen as the properties of the construction itself rather than proper ties determined by the verb, this problem is avoided.
Semantic parsimony
The third advantage that Goldberg claims for a constructional approach is that it enables semantic parsimony. In other words, if the range of constructions in which a verb can occur – as well as the subtle differences in meaning associated with different possibilities – can be accounted for directly in relation to the construction itself rather than by positing long lists of senses for individual verbs, the resulting explanation is more economical. For example, because the verb kick can appear in the eight different verb argument constructions illustrated in (4), a lexically driven approach would be forced to posit eight different senses or lexical entries for this verb.
In contrast, a constructional approach places the burden of explanation on the syntactic construction itself rather than on the verb.
Compositionality
The fourth advantage claimed by Goldberg is that a constructional account preserves compositionality, albeit in a weakened form. In other words, while all linguists would agree that words contribute to the meaning of sentences, there is considerable disagreement about what and how much they contribute. As we have seen, in a lexically driven approach, words (particularly verbs) are assumed to contribute not only their content meaning, but also their ‘requirements’ concerning the syntactic structure of the sentence. In a constructional approach, Goldberg argues, the problems inherent in a lexically driven approach can be avoided while preserving the point of agreement: words do contribute meaning to sentences, but not all the meaning. Put another way, sentence-level constructions have their own conventional schematic meaning independent of the verbs and other lexical items that are embedded in them. These sentence-level constructions represent symbolic units in their own right, much like the formal idioms discussed in the previous chapter, which can be lexically filled in a number of ways. In the next section, we will set out in more detail how this set of claims is substantiated in Goldberg’s theory.
الاكثر قراءة في Linguistics fields
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
الآخبار الصحية

قسم الشؤون الفكرية يصدر كتاباً يوثق تاريخ السدانة في العتبة العباسية المقدسة
"المهمة".. إصدار قصصي يوثّق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة فتوى الدفاع المقدسة للقصة القصيرة
(نوافذ).. إصدار أدبي يوثق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة الإمام العسكري (عليه السلام)