Matches in UGent Biblio for { <https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/1998359#aggregation> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 34 of
34
with 100 items per page.
- aggregation classification "A1".
- aggregation creator person.
- aggregation creator person.
- aggregation creator person.
- aggregation date "2011".
- aggregation format "application/pdf".
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.bibtex.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.csv.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.dc.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.didl.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.doc.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.json.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.mets.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.mods.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.rdf.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.ris.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.txt.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.xls.
- aggregation hasFormat 1998359.yaml.
- aggregation isPartOf urn:issn:0075-4242.
- aggregation language "eng".
- aggregation rights "I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher".
- aggregation subject "Languages and Literatures".
- aggregation title "Semantic and pragmatic motivations for constructional preferences: a corpus-based study of provide, supply, and present".
- aggregation abstract "A select group of transfer verbs can enter into four different constructions: the ditransitive construction (He provided John the money), the prepositional-dative construction (He provided the money to John), a construction with a prepositional theme (He provided John with the money), and a construction with a recipient realized by a for-phrase (He provided the money for John). In this article, we take a close look at three such verbs: provide, supply, and present. Corpus analysis shows that these three verbs display different structural preferences with respect to the for-, to-, and with-patterns. To explain these preferences, the study investigates pragmatic principles (following Mukherjee 2001 on provide) and the role played by semantic factors. An examination of the semantics of the verbs and the lexically motivated constructional semantics of the to, for, and with-patterns shows (i) that the three constructions are not interchangeable, and (ii) that the preferential differences between the three verbs find an explanation in the compatibility between lexical and constructional semantics. The description is mainly based on data from the British National Corpus.".
- aggregation authorList BK152858.
- aggregation endPage "391".
- aggregation issue "4".
- aggregation startPage "359".
- aggregation volume "39".
- aggregation aggregates 1998786.
- aggregation isDescribedBy 1998359.
- aggregation similarTo 0075424211421346.
- aggregation similarTo LU-1998359.