Argument Structure Constructions #
CxG's argument structure constructions: explicit slot structure, full compositionality, polysemy families, and verb–construction fusion.
Fully abstract constructions without pragmatic functions are fully
compositional (isFullyCompositional); constructions with idiosyncratic
form–meaning pairings (let alone, WXDY, PAL) are irreducible phrasal
patterns that only CxG can capture. The decomposition of fully abstract constructions into
[Mul13]'s three universal combination schemata lives in
Studies/Mueller2013.lean (Mueller2013.decompose).
Construction slots and argument frames #
An argument structure construction: a Construction whose typed form
serves as the argument frame, enabling formal analysis of how the
construction relates to the three universal combination schemata.
The semanticContribution field captures which meaning components
([Lev93]) the construction adds independently of the verb
([Gol95]). When a verb fuses with a construction, the
composed meaning = verb.meaningComponents.fuse cxn.semanticContribution.
This is how constructions can license alternation behavior that verbs
lack in isolation — e.g., the resultative adds CoS + causation, enabling
the causative alternation for manner verbs ([Lev26]).
- construction : Construction
The underlying construction
- hasHead : (List.any self.construction.form fun (x : Slot String) => x.isHead) = true
At least one slot of the form should be the head
- semanticContribution : Semantics.Lexical.MeaningComponents
What meaning components this construction contributes independently of the verb. Defaults to
.none(no augmentation).
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
The argument frame: the underlying construction's typed form.
Equations
- asc.slots = asc.construction.form
Instances For
Concrete argument structure constructions #
Ditransitive construction: [Subj V Obj1 Obj2]. "X CAUSES Y to RECEIVE Z" (e.g., "She gave him a book").
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Caused-motion construction: [Subj V Obj Obl]. "X CAUSES Y to MOVE Z", Z a directional ("Pat sneezed the napkin off the table", p. 3). Contributes motion + causation: verbs that lexicalize neither (like sneeze) acquire both from the construction ([Gol95] p. 152–179).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Resultative construction: [Subj V Obj Pred]. "X CAUSES Y to BECOME Z" (e.g., "She hammered the metal flat"). Contributes CoS + causation: manner verbs that lexicalize neither acquire both from the construction ([RHL98]; [Lev26] §3). This is what enables the causative alternation for verbs like push that lack it in isolation.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Intransitive motion construction: [Subj V Obl]. "X MOVES to Y" (e.g., "The ball rolled down the hill").
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Conative construction: [Subj V Obl_at]. "X DIRECTS ACTION at Y" (e.g., "Sam kicked at Bill"). The verb designates the intended result of the directed action; the at-PP marks the target without entailing contact ([Gol95] p. 3–4, 63–64).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Full compositionality #
A construction is fully compositional if it has specificity fullyAbstract
and no construction-specific pragmatic function.
This is a proxy for [Mul13]'s structural criterion (whether the construction can be analyzed as a sequence of headed binary combinations). The proxy works because fully abstract constructions without pragmatic functions have no idiosyncratic form–meaning pairings that would resist decomposition into the three universal schemata. The Boolean approximates what [KM19] survey as a continuum of constructional meaning contributions.
Equations
Instances For
Core theorems #
Fully abstract constructions without pragmatic functions are fully compositional.
Polysemy families ([Gol95] §3.3.2, I_P links) #
A polysemy family groups constructions that share one syntactic frame
but differ in meaning. The shared form is enforced by construction —
all senses are generated from the same slots, making it impossible
for a polysemy extension to silently diverge in syntax.
A polysemy family: one argument frame, multiple meanings.
All constructions in a family share the same slots definitionally —
there is no way to create an extension with different syntax. The
polysemy links (I_P) are derived, not manually assembled.
- name : String
Name of the construction family
- slots : TypedForm String
The shared argument frame
At least one slot is the head
- centralMeaning : String
Central sense meaning
- extensions : List (String × String × List String)
Extended senses: (extension name, meaning, overridden properties)
Instances For
The central sense as an ArgStructureConstruction.
Equations
- f.centralConstruction = { construction := { name := f.name, form := f.slots, meaning := f.centralMeaning }, hasHead := ⋯ }
Instances For
Build an extension construction. Uses the family's slots — shared
by construction, not by assertion.
Equations
Instances For
All extension constructions.
Equations
- f.extensionConstructions = List.map f.extensionConstruction f.extensions
Instances For
All constructions (central + extensions).
Equations
Instances For
Derive polysemy links from the family structure.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Central construction uses the family's slots (definitionally true).
Every extension uses the family's slots (definitionally true). This is the structural enforcement: shared syntax is impossible to violate because it follows from the definition, not from a proof.
Ditransitive polysemy network ([Gol95] pp. 75–77) #
The ditransitive is not a single construction but a family of six related senses connected by polysemy links (I_P). Each sense inherits the ditransitive's syntactic form [Subj V Obj Obj₂] but differs in the semantic relation between the event participants.
The ditransitive polysemy family: six senses sharing one argument
frame ([Gol95] pp. 75–77; verb classes per Figure 2.2, p. 38).
The extension labels are the formalizer's — Goldberg numbers the senses
and calls the Intended extension "the benefactive construction" (Figure
3.2). Her warrant for the shared frame is exactly what PolysemyFamily
enforces definitionally: "The syntactic specifications of the central
sense are inherited by the extensions" (p. 75).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Derived polysemy links.
Equations
Instances For
Subpart link (I_S) from caused-motion to intransitive motion ([Gol95] p. 78, link annotated "I_S: cause"): the intransitive motion construction is a proper subpart of the caused-motion construction. The cause role is absent in the subpart, not overridden — I_S relates a proper subpart, so the override slot stays empty.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Metaphorical extension link (I_M) from caused-motion to resultative ([Gol95] pp. 81–84): the resultative is a metaphorical extension of caused-motion via the systematic metaphor motion → change, location → state.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The book's network as a constructicon #
[Gol95] draws no single master figure; the network below assembles the per-link analyses under the book's own framing of "the entire collection of constructions as forming a lattice, with individual constructions related by specific types of asymmetric normal mode inheritance links" (pp. 99–100): the ditransitive polysemy family (pp. 75–77), the caused-motion → intransitive-motion subpart link (p. 78), and the caused-motion → resultative metaphorical link (§3.4.1, the "Change of State as Change of Location" metaphor). The conative appears in the book's construction inventory (p. 4) but participates in no inheritance link — it is a node without edges, and linking it would be invention.
The ch. 2–3 constructional network.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Every link of the network resolves to a member construction.
The links, not hand-listed parents, determine the resultative's mother: the caused-motion construction, via the metaphorical link.
Every link a polysemy family derives is an I_P link — a fact about the construction, not about one table.
Verb–construction fusion #
[Gol95]'s central claim: argument structure constructions are independent form–meaning pairings. When a verb appears in a construction, its meaning fuses with the construction's meaning. The composed meaning can have properties neither has alone.
At the level of [Lev93] meaning components, fusion is componentwise OR: if either the verb or the construction contributes a component, the composed meaning has it. This simple mechanism derives construction-dependent alternation behavior ([Lev26]):
- push alone:
{−CoS, +contact, +motion, −causation}→ no causative alternation - push + resultative:
{+CoS, +contact, +motion, +causation}→ causative alternation predicted
The construction adds what the verb lacks; predictedAlternation on the
fused result gives the correct prediction without any new alternation logic.
The composed meaning of a verb in an argument structure construction. Verb root semantics fused with the construction's semantic contribution.
Equations
- ConstructionGrammar.composedMeaning verbMC cxn = verbMC.fuse cxn.semanticContribution
Instances For
Whether an alternation is predicted for a verb in a construction.
Generalizes MeaningComponents.predictedAlternation to construction contexts.
Equations
- ConstructionGrammar.predictedAlternationInConstruction verbMC cxn alt = (ConstructionGrammar.composedMeaning verbMC cxn).predictedAlternation alt
Instances For
Core theorems: constructions that don't augment #
Ditransitive contributes nothing beyond the verb (.none).
With no augmentation, the composed meaning equals the verb's own.
Core theorems: constructions that augment #
The resultative adds CoS + causation.
The caused-motion construction adds motion + causation.
Key derivation: construction-dependent alternation #
The payoff: predictedAlternation on fused components derives that manner
verbs participate in the causative alternation inside the resultative, even
though they cannot outside it. No new alternation logic is needed — the
existing component-based prediction (mc.changeOfState && mc.causation)
fires on the fused result.
A pure manner verb (no CoS, no causation) cannot alternate alone.
A pure manner verb in the resultative CAN alternate: the construction adds the CoS and causation the verb lacks.
Concrete instance: hit-class components + resultative → causative alternation.
Concrete instance: hit-class components alone → no causative alternation.
Multiple alternation flips from a single construction #
The key architectural insight: fusing a construction's components with a verb's components can flip multiple alternation predictions simultaneously. The resultative adds CoS + causation, which unlocks not just causativeInchoative but also middle, instrumentSubject, and the resultative alternation itself — all from the same mechanism, with no new alternation logic.
This is the formal payoff of Goldbergian fusion ([Gol95]): constructions don't just license one new alternation — they systematically augment the verb's meaning component profile, and every alternation whose required components are now satisfied becomes available.
Hit-class verbs alone: no middle, no instrumentSubject, no resultative alternation.
Hit-class in resultative: ALL FOUR component-derived alternations flip. The resultative adds CoS + causation → fused = ⟨true, true, true, true, false, false⟩. This unlocks causativeInchoative, middle, instrumentSubject, AND resultative.
Conative stays true: hit already has contact + motion, and fusing preserves them.
Caused-motion fusion #
The caused-motion construction adds motion + causation. For touch-class verbs (pure contact, no motion), this unlocks the conative alternation (requires contact + motion) and the instrument subject alternation (requires causation).
Touch alone: ⟨false, true, false, false, false, false⟩ — only BPPA (contact)
Touch + caused-motion: ⟨false, true, true, true, false, false⟩ — conative + instrumentSubject too
Touch verbs alone: no conative, no instrumentSubject.
Touch + caused-motion: conative AND instrumentSubject flip to true. Motion + causation from the construction fill exactly what touch lacks.
Touch + caused-motion: BPPA stays true (contact preserved by fusion).
Manner-of-motion verbs in the resultative #
Manner-of-motion verbs (⟨false, false, true, false, false, true⟩) have motion
but no CoS or causation. In the resultative, they acquire both — unlocking
causativeInchoative, middle, instrumentSubject, and resultative.
Manner-of-motion verbs alone: no CI, no middle, no instrumentSubject.
Manner-of-motion + resultative: CI, middle, and instrumentSubject all flip.
Constructional augmentation summary #
Each construction unlocks a characteristic set of alternations by augmenting the verb's meaning components. The table below summarizes what each construction contributes and which alternations it enables for verbs that lack the relevant components:
| Construction | Adds | Unlocks |
|---|---|---|
| Resultative | CoS + causation | CI, middle, instrumentSubject, resultative |
| Caused-motion | motion + causation | conative (if +contact), instrumentSubject |
| Ditransitive | (nothing) | (nothing) |
These predictions are all derived from the same predictedAlternation function —
no construction-specific alternation logic exists. The construction simply changes
the input to the general prediction function.
Ditransitive adds nothing: hit verbs stay blocked in all alternations that are blocked in isolation.
Instrument specification survives fusion: cut-class verbs remain blocked from causativeInchoative and resultative even inside the resultative construction, because instrumentSpec = true persists through componentwise OR.