## Fatal  attraction:  inheritance  and  collostruction  in  the ihjel -construction

## !im %bensgaard .ensen

The purpose of this paper is t6o-fold. :irstly< it presents an argument for usage-based inheritance models over complete inheritance models in construction grammar. It is argued that< 6ith the principle of inductive language learning as their foundation< usage-based inheritance models allo6 for redundancies and incongruities in construction net6orks 6hich enables linguists to take into account details of language use< 6hich 6ould other6ise not be facilitated in complete inheritance models. Aecondly< making use of the method of collostructional analysis< the article offers a corpus-based description of the use of the Banish ihjel -construction 6hich accounts for patterns of attraction of construction-verb attraction< patterns of productivity< and  various  types  of  subconstructions<  including  item-  and  itemclass-based  ones  and  metaphorical  extensions. The  description  of the ihjel -construction should also illustrate the superiority of usagebased inheritance models over complete inheritance models in construction grammar-based language description.

## 1. Introduction

The Banish adverbial particle ihjel appears to be deceptively simple< 6hich is probably 6hy it has received extensive attention by neither syntacticians nor lexicologists< and in-depth analyses and descriptions are fe6 and far bet6een.

Its formal simplicity is striking. It seems to exclusively enter into t6o-6ord phrasal verb constructions. Do6ever< 6hile formally simple< it  is  much  more  complicated  functionally<  as  it  covers  a  6ide  range of different functions. In some cases< like brænde ihjel 1 or tæve ihjel < the verb-plusihjel constellation Fuite literally expresses a situation in 6hich a speci  c action speci  ed by the verb G in this case< the actions of setting someone a  re and of beating someone severely up G results in the death of this someone. Hut in other cases< as in the case of slå ihjel,

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

the constellation does not predicate any speci  c action but rather just the killing of someone in general. There are also cases in 6hich ihjel combines 6ith verbs that cannot possible result in anyoneJs death as in kede ihjel or skygge ihjel . In some cases< despite all logical improbabilities< the instance 6ill refer to a literal death< but in other instances to a metaphorical one. Koreover< ihjel does not indiscriminately appear 6ith any verb at any time. If one 6ere to observe ihjel in use< one 6ould  nd that certain verbs and verb types are much more freFuent 6ith ihjel than others< and that there seem to be certain patterns in the relation of attraction and repulsion bet6een verbs and ihjel . L Fuestion that 6ill doubtlessly arise from such an observation is 6hether there is any form of item correlation bet6een verb attraction and communicative functions of ihjel .

Lnother Fuestion is ho6 to best describe this phenomenon. Aince ihjel conventionally enters into phrasal verb-like constellations in present-day Banish< and rarely appears on its o6n< a reasonable assumption<  in  a  functional-cognitivist  perspective<  6ould  be  that  the  verbplusihjel constellation is a construction and< conseFuently< it 6ould be appropriate to describe it in a construction grammar frame6ork. Hut that 6ould not be enough< one 6ould also have to consider ho6 to account  for  the  relations  bet6een  the  construction  and  its  instances  in discourseM  that  is<  one  6ould  have  to  apply  an  appropriate  model  of inheritance in the constructionist description of ihjel .

This paper presents an empirical constructionist study of the combination of verbs and the particle ihjel . Nhile empirically based on three hypercorpora< the description of the ihjel -construction presented here should not be taken to be any form of exhaustive and  nal description of ihjel . Rather< it should be seen as a  rst step to6ards a constructionist description of the construction< exploring the descriptive possibilities of a usage-based approach< in 6hich the construction is an asymmetric category 6hich subsumes different types of subsets G 6ith differing degrees of entrenchment and idiomaticity as 6ell as differences in symbolic structure and patterns of use G as opposed to a description based on complete inheritance< in 6hich a construction is a symmetric category 6hich does not account for differences among its instances.

Hefore exploring the ihjel -construction itself< 6e 6ill brie " y introduce construction grammar in section 2 6hich serves as the theoretical frame6ork of our discussion of the construction< and< in section 3< 6e shall contrast usage-based inheritance 6ith complete inheritance pointing out the advantages of the former in the description of the ihjel -

## !"#"$%"##&"'#()*+%(*,-&(#"*'-%"*.%')$$)/#&0'#()*%111

construction. Lfter a brief overvie6 of the data and method in the fourth section< verb attraction in the ihjel -construction in general is discussed in  the  light  of  the  results  of  the  corpus  investigation  in  section  5.  In section 6< 6e 6ill look speci  cally at the symbolic and conventional status of the speci  c combination of the verb slå and ihjel < arguing that it serves a speci  c communicative purpose of its o6n< and section 7 deals  6ith  instances  of  the ihjel -construction  co-occurring  6ith  re-" exive subject exploring the possibility that this constellation might subsume a number of verb-class-based extensions. :inally< in section 8< 6e discuss metaphorical extensions of the construction.

## 2. Constructions

The theoretical frame6ork of the present study is that of construction grammar (Woldberg 1995M :illmore< !ay Y ZJConnor 1998M Croft 2001) in 6hich the concept of construction is the central unit of grammar. L construction is de  ned as ^an entrenched routine ...< that is generally used in the speech community ... and involves a pairing of form and meaning\_ Croft (2005:274)< and may be found at all levels of linguistic competence:

linguistic kno6ledge at all levels< from morphology to multi-6ord units can be characteribed as constructions< or pairings of form and meaning c language users exploit constructions at these various levels to discern from a particular utterance a corresponding collection of interrelated conceptual structures. (HergendChang 2005: 145).

Constructions are conventionalibed pairings of form and meaning and essentially semiotic units. Lccordingly< rather than being t6o separate areas  of  linguistic  competence<  syntax  and  the  lexicon  form  a  continuum< referred to as the syntax-lexicon continuum (Woldberg 1995:7M Croft 2001:17).

Ls Lakoff (1977) points out< constructions are considered gestalts at several levels. L complex construction is a gestalt< such that the entire form is a templatic con  guration 6hich expresses semantic and pragmatic content. The formal elements of a construction are de  ned on the basis of the construction as a functional 6hole. The form of a construction may be substantive (lexically  xed) or schematic (lexically open). Aubstantivitydschematicity is essentially a matter of degree (:illmore< !ay Y ZJConnor 1988:505fn3) such that a continuum may be posed ranging from totally substantive constructions over constructions 6ith both substantive and schematic elements to constructions 6hich are to-

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

tally schematic (Croft Y Cruse 2004:233-234). Westaltic features are also found at the semantic level of a construction. The content is often a complex matrix (Langacker 1987< 1991) of cognitive models< 6hich are themselves conceptual gestalts. ConseFuently< the semantic components of a construction are de  ned on the basis of the cognitive models they are part of. :inally< the construction is a semiotic gestalt in that the form and content< being associated through convention< form a symbolically holistic structure. This means that the symbolic units 6ithin the construction are de  ned on the basis of the entire construction as a 6hole. The internal symbolic complexity differs from construction to construction< and constructions are not necessarily of a biuniFue symbolic nature since one element may form more than one symbolic unit and vice versa .

Aince constructions are held to be gestalts< they are idiomatic to some degree. Idiomaticity is< indeed< considered central in the de  nition of the concept of a grammatical construction:

C is a construction iff def C is a form-meaning pair f: i < A i g such that some aspect of : i or some aspect of A i is not strictly predictable from CJs component parts or from other previously established constructions. (Woldberg 1995:4)

Do6ever this does not mean that constructions are per se non-compositional. Ls Kichaelis (1998:79) points out< ^htihe Construction Wrammar approach does not deny the existence of compositionally derived meaning\_. Aince many constructions may indeed be analybed into symbolic units< it 6ould make no sense to argue that construction grammar  is  a  totally  non-compositional  approach  to  linguistic  structure. Constructions may indeed be compositional< but as Lakoff (1987:465) argues< ^grammatical constructions in general are holistic< that is< c the meaning of the 6hole construction is motivated by the meanings of the parts but is not computable from them\_. The compositionality of a construction is thus determined by its inner symbolic structure. Constructions as 6ell as their instances may differ from each other in terms of idiomaticity such that expressions that are semantically derived from their  parts  display  lo6  idiomaticity  and  those  6hich  are  not  display high idiomaticity. Lccording to Lipka Y Achmid (1994)< idiomaticity is very much a matter of degree< and constructions and instances may be plotted onto 6hat they call the scale of idiomaticity.

!"#"$%"##&"'#()*+%(*,-&(#"*'-%"*.%')$$)/#&0'#()*%111

Constructions are organibed in taxonomic net6orks in 6hich a central schematic construction< providing the formal< semantic and symbolic con  guration< licenses instances of the construction. The instances inherit the basic structural con  guration from the central schema< much like prototype categories in general< and elaborate on the instance by specifying them lexically.

## 3. !"#$% : structure and inheritance

Ihjel is traditionally de  ned as an adverbial particle 6hich expresses the semantic component TZ B%LTD< both in a literal sense< as in example (1)< and in a metaphorical sense< as in (2):

- (1) De tævede ham ihjel . They beat him to death.
- (2) Han kedede sig  ihjel . De 6as bored ^to death\_.

Lccording to ZBA (2007)< the adverbial particle ihjel is ultimately derived from the Zld Banish expression i hel (or i hæl )< 6hich literally means IjTZ TD% R%LLK Z: B%LTD. Thus ihjel seems to have undergone the grammaticalibation process of condensation in 6hich larger multiunit structures are contracted and condensed into smaller structures of fe6er units (Croft 2000:158). Llthough this is a discussion I shall not pursue further< it could be argued that in the case of ihjel < condensation is actually a lexicalibation process< as ihjel might be argued to be a lexical semantic particle 6hich primarily contributes lexical meaning to the constructional verb-plusihjel complex.

In Kodern Banish< ihjel mainly enters into phrasal verb relations 6hich predicate actions that result in the literal or metaphorical death of one or more participants in the situation described. The verb expresses the action itself< and ihjel speci  es that the action has fatal conseFuences:

- (3) Ericson måtte dolke ham ihjel, da vennen var ved at telefonere sine oplysninger.

%ricson had to stab him to death< as the friend 6as about to phone in the information.

- (4) Gud lader folk sulte ihjel . Wod lets people starve to death.

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

- (5) Før Pickles hakker ham ihjel, springer en tilskuer ind i arenaen . Hefore kickles can peck him to death< a spectator jumps into the arena.
- (6) På vejen fryser hun ihjel i en snedrive . Zn the 6ay< she freebes to death in a sno6drift.
- (7) Det vil sige, at folk her keder sig ihjel? Boes that mean that people around here are bored to deathl
- (8) Jeltsin er ved at drikke sig ihjel. .eltsin is drinking himself to death. m .eltsin is killing himself through excessive alcohol consumption.

Lt  rst  glance<  it  seems  that<  as  a  construction<  the  constellation  of a  verb-plusihjel has  a  rather  simple  symbolic  structure<  6hich<  in  a Langackerian (1987< 1991) fashion< may be represented as hhn ihjel id hLCTIZj R%AoLTIjW Ij B%LTD Z: kLRTICIkLjTii (or hhn ihjel idhLCTIZj g B%LTDii). 2

This constructional structure is essentially an atomic one in 6hich there is a biuniFue relationship bet6een form and content. The form consists of t6o elements G namely< the verb and ihjel G  and the content of t6o components G namely< 6hatever LCTIZj the kLRTICIkLjTA are involved in and B%LTD Z: L kLRTICIkLjT (or TZ B%LTD for short) respectively. The action itself is speci  ed by the verb through a process called elaboration 6hich is the addition of further conceptual information to a schematic structure by  lling a lexically open slot< a so-called elaboration site (or e-site)< in a construction (Langacker 1987:304).

Thus< in example (5)< the verb hakke speci  es the action as that of k%C!IjW (see appendix for a glossary of verbs) and ihjel indicates that the conseFuence of the pecking is the death of kicklesJ victim. Like6ise< in example (6)< fryse speci  es the action< 6hich in this case is the situation of :R%%pIjW< and ihjel indicates that the situation results in the B%LTD of the primary participant.

The general symbolic structure of  hhn ihjel idhLCTIZj g B%LTDii seems Fuite simple and could form the basis of a so-called complete inheritance taxonomy (Woldberg 1995:73-4M Croft Y Cruse 2004:2702)< 6hich is characteribed by maximal generality< as all instances are directly licensed by one central abstract construction. Lccording to Croft Y Cruse (2004:271)< ^hiin a complete inheritance model< a construction can inherit the feature structures of its parent constructionM  this is the signi  cance of the taxonomic relation bet6een constructions in this model.\_ This means that all information relating to the construction is stored in the abstract construction< and thus ^complete inheritance is an all-or-none relation\_ (Croft Y Cruse 2004:271). In a complete inheritance model< dolke ihjel, sulte ihjel, hakke ihjel, fryse ihjel, kede ihjel < and drikke ihjel < are all direct instances of hhn ihjel idhLCTIZj g B%LTDii< and all of their formal and semantic properties can ultimately be traced back to this central abstract schematic construction.

This 6ould be a simple and easy-to-grasp representation of the ihjel -construction< but< due to the all-or-nothing nature of complete inheritance models< it 6ould ultimately be an imprecise one 6hich 6ould fail to capture several critical details regarding patterns of use.

Nhere complete inheritance models fail to capture details regarding patterns of use< a usage-based inheritance model 6ould not only capture these but also allo6 for patterns of use to be distinctive such that recurring differences in use may serve as features of subconstructions 6ithin a more  ne-grained constructional net6ork. Bifferent patterns of use< if statistically signi  cant enough< may be entrenched (Langacker 1987:59) in the net6ork 6ith differing degrees of productivity and idiomaticity< as usage-based inheritance allo6s for category-instance discrepancies and for information redundancy throughout the taxonomy.

osage-based models do not separate competence from performance since ^structure< or regularity< comes out of discourse and is shaped by discourse in an ongoing process\_ (Dopper 1998:156). Ls Tomasello (2003:99) points out<

for usage-based theorists the fundamental reality of language is people making utterances to one another on particular occasions of use. Nhen people repeatedly use the same particular and concrete linguistic symbols to one another in ^similar\_ situations< 6hat may emerge over time is a pattern of language use schematised in the minds of users as one or another kind of linguistic category or construction.

Wrammar is not an inventory of preset rules and principles that govern linguistic interaction. Zn the contrary< linguistic competence emerges through discourse< and repetitions in discourse result in the storage of entrenched< but not in  nitely  xed< schematibations 6hich languageusers apply in discourse G both in decoding and encoding. This means that grammatical structures and lexical units alike are conventionalibed through discourse. Thus< a language userJs linguistic kno6ledge is ultimately experientially based on the freFuency of usage-events (!emmer Y Harlo6 2000:ix).

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

The usage-based approach also rejects the notion of a completely decontextualibed grammar. Context plays a crucial role in the operation of the linguistic system since language does not exist vacuously< but rather in the context of the 6orld that its speakers live in (!emmer Y Harlo6 2000). Lll types of context may have an impact on the linguistic system to the point that contextual information can be entrenched as linguistic competence if a speci  c construction is highly freFuent in a speci  c type of context or situation. Koreover< the usage-based approach takes as a central principle the interconnectedness bet6een the linguistic  system  and  non-linguistic  cognitive  systems  such  that  language is an integrated part of general human cognition and subject to the same processes and principles.

Aince linguistic competence is based on inductive learning< linguistic kno6ledge is acFuired in a bottom-up manner through use< allo6ing for redundancy< generalibations< and types at all levels of the constructional taxonomy.

## 4. Data and method

The present study is based on an investigation of three Banish language corpora  containing  6ritten  texts  G  namely< Korpus 2000 (20  million 6ords)< Korpus 90 (20 million 6ords)< and DFK Loke (1 million 6ords) G all of 6hich are available in the Banish corpus section at nIAL (2008). Korpus 2000 and Korpus 90 are mixed 6ritten corpora< the former covering texts from 1998 to 2002 and the latter texts from 1988 to 1992 (these  t6o  corpora  are  also  available  as  one  corpus<  6hich  is  called Korpus DK and is available at the 6ebsite of Bet Banske Aprog- og Litteraturselskab)< 6hile DFK Loke contains texts from the online journal Loke .  osing  HickJs  (2005) CorpusEye concordancer< all  instances  of ihjel 6ere extracted from these corpora and subjected to Fualitative and Fuantitative analyses.

Lll occurrences of the ihjel -construction 6ere analybed Fualitatively  and  classi  ed  in  terms  of  internal  symbolic  structures  and  association  patterns.  Lssociation  patterns  are  ^the  systematic  6ays  in 6hich linguistic features are used in association 6ith other linguistic and non-linguistic features\_ (Hiber< Conrad Y Reppen 1998:5M Hiber 2000:289).

The  primary  Fuantitative  analytical  frame6ork  is  that  of  collostructional  analysis  6hich  is  a  collocational  statistical  method  of measuring the attraction strength< or collostruction strength< bet6een constructions  and  lexical  items  (Atefano6itsch  Y  Wries  2003).  Collostruction strength is calculated on the basis of the freFuency of the cooccurrence  of  item  and  construction<  the  freFuency  of  the  item  in all other constructions< the freFuency of the construction 6ith all other constructions< and the freFuency of all other items in all other constructions. These freFuencies are then run through a :ischer exact test< a loglikelihood test or a similar test. This results in a so-called p-value 6hich is  a  number that indicates the collostruction strength. The higher the number< the stronger the collostructional attraction. %very lexeme that appears in the construction in the corpus is subjected to this operation< and 6hen this procedure has been applied to all lexemes< they are ranked in accordance 6ith collostruction strength< the most attracted item ranking the highest. 3

Lttraction patterns may indicate the overall meaning of the construction. Lccording to the principle of semantic compatibility ^6ords can (or are likely to) occur 6ith a given construction if (or to the degree that) their meanings are compatible\_ (Atefano6itsch Y Wries 2005:4). Thus< the meaning of the construction is likely to be closely related to the meanings of the lexemes that are attracted to it. Koreover< attraction patterns may serve as an indicator of entrenchment and productivity. If a lexeme< or a class of lexemes< is highly attracted to a construction< and the Fualitative analysis sho6s that this particular lexeme-construction combination serves a speci  c communicative function< the combination is likely to form an entrenched and productive item-speci  c or  item-class-speci  c  subconstruction  (Croft  2003:57-58<  Tomasello 2003:178). 4 Zn the other hand< if a series of many different items display lo6 collostruction strength in relation to a construction< then this could be taken to indicate a more lexically schematic construction.

## 5. Verb attraction in the ihjel-construction and semantic compatibility

The follo6ing tables present the results of the collostructional analyses. Ls mentioned above< they are ranked in terms of collostructional strength: the higher the attraction of a lexeme to the ihjel -construction< the higher it ranks:

Table 1: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%A555% (log-likelihood)

| Rank                                                             | Lexeme                                                           | Collostruction strength                                          | Rank                                                             | Lexeme                                                           | Collostruction strength                                          | Rank                                                             | Lexeme                                                           | Collostruction strength                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1                                                                | /$6                                                              | 8162.05601192555                                                 | 20                                                               | 3(/7-                                                            | 16.8740982306803                                                 | 39                                                               | /?".&-                                                           | 7.0637382053432                                                  |
| 2                                                                | #(-                                                              | 199.450358428844                                                 | 21                                                               | ;.-                                                              | 14.8727230123619                                                 | 40                                                               | 7<;$-                                                            | 6.97686250249287                                                 |
| 3                                                                | >&=/-                                                            | 198.239483062038                                                 | 22                                                               | /$(.-                                                            | 14.6793621612037                                                 | 41                                                               | $0&-                                                             | 6.68028541969256                                                 |
| 4                                                                | /0$#-                                                            | 133.403364470369                                                 | 23                                                               | (*#-$$-7#0"$(/-&-                                                | 14.6371654978307                                                 | 42                                                               | 7$-??-                                                           | 6.4328195352845                                                  |
| 5                                                                | ,"77-                                                            | 116.648936561994                                                 | 24                                                               | /*"77-                                                           | 14.5189916804893                                                 | 43                                                               | 0*.-&,)$.-                                                       | 6.11441939187072                                                 |
| 6                                                                | /#(77-                                                           | 110.828369357678                                                 | 25                                                               | "*"$=/-&-                                                        | 13.9957454065328                                                 | 44                                                               | /$;:-                                                            | 5.92674677905053                                                 |
| 7                                                                | #;<-                                                             | 97.1975286757167                                                 | 26                                                               | @)77-                                                            | 12.6554904853644                                                 | 45                                                               | 7)*70&&-&-                                                       | 5.68068989556783                                                 |
| 8                                                                | #&"?3-                                                           | 86.140823206168                                                  | 27                                                               | :(.-                                                             | 12.6146715021357                                                 | 46                                                               | "*?-$.-                                                          | 5.65410253020507                                                 |
| 9                                                                | .&(77-                                                           | 78.2248636465177                                                 | 28                                                               | #8&/#-                                                           | 11.2419726279742                                                 | 47                                                               | 0.3-9-                                                           | 4.3456698144217                                                  |
| 10                                                               | 7-.-                                                             | 66.011692062483                                                  | 29                                                               | /#"?3-                                                           | 10.9787942623007                                                 | 48                                                               | 9&(*-                                                            | 4.22954973379484                                                 |
| 11                                                               | 78&-                                                             | 55.1757439527594                                                 | 30                                                               | :"9"#-$$(/-&-                                                    | 10.4606525214006                                                 | 49                                                               | #&;*-                                                            | 3.84636996005127                                                 |
| 12                                                               | :&;*.-                                                           | 46.3334465092385                                                 | 31                                                               | :$-*.-                                                           | 10.1775854670365                                                 | 50                                                               | 3&).0'-&-                                                        | 3.49415153301083                                                 |
| 13                                                               | ?"/-                                                             | 45.6281022022941                                                 | 32                                                               | #;/7-                                                            | 9.08778739754057                                                 | 51                                                               | &=9-                                                             | 3.34577728371367                                                 |
| 14                                                               | /-@&-                                                            | 40.8929128366056                                                 | 33                                                               | /7=99-                                                           | 9.05002148824702                                                 | 52                                                               | /7=.-                                                            | 3.23182366182973                                                 |
| 15                                                               | 3&=9$-                                                           | 39.3848388040098                                                 | 34                                                               | 9":-                                                             | 8.85425960147172                                                 | 53                                                               | /=*9-                                                            | 3.0269751458824                                                  |
| 16                                                               | /3"&7-                                                           | 33.0883378877951                                                 | 35                                                               | &(/#-                                                            | 8.52697106223301                                                 | 54                                                               | /3(/-                                                            | 2.23172999036071                                                 |
| 17                                                               | .)$7-                                                            | 28.2025942776285                                                 | 36                                                               | 7*)7$-                                                           | 7.64857021486806                                                 | 55                                                               | >)&7$"&-                                                         | 1.62471645747137                                                 |
| 18                                                               | /#-*-                                                            | 26.6593023300169                                                 | 37                                                               | >)&0&-*-                                                         | 7.3266177680155                                                  | 56                                                               | "&:-@.-                                                          | 0.593507520358105                                                |
| 19                                                               | 3(*-                                                             | 20.1646816245358                                                 | 38                                                               | :-/7"##-                                                         | 7.0637382053432                                                  | 57                                                               | 96                                                               | 0.415735573463915                                                |
| Table 2: Collostruction strengths in B!2%C)7- (log-likelihood)   | Table 2: Collostruction strengths in B!2%C)7- (log-likelihood)   | Table 2: Collostruction strengths in B!2%C)7- (log-likelihood)   | Table 2: Collostruction strengths in B!2%C)7- (log-likelihood)   | Table 2: Collostruction strengths in B!2%C)7- (log-likelihood)   | Table 2: Collostruction strengths in B!2%C)7- (log-likelihood)   | Table 2: Collostruction strengths in B!2%C)7- (log-likelihood)   | Table 2: Collostruction strengths in B!2%C)7- (log-likelihood)   | Table 2: Collostruction strengths in B!2%C)7- (log-likelihood)   |
| Rank                                                             | Lexeme                                                           | Collostruction strength                                          | Rank                                                             | Lexeme                                                           | Collostruction strength                                          | Rank                                                             | Lexeme                                                           | Collostruction strength                                          |
| 1                                                                | /$6                                                              | 815.058594354556                                                 | 6                                                                | .&(77-                                                           | 14.2346629996570                                                 | 11                                                               | :&;*.-                                                           | 7.50490074603736                                                 |
| 2                                                                | >&=/-                                                            | 65.6469085654449                                                 | 7                                                                | 3(*-                                                             | 11.8304916469021                                                 | 12                                                               | #&;.-                                                            | 7.03958933861897                                                 |
| 3                                                                | 7-.-                                                             | 26.6236711574002                                                 | 8                                                                | /$(77-                                                           | 11.4005562931867                                                 | 13                                                               | /#(77-                                                           | 6.88847490853587                                                 |
| 4                                                                | /0$#-                                                            | 21.6130382833026                                                 | 9                                                                | #&"?3-                                                           | 9.7460503141066                                                  | 14                                                               | 78&-                                                             | 5.09263122772377                                                 |
| 5                                                                | #(-                                                              | 19.2458253534347                                                 | 10                                                               |                                                                  | 8.37937144001698                                                 | 15                                                               | $(99-                                                            |                                                                  |
|                                                                  |                                                                  |                                                                  |                                                                  | :"*7-                                                            |                                                                  |                                                                  |                                                                  | 3.33135969258534                                                 |
| Table 3: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%45% (log-likelihood) | Table 3: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%45% (log-likelihood) | Table 3: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%45% (log-likelihood) | Table 3: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%45% (log-likelihood) | Table 3: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%45% (log-likelihood) | Table 3: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%45% (log-likelihood) | Table 3: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%45% (log-likelihood) | Table 3: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%45% (log-likelihood) | Table 3: Collostruction strengths in 2)&30/%45% (log-likelihood) |
| Rank                                                             | Lexeme                                                           | Collostruction strength                                          | Rank                                                             | Lexeme                                                           | Collostruction strength                                          | Rank                                                             | Lexeme                                                           | Collostruction strength                                          |
| 1                                                                | /$6                                                              | 10173.1858047602                                                 | 22                                                               | 78&-                                                             | 24.2465208960621                                                 | 43                                                               | 7)9-                                                             | 7.50559453221148                                                 |
| 2                                                                | /0$#-                                                            | 325.039945061079                                                 | 23                                                               | /#-*-                                                            | 24.0276901721085                                                 | 44                                                               | 9":-                                                             | 7.30424626446928                                                 |
| 3                                                                | #(-                                                              | 181.363880476417                                                 | 24                                                               | #;&/7-                                                           | 23.8172623602923                                                 | 45                                                               | /<-.-                                                            | 6.53157514345278                                                 |
| 4                                                                | /#(77-                                                           | 178.378566264311                                                 | 25                                                               | 3&=9$-                                                           | 22.8243221529522                                                 | 46                                                               | &(/#-                                                            | 6.3441096923247                                                  |
| 5                                                                | >&=/-                                                            | 176.159771340086                                                 | 26                                                               | #&;.-                                                            | 18.9015585683915                                                 | 47                                                               | 7)*70&&-&-                                                       | 5.68719158906328                                                 |
| 6                                                                | .&(77-                                                           | 117.058952036521                                                 | 27                                                               | #&"?3-                                                           | 17.0993969584021                                                 | 48                                                               | <)7/-                                                            | 5.67909629199282                                                 |
| 7                                                                | :&;*.-                                                           | 105.322525730640                                                 | 28                                                               | 9&(*-                                                            | 15.6984988110873                                                 | 49                                                               | #"$-                                                             | 5.5009489136288                                                  |
| 8                                                                | 7-.-                                                             | 93.6647069419159                                                 | 29                                                               | /3"&-                                                            | 14.7458288605423                                                 | 50                                                               | #<(<$-                                                           | 5.44475649394423                                                 |
| 9                                                                | :(.-                                                             | 75.339150092912                                                  | 30                                                               | /8&9-                                                            | 12.8346214635144                                                 | 51                                                               | ,=99-                                                            | 5.33967854489175                                                 |
| 10                                                               | #;<-                                                             | 71.2730283200295                                                 |                                                                  | 3(/7-                                                            | 11.8664096764299                                                 | 52                                                               | ;.-                                                              | 4.7304451663754                                                  |
| 11                                                               | /#"*9-                                                           | 51.8657388157762                                                 | 31 32                                                            | ,"77-                                                            | 11.4027146282575                                                 | 53                                                               | /$;:-                                                            | 4.53518671815439                                                 |
| 12                                                               | /3"&7-                                                           | 40.9902014029278                                                 | 33                                                               | /8.-                                                             | 9.9298604419723                                                  | 54                                                               | /7=$$-                                                           | 4.48827452716858                                                 |
| 13                                                               | .)$7-                                                            | 40.7106195449221                                                 | 34                                                               | #8&/#-                                                           | 9.9298604419723                                                  | 55                                                               | :"*7-                                                            | 4.04972774555123                                                 |
| 14                                                               | 7$-??-                                                           | 32.8039757120755                                                 | 35                                                               | #)�&-&-                                                        | 9.5193221628498                                                  | 56                                                               | 7$(33-                                                           | 3.65887041240696                                                 |
| 15                                                               | /$(.-                                                            | 30.2732529343940                                                 | 36                                                               | /7)$.-                                                           | 9.48864971587203                                                 | 57                                                               | $(99-                                                            | 2.98686014786708                                                 |
| 16                                                               | 7*)7$-                                                           | 30.1882927589069                                                 | 37                                                               | >)&#(-                                                           | 9.10260175016722                                                 | 58                                                               | .(/70#-&-                                                        | 2.78336114148469                                                 |
| 17                                                               | /*"77-                                                           | 29.3987615317089                                                 | 38                                                               | 3&) ! %$-&-                                                      | 9.10260175016722                                                 | 59                                                               | 3&).0'-&-                                                        | 2.74379608710574                                                 |
| 18                                                               | 3(*-                                                             | 28.1175419050638                                                 | 39                                                               | ."*/-                                                            | 8.79986294001278                                                 | 60                                                               | :-,"*.$-                                                         | 2.06882148380361                                                 |
| 19                                                               | /7=99-                                                           | 28.0889310274552                                                 | 40                                                               | 9"//-                                                            | 8.75838232088111                                                 | 61                                                               | -$/7-                                                            | 1.53667947029449                                                 |
| 20                                                               | /7=.-                                                            | 27.6855239595325                                                 | 41                                                               | /*"33-                                                           | 8.65575579578244                                                 | 62                                                               | /3(/-                                                            | 1.36037837809365                                                 |
| 21                                                               | /-@&-                                                            | 25.9733323769132                                                 | 42                                                               | <(/*-                                                            | 8.01254335972681                                                 | 63                                                               | /38&9-                                                           | 0.394057859441692                                                |

## !"#"$%"##&"'#()*+%(*,-&(#"*'-%"*.%')$$)/#&0'#()*%111

The collostructional analyses indicate a preference for verbs that express violent actions that typically result in physical harm< damage or injury< such as hakke, sparke, stikke, tæve, dolke, stene, prygle and pine < all of 6hich are fairly strongly attracted to the ihjel -construction. Zther verbs of violence such as piske, tæske, bide, kvæle, stange < and skyde as 6ell as verbs that express other situations 6hich are not necessarily violent< but certainly may result in physical harm< such as brænde, skolde, koge, klemme < and rive < appear 6ith varying degrees of attraction. Helo6 are some examples of verbs of violence and direct or indirect harm in the ihjel -construction G see also (1)< (3)< and (5) above:

- (9) De sparkede dem ihjel, mand! They kicked them to death< manq
- (10) Når en okse stanger en mand eller kvinde ihjel, skal oksen stenes, og man må ikke spise dens kød. Nhen an ox gores a man or a 6oman to death< it must be stoned and eating its " esh is forbidden.
- (11) Og kapitlet ender endda med, at de jøder, han har snakket med, - altså de, der var kommet til at tro på ham, - ta'r sten op og vil stene ham ihjel, men han går sin vej. Lnd the chapter even ends 6ith the .e6s he spoke to G that is< those 6ho had started to believe in him G picking up stones and 6anting to stone him to death< but he 6alks a6ay.
- (12) Da en ukrainer så, at han lå på jorden og stadig trak vejret, blev han pryglet ihjel. Nhen a okrainian sa6 that he 6as still breathing< 6hile lying on the ground< he 6as " ogged to death.
- (13) Man er blevet pisket ihjel. Zne has been 6hipped to death.
- (14) Og så er der indvandreren, der næsten tæskes ihjel af bøller, mens folk ved et stoppested overfor blot ser passive til. Lnd then thereJs the immigrant 6hoJs almost being beaten to death by hooligans 6hile people at a bus stop across the street just passively look on.

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

- (15) Og der er såvel folkelig som retslig forståelse for, at politiet i ny og næ må skyde en  ygtning ihjel. Lnd there is public< as 6ell as legal< understanding that the police have to shoot dead a refugee no6 and then.

It  is  no  surprise  that  such  verbs are highly attracted to the ihjel -construction< since one potential result of bodily harm caused by violence is  death. The  elaboration  process  is  Fuite  straightfor6ard.  %ach  verb expresses a scenario in 6hich an LAALILLjT attacks a nICTIK 6hich results in kDrAICLL DLRK. Lrgument structure is important here< since the argument structure associated 6ith the verbs in Fuestion express speci- c participant roles in the scenario. Kost of the verbs of violence that appear in the ihjel -construction are transitive< the subject expressing the assailant and the object expressing the victim. Nhen a verb of violence  lls  the verb slot in the ihjel -construction< the hAoH. n nIZL%jC%  ZH.i structure speci  es that the action of the verb in the ihjel -construction is a t6o-participant one in 6hich the LW%jTIn% participant fuses 6ith the LAALILLjT< and the kLTI%jT 6ith the nICTIK. The LCTIZj itself fuses 6ith the situation expressed by the verb of violence< 6hile the nature of the HZBILr DLRK is speci  ed as being the B%LTD of the nICTIK through ihjel . It is 6orth mentioning that the ihjel -construction< 6ith some systematic exceptions< primarily appears in transitive contexts in the three corpora. L  distinctive  collexeme  analysis<  a  type  of  collostructional  analysis 6hich measures the differences in attraction bet6een one item and t6o or multiple functionally overlapping constructions (Wries Y Atefano6itsch 2004)< has sho6n that that most verbs in the ihjel -construction appear 6ith transitive and transitive-based constructions such as passive constructions and the antipassive construction (note that the ocurrence of identical collostruction strength numbers is caused by identical freFuencies of cooccurrence):

Table 4: Cross-corpora distribution of preferred transitivity contexts (T-contexts)

| Lexeme    | T-context    |   Collostruction strength | Lexeme            | T-context   |   Collostruction strength |
|-----------|--------------|---------------------------|-------------------|-------------|---------------------------|
| fryse     | Intransitive |          160.330841244883 | konkurrere        | Transitive  |         0.139261693383262 |
| sulte     | Intransitive |          104.989168594515 | producere         | Transitive  |         0.139261693383262 |
| brænde    | Intransitive |          30.3784467423641 | riste             | Transitive  |         0.139261693383262 |
| tørste    | Intransitive |          13.5654294644269 | slæbe             | Transitive  |         0.139261693383262 |
| visne     | Intransitive |          6.76687243164386 | spise             | Transitive  |         0.139261693383262 |
| koge      | Intransitive |            4.062791251085 | tærske            | Transitive  |         0.139261693383262 |
| slå       | Transitive   |            180.5046883491 | vokse             | Transitive  |         0.139261693383262 |
| stikke    | Transitive   |          2.53096069854406 | anmelde           | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| tie       | Transitive   |          2.45995409784529 | arbejde           | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| drikke    | Transitive   |          1.96404326423250 | bagatellisere     | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| køre      | Transitive   |          1.32934433591839 | behandle          | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| kede      | Transitive   |          1.18874027602151 | beskatte          | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| tæve      | Transitive   |         0.908009597587837 | blende            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| hakke     | Transitive   |         0.837926132439357 | diskutere         | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| bide      | Transitive   |           0.7678822593837 | elske             | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| trampe    | Transitive   |         0.697877933708995 | fortie            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| snakke    | Transitive   |         0.627913110776946 | gasse             | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| sparke    | Transitive   |         0.627913110776946 | gå                | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| sejre     | Transitive   |         0.488101794973087 | hygge             | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| pine      | Transitive   |         0.418255213204187 | intellektualisere | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| skyde     | Transitive   |         0.418255213204187 | jokke             | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| slide     | Transitive   |         0.418255213204187 | klippe            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| dolke     | Transitive   |         0.348447956384181 | kvæle             | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| klemme    | Transitive   |         0.348447956384181 | lure              | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| prygle    | Transitive   |         0.348447956384181 | pro ! lere        | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| træde     | Transitive   |         0.348447956384181 | ryge              | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| grine     | Transitive   |         0.278679980252553 | skolde            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| knokle    | Transitive   |         0.278679980252553 | skylle            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| ligge     | Transitive   |         0.278679980252553 | slikke            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| mase      | Transitive   |         0.278679980252553 | smadre            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| piske     | Transitive   |         0.278679980252553 | snappe            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| skygge    | Transitive   |         0.278679980252553 | spørge            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| stange    | Transitive   |         0.278679980252553 | stampe            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| stene     | Transitive   |         0.278679980252553 | svede             | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| spare     | Transitive   |         0.208951240622732 | synge             | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| sørge     | Transitive   |         0.208951240622732 | søde              | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| tale      | Transitive   |         0.208951240622732 | tortere           | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| æde       | Transitive   |         0.208951240622732 | træne             | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| analysere | Transitive   |         0.139261693383262 | tvivle            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| banke     | Transitive   |         0.139261693383262 | tæske             | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| danse     | Transitive   |         0.139261693383262 | udpege            | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |
| gabe      | Transitive   |         0.139261693383262 | underholde        | Transitive  |        0.0696112944970866 |

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

It is interesting to note that< 6hile outnumbered by far by verbs in transitive  constexts<  the  six  verbs  that  prefer  intransitive  contexts  in  this construction yield higher numbers than any other verb 6ith the exception of slå . L tentative explanation could be that they form a subset of their o6n 6hich deviates in transitivity from the majority of the instances of the ihjel -construction. Aome of the verbs certainly seem to be semantically related in terms of agency and other force dynamic relations. nerbs like fryse, sulte, tørste and visne all predicate situations in 6hich some force< 6hich is not identical to the primary participant< causes the primary participant to undergo a slo6 change of state 6hich< due to the presence of ihjel < leads to the primary participantJs ceasing to exist. They are not exactly verbs of violence< but they do result in some harm to the primary participant. It could be that the presence of such a force is simply implicit in the verbs to such an extent that it does not need to be overtly expressed through cooccurrence 6ith a transitive argument construction. L similar explanation might apply to brænde and koge 6hich also predicate situations 6here some force leads to the destruction of the primary partitipant< the difference being that the predicated situations her eare less durative than 6ith the four other verbs. If the implicitagency argument holds< then one might even take it a step further and argue that 6e are then dealing 6ith a case of lexically expressed middle voice< 6hich is the reason 6hy these six verbs in the ihjel -construction are so strongly attracted to intransitive contexts.

In  addition  to  verbs  of  violence<  the ihjel -construction  also  attracts verbs that express situations 6hich< if they involve animate participants< result in physical harm:

- (16) Efterretningsforlydender vil vide, at lokale myndigheder og lommerne på dem, stoppe dem ned i bådens nederste kahyt og brænde dem ihjel.
2. hær  enheder samarbejdede om at entre turisternes båd, tømme Lccording to intelligence reports< local authorities and militias cooperated in boarding the touristsJ boat< emptying their pockets< stuf  ng them into the lo6est cabin and burning them to death.
- (17) Under de frygteligste pinsler blev den 87-årige Anne Pedersen natten til onsdag skoldet ihjel i sin seng på Sæby Wldrecenter. Auffering the most terrible torment< the 87-year-old Lnne kedersen 6as scalded to death in her bed in Aæby Resthome Tuesday night.

!"#"$%"##&"'#()*+%(*,-&(#"*'-%"*.%')$$)/#&0'#()*%111

- (18) Anonyme mennesker, skummende af ondskab, proklamerer, at de kun ønsker at koge mig ihjel i kogende salpeter, udtalte Elsa Gress over seks spalter på BT's forside.

Lnonymous people< foaming 6ith evil< claim that all they 6ant is to boil me to death in boiling nitre< said %lsa Wress over six columns on the front page of BT .

- (19) Klemt ihjel i mejetærsker . Crushed to death in a harvester.

The elaboration process is more or less identical to that described above in relation to less ambiguous verbs of violence.

Lnother group of verbs that seem to adhere to the semantic compatibility principle are verbs such as sulte (and< less prominently< tørste ) and fryse <  6hich express various situations of discomfort 6hich may also lead to the death of the primary participant:

- (20) Ofre for tra  kulykker på Storebæltsbroen kan fryse ihjel, hvis ikke de reddes hurtigt.

nictims of accidents on the Wreat Helt Hridge may freebe to death if they are not rescued Fuickly.

- (21) Så var der igen en besætning på ca. 100 svin, der pga. vanrøgt sultede og tørstede ihjel.

ret another stock of about 100 pigs starved and thirsted to death due to neglect. m ret another stock of about 100 pigs died from starvation and thirst due to neglect.

jote  that<  unlike  the  verbs  of  violence  and  potential  physical  harm< these  verbs<  6hen  in  the ihjel -construction<  appear  in  an  intransitive context. Lccordingly< the predicated scenario is rather different from the t6o-participant situations mentioned above. In cases like this< the ihjel -construction expresses a one-participant scenario in 6hich the participant is subjected to some type of BIACZK:ZRT resulting in the B%LTD of the participant. Ls table 4 sho6s< the difference in transitivity patterns bet6een this use of the ihjel -construction and the transitive uses discussed above suggests that there are t6o transitivity-based subtypes of the construction 6hich differ in terms of the situation-types and< conseFuently< verb preference.

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

Wenerally< verbs that do not easily  t into the picture< like konkurrere, elske, grine, skygge, and spørge < display lo6 degrees of attraction< 6hich  also  6ould  adhere  to  the  principle  of  semantic  compatibility. Do6ever< as mentioned above< there are a number of verbs that seem to  violate  the  principle  of  semantic  compatibility  such  as tie,  drikke, sejre < and køre < 6hich are highly attracted to ihjel < again suggesting that ihjel -construction is more complex in terms of entrenchment and productivity than 6hat a complete inheritance taxonomy could capture:

- (22) Det kan godt være, at vi har sejret os ihjel. It may 6ell be that 6e have triumphed ourselves to death.
2. Den unge sygeplejerske Winnie Holms sorgløse tilværelse bliver brat slået i stykker, da hendes elskede halvbror, Kenneth Larsen,
- (23) kører en kvinde ihjel i beruset tilstand.

The young nurse Ninnie DolmJs peacful life is abruptly shattered 6hen her beloved halfbrother !enneth Larsen hits and kills a 6oman 6hile driving drunk.

- (24) Vi tillader folk at drikke sig ihjel. Ne allo6 people to drink themselves to death.
2. (25)
3. Debatten ties ihjel. The debate is hushed to death. m The debate is hushed into oblivion.

I 6ill return to these later on< discussing the possibility of some of these forming idiomatic subconstructions 6ithin the ihjel -construction< some of 6hich are of a metaphorical nature. 5

## 6. &%' i"#$% : an idiomatic subconstruction

In  all  of  the  above  examples<  the  verb  retains  its  basic  meaning  and contributes< through elaboration< to the  nal speci  cation of the situation in Fuestion. Do6ever< interestingly< the verb that displays the highest degree of attraction< slå < does not retain its literal meaning in the ihjel -construction. Technically< slå is  Fuite  compatible 6ith the ihjel -construction and belongs to the group of verbs of violence. Do6ever< unlike 6hat one might expect< slå  ihjel does not mean DIT TZ B%LTD. Rather< it refers more generically to the act of !ILLIjW or other6ise CLoAIjW someone TZ BI% as illustrated by the follo6ing examples:

!"#"$%"##&"'#()*+%(*,-&(#"*'-%"*.%')$$)/#&0'#()*%111

- (26) Han betragtede sin stivnede hånd, der dirrede svagt, få centimeter fra den røde plasticknap, der kunne afbryde den forbindelse, der slog ham ihjel.

De observed his stiffened hand< 6hich 6as 6eakly shaking a fe6 centimeters from the plastic button that could s6itch off the connection that 6as killing him.

- (27) Heden kan slå os ihjel!
2. The heat can kill usq
- (28) Når den hævnende kanaima omsider  nder den, der var skyld i hans slægtnings død, alene, kan han slå ham ihjel med kølle, pil eller gift.

Nhen the avenging !anaima  nally  nds the person 6ho 6as responsible for the death of his relative< he may kill him 6ith a club< an arro6 or poison.

- (29) Lokalbefolkningen fra landets to rivaliserende stammer slår hinanden ihjel med stokke, knive og macheter.
2. The locals from the countryJs t6o rivaling tribes kill each other

6ith sticks< knives and machetes.

- Han hæver sin jagtdolk og slår bjørnen ihjel, og den falder om
- (30) ved hans fødder.

De raises his hunting dagger and kills the bear< and it drops dead at his feet.

- (31) De mennesker, der slås ihjel af tobakken som midaldrende, ville i gennemsnit have haft yderligere 20-25 år, hvis de ikke havde røget.

Those people 6ho are killed by tobacco as middle-ageds 6ould have had further 20 or 25 years in average had they not been smokers.

The linguistic context indicates that< 6hile the verb is slå <  there is in fact no hitting involved. In  (28) and (29)<  hitting may of course be involved since clubs and sticks are mentioned as possible 6eapons< but in  either  example  such  blunt  6eapons  are  only  options  among  other non-blunt 6eapons< such as arro6s and poison< in (28)< and knives and machetes< in (29)< and these non-blunt 6eapons certainly are legitimate instruments in the actions slå ihjel predicates in (28) and (29). In (26)< it predicates the situation of lethal electrocution< 6hile in (27) it predicates the situation of dying from heat< and< in (31)< it refers to death as the result of many years of smoking. Ditting is not< by any stretch of oneJs imagination< even potentially relevant to any of these situations. Instances like (26)-(31) indicate that the constellation slå -plusihjel is different from the instances in examples (1)-(25) in terms of the speci  -city of the action itself. In (1)-(25)< a speci  c verb  lls the verb position and< through elaboration< the combination of this speci  c verb and ihjel refers to a very speci  c fatal situation. onlike the instances in examples (1)-(25)< slå ihjel does not refer to a speci  c 6ay of killing a participant in a situation< but to !ILLIjW in general.

Thus< slå ihjel and hn ihjel i differ in terms of levels of categoribation (e.g. Lakoff 1987). Slå ihjel expresses the basic level category of !ILL< 6hich provides a generic scenario< in 6hich a !ILL%R causes a nICTIK to BI% (using some IjATRoK%jT). onlike slå ihjel < hn ihjel i expresses more speci  c instantiations of this scenario in accordance 6ith the meaning of the verbs that appear in the construction< and thus refers to subordinate instantiations of the basic level !ILL category. Nhereas hn ihjel i is atomic and compositional< slå ihjel is  non-compositional< as its internal structure cannot be analybed into smaller symbolic units. This indicates that slå ihjel forms an entrenched communicatively speci  c subconstruction 6ith the symbolic structure of hh slå ihjel idh!ILLii. :urthermore< hh slå ihjel idh!ILLii ranks Fuite high on Lipka Y AchmidJs (1994)  scale  of  idiomaticity<  6hile  hhn ihjel idhLCTIZj  g  B%LTDii  displays a much lo6er degree of idiomaticity. Wiven the fact that it serves a speci  c communicative purpose< h slå ihjel i is an item-speci  c construction in its o6n right 6hich inherits some formal features from the central hn ihjel i  construction< but 6hich cannot be said to be on par 6ith the instances of hn ihjel i in (9)-(25).

In addition to the semantic difference bet6een h slå ihjel i and hn ihjel i< the t6o also differ in terms of stress distribution. 6 In h slå ihjel i< the primary stress is placed on the second syllable in ihjel <  6hile the main syllable of the verb receives primary stress in hn ihjel i. This difference  is  probably  not  arbitrary<  but  motivated  by  the  speci  city  of content. Aince hn ihjel i expresses subordinate instances of the !ILL category< the verb speci  es the nature of situation< and therefore< in terms of information prominence< it makes sense that it receives stress prominence so as to emphasibe the speci  city that de  nes the subordinate instance. 7

!"#"$%"##&"'#()*+%(*,-&(#"*'-%"*.%')$$)/#&0'#()*%111

Wiven the semantic differences in levels of categoribation and degree of idiomaticity and the formal differences< both in terms of lexical substantivity and stress distribution< it makes sense to argue that htn ihjel i  and  h slå  i'hjel i  are  t6o  different  constructions  6ithin  the ihjel net6ork.

## 7. Re  exive objects

In the three corpora< certain verbs< or types of verbs< in the ihjel -construction appear exclusively or signi  cantly freFuently 6ith re " exive objects. In a complete inheritance approach< this 6ould be of no conseFuence< since contextual factors are peripheral at best< but in a usagebased  approach<  in  6hich  linguistic  competence  is  discourse-driven< such patterns must be taken into consideration.

Helo6 are some examples of the ihjel -construction in re " exive syntactic contexts:

- (32) Stop, stands, gem dog den djævelske trylle  øjte, før vi danser os ihjel.

Atop< hold it< put that damn magic " ute a6ay before 6eJll dance ourselves to death.

- (33) De vil grine sig ihjel, konerne inde i byen. They are going to laugh themselves to death< the 6omen in to6n.
- (34) Fem personer forsøgte i går at brænde sig ihjel inde på Den Himmelske Freds Plads i Beijing. resterday<  ve people tried to burn themselves to death on Tianmen AFuare in Heijing.
- (35) Jeg knokler mig da halvt ihjel for dig. I 6ork myself half to death for you.
- (36) Enten kan man kynisk grine ad det hele eller drikke sig ihjel eller begge dele.
5. Zne can either laugh cynically at everything or drink oneself to death or do both.

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

There seem to be t6o different usage-patterns 6hen it comes to the ihjel -construction and re " exive objects. The  rst pattern cannot be said to actually be a pattern< as it covers instances 6here the ihjel -construction just happens to appear 6ith a re " exive object in order to express a  self-directed  action  6hich  happens  to  have  fatal  conseFuences. 8 In such cases< there is no statistical  signi  cance in freFuency of co-occurrence of verb and re " exive object. This is the case of (32)-(34). The second pattern< 6hich applies to (35) and (36)< includes instances 6here a speci  c verb< or a verb-class< co-occurs signi  cantly freFuently 6ith a re " exive object< and the entire constellation may be argued to have a speci  c communicative function.

There are t6o semantic verb-classes 6hose members appear signi  cantly freFuently 6ith re " exive objects in the ihjel -construction G namely< verbs of effort and verbs of ingestion. These are likely to be item-class-speci  c  subconstructions  of  the ihjel -construction  6hich also have a preference for re " exive contexts understood such that this preference is entrenched as part of the linguistic competence pertaining to these subconstructions. In addition there are a number of individual verbs 6hich appear either exclusively or signi  cantly freFuently 6ith re " exive objects< such as gabe, grine, vokse, sejre, pro  lere and kede . Nhile the t6o item-class-based usage patterns are literal in the sense that  they  express  situations  leading  to  literal  deaths<  these  individual verbs are of a more metaphorical nature 6hen appearing in the ihjel -construction.

The t6o semantic verb-classes are more or less in violation of the principle of semantic compatibility since they do not express situations that 6ill result in physical harm. ret< some of the verbs 6ithin these categories display signi  cant attraction to the ihjel -construction. Coercion is typically involved 6hen there is semantic con " ict bet6een a lexeme and the construction it appears in. Coercion is ^the general term for contextual reinterpretation\_ (A6art 2003:237)< and coercion typically ^occurs 6hen there is a mismatch bet6een the semantic types reFuired by a given operator and the semantic type 6ith 6hich that operator is actually combined\_ (:rancis Y Kichaelis 2003:18). Coercion is thus a semantic type-shifting< or reconstrual< prompted by an atypical symbolic relation or an atypical context. In relation to the ihjel -construction< incongruous verbs are typically coerced into expressing situations that are more likely to have fatal results< and often additional information is added to 6hat they typically express G information 6hich is computable from neither ihjel nor the verb in Fuestion.

!"#"$%"##&"'#()*+%(*,-&(#"*'-%"*.%')$$)/#&0'#()*%111

## 7.1 Verbs of ingestion

Zbviously in violation of the principle of semantic compatibility< drikke is nonetheless Fuite highly attracted to the ihjel -construction in all three corpora< 6ith æde and spise being less attracted< yet displaying a statistically preference for re " exive objects. Helo6 are some examples:

- Når jeg har drukket mig ihjel og er død og begravet, vil du se
- (37) orme og alt muligt.

Nhen IJve drunk myself to death and am dead and buried< youJll see 6orms and all kinds of things.

- Selvom han i dag er en køn og slank dreng, kunne han spise sig
- (38) ihjel, hvis han  k lov.

%ven though he is a pretty and slim boy today< he could eat himself to death if allo6ed to.

- (39) Navnet betyder Det Store Wdegilde og mindede os om en femten år gammel fransk  lm af samme titel, hvor  re let aldrende ungkarle åd sig ihjel på en lang weekend. 

The name means The Hig :east and reminded us of a fteen years old :rench move 6ith the same title< in 6hich four slightly aging bachelors ate themselves to death 6hile on an extended 6eekend.

Drikke, æde, and spise express speci  cations of the ingestion scenario 6hich< as mentioned above< is incongruous 6ith the ihjel -construction. Do6ever in the ihjel -construction< verbs of ingestion are coerced into expressing  %uC%AAIn% IjW%ATIZj  6hich  6ill  lead  to  the  B%LTD  of  the IjW%ATZR. Thus< hn IjW%ATIZj  ZH. re " exive ihjel i seems to combine the speci  ed IjW%ATIZj frame expressed by the verb in Fuestion 6ith the ihjel -construction through fusion 6ith the participant roles of the re " exive transitive construction.

Nhile this might< at  rst sight< look like just an instance of the transitive re " exive construction at play like in (34)< there is an important semantic difference. In a case like (34)<  no coercion is involved< and no additional information is added to the verb other than the situation being a self-directed one. The %uC%AA component is not directly derived from the elements in this instantiation of the ihjel -construction< but added via coercion.

Koreover< using a verb of ingestion 6ith a non-re " exive object 6ould be< if not  ungrammatical< then at least Fuestionable:

- (40) a. l Fire let aldrende ungkarle åd den ihjel. :our slightly aging bachelors ate it to death.
- b. l Fire let aldrende ungkarle drak det ihjel. :our slightly aging bachelors drank it to death.
- c. l Fire let aldrende ungkarle spiste den ihjel. :our slightly aging bachelors ate it to death.

It  does  indeed  seem  that  verbs  of  ingestion  (at  least  the  three  verbs that appear in the three corpora) 9 display speci  c patterns of behavior in terms of syntactic context. Ao< here< it 6ould make sense to argue that hn IjW%ATIZj   ZH. re " exive ihjel i  does form an item-class-speci  c  subconstruction.

Nhen comparing spise and æde < 6e see that æde is more attracted to the ihjel -construction than spise < the reason probably being a difference in degree of semantic compatibility bet6een these verbs and the ihjel -construction. Spise expresses the basic level category of IjW%ATIZj of AZLIB AoHATLjC%A by DoKLjA< 6hereas æde expresses IjW%ATIZj of AZLIB AoHATLjC%A by LjIKLLA. Nhen used 6ith humans< æde often refers to a more gluttonous< less civilibed and more animalistic< 6ay of eating. Wde is thus a more JdramaticJ 6ord than spise < and also implies large Fuantities of food< and the gluttonous eating and the amounts of food associated 6ith æde < arguably makes æde more compatible 6ith the ihjel -construction than a less dramatic verb like spise .

^ Drikke ZH. re " exive ihjel \_ displays signi  cant collostruction strength and< in addition to the general coercion pattern described above< it seems to serve an even more speci  c  communicative function. The verb drikke itself expresses the generic situation of IjW%ATIjW any form of LIvoIB AoHATLjC%< but it may also more speci  cally express the IjW%ATIZj Z: LLCZDZL through conventional implicature. In the ihjel -construction< this implicature gains primary salience< and drikke seems to exclusively express %uC%AAIn% CZjAoKkTIZj Z: LLCZDZL. It is possible that the %uC%AA component is inherited from the item-class-speci  c subconstruction discussed above. These factors point in the direction of h DRIKKE ZH. re " exive ihjel i being an item-speci  c subconstruction of the ihjel -construction 6hich inherits most of its form and content from the hn IjW%ATIZj   ZH. re " exive ihjel i  subconstruction< but still serves a speci  c communicative function.

!"#"$%"##&"'#()*+%(*,-&(#"*'-%"*.%')$$)/#&0'#()*%111

## 7.2 Verbs of effort

The class of verbs dubbed verbs of effort includes verbs that refer to the process of 6orking. In the ihjel -construction< verbs of effort primarily appear 6ith re " exive objects.

- (41) Det var det år, Ib Schønberg bukkede under for kræft efter i reali teten at have knoklet sig selv ihjel. That 6as the year the Ib Achønberg gave in to cancer< in reality having 6orked himself to death.
- (42) Han mener dog ikke, at de nye arbejdstidsregler vil føre til det rene anarki, hvor en gruppe danskere vil arbejde sig ihjel. De does not think< ho6ever< that the ne6 rules for 6orking hours 6ill result in a state of pure anarchy in 6hich a group of Banes 6ill 6ork themselves to death.
- (43) Da vi var tæt på den rendyrkede liberalisme, sled tusinder af arbejdere sig ihjel under umenneskelige forhold i byernes slum. Nhen 6e 6ere close to having pure Liberalism< thousands of 6orkers 6orked themselves to death in the slums of the cities.

In the corpora< verbs of effort combined 6ith ihjel invariably express the  NZR!IjW frame in 6hich an LW%jT NZR!A on LCDI%nIjW a WZLL (using some ALLI%jT %jTITr or IjATRoK%jT). Ls 6ith the verbs of ingestion< speci  city versus generality in relation to level of categoribation appears to have an in " uence on verb attraction to the ihjel -construction< 6hich primarily attracts verbs that express DLRB NZR! rather than just basic level NZR! G slide and knokle appear in Korpus 90 and Korpus 2000 < ranking relatively high< 6hereas the basic level term arbejde only appears in Korpus 2000 <  ranking at 57 6hich is to6ards the bottom. This suggests again that speci  c and more dramatic verbs tend to be preferred over more generic and vague basic level ones in the ihjel -construction.

## 8. Metaphorical extensions

Kost of the instances of the ihjel -construction 6e have discussed so far are very much literal in the sense that the predicated situations result in the literal death of a participant. Do6ever< the ihjel -construction may also be metaphorically used to express situations 6hich are conceptualibed in terms of the content of the ihjel -construction. Auch metaphorical

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

extensions are not uncommon among constructions (Lakoff 1987:465). Consider the follo6ing examples:

- (45) Denne sag kan bagatelliseres ihjel. It is possible to trivialibe this case ^to death\_.
- (46) Men enhver, der har prøvet at få sine kæreste hjertebørn anmeldt ihjel, ved at overbærenhed ikke præger universitetsmiljøet. Lnyone 6ho has had their darlings revie6ed ^to death\_ kno6s that forgiveness is not a characteristic of  Lcademia.
- (47) ihjel.
4. Pigen derimod analyserer og intellektualiserer det spæde forhold The girl< ho6ever< 6ill analybe and intellectualibe the ne6 and

fragile relationship ^to death\_.

- (48) De to selskaber var ved at konkurrere hinanden ihjel. The t6o companies 6here about to compete each other ^to death\_.
- (49) Jeg tror, man kan producere sig selv ihjel. I think it is possible to produce oneself ^to death\_.
- (50) Enhver god sag kan diskuteres ihjel. Lny good case can be discussed ^to death\_.
- (51) Kulturen er sneet inde i velfærd, sødet ihjel af pop, eller styret af underholdningsbranchen. Culture is sno6bound by 6elfare< s6eetened ^to death\_ by pop or controlled by the  entertainment business.

Lll of the above examples express an LCTIZj CLRRI%B ZoT Ij %uC%AA L%LBIjW TZ L K%TLkDZRICLL B%LTD. The LCTIZj is carried out to such an extent< by repetition or other6ise< that it in " uences the kLTI%jT as 6ay that it is likened to B%LTD and the kLTI%jT is likened to a nICTIK of !ILLIjW.

kerhaps not surprisingly< the verbs that are used metaphorically in the ihjel -construction generally display lo6 collostruction strength. This is to be expected< as it complies very 6ell 6ith the principle of semantic compatibility. It is possible that this pattern of metaphorical use of the ihjel -construction forms a conventional metaphorical extension of the construction< thus serving as a subconstruction inheriting from the central construction through a metaphorical inheritance link (Woldberg 1995).

There are a fe6 highly attracted verbs 6hich are incongruous 6ith the ihjel -construction<  and  6hich  appear  exclusively  in  metaphorical extension of the construction. They seem to inherit the %uC%AA component from the general metaphorical extension construction< but< given that the verbs are so highly attracted to the construction< it is possible that they form item-speci  c subconstructions 6ithin the metaphorical extension of the ihjel -construction.

Zne such candidate is h kede ZH. (re " exive) ihjel i< 6hich inherits the %uC%AA component< but not the metaphorical B%LTD facet as such:

- (52) Nu har de kedet folk ihjel i århundreder.

They have bored people to death for centuries no6.

- (53) Hvad gør så en intellektuel, når det er noget lort at  yve i concorde og man keder sig ihjel hos Shell?

Nhat< then< is an intellectual supposed to do 6hen " ying on a concorde sucks< and one is bored to death at AhellJsl

This con  guration expresses a scenario in 6hich an %uk%RI%jC%R has an %uk%RI%jC% of some ATIKoLoA< the %uk%RI%jC% itself being one of HZR%BZK< and thus it combines this HZR% scenario 6ith semantic components  of  the ihjel -frame.  Interestingly<  hAoH. kede ZH. ihjel i  appears more freFuently 6ith re " exive objects than non-re " exive ones< 6ith a freFuency of occurrence of 87x versus 17x. This suggests that< perhaps<  a  usage-pattern  is  emerging  in  6hich  re " exive  objects  are becoming an integrated part of the linguistic kno6ledge pertaining to h kede ZH. ihjel i. ret< it is likely that the preference for re " exive objects is inherited from one of the senses of kede < 6hich< 6hen appearing 6ith a re " exive< describes the %uk%RI%jC%RJA %uk%RI%jC% of HZR%BZK as in (53) above. 10 Ls mentioned above< death is not the outcome of the situation< and< unlike in examples (45)-(51) 6here a participant clearly suffers some metaphorical B%LTD< the %uk%RI%jC%R cannot really be said to die even metaphorically here. It seems that only the %uC%AA component from the metaphorical extension applies here. Ao< the %uk%RI%jC%R does not necessarily die from being bored. Rather< the expression metaphorically conveys a very high degree of boredom.

Lnother possible subconstruction 6ithin the metaphorical extension is h TIE ihjel i< 6hich like h kede ihjel i expresses high collostruction strength. Dere are some examples:

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

De should be hushed to death. m De should have been forgottend

- (54) Han skulle ties ihjel. ignored by not being mentioned.

Lnd then there are all those issues that have been hushed to death. m Lnd then there are all those issues that have not been mentioned

- (55) Og så er der alle de forhold, der er blevet tiet ihjel . and 6hich people are oblivious of.
- (56) Fordrivelsen som helhed skulle have været tiet ihjel. The expulsion as a 6hole should have been hushed to death. m The expulsion as a 6hole should have remained unkno6n by not being mentioned.

Gabe, grine, vokse, sejre, and pro  lere < 6hich I mentioned above< along 6ith the verbs in examples (41)-(51)< are not likely candidates for itemspeci  c metaphorical extensions due to the lo6 degrees of general attraction. Do6ever< it is possible that a number of these verbs form itemclass-speci  c metaphorical extensions 6ithin the ihjel -net6ork provided  that  it  is<  indeed<  possible  to  identify  enough  semantic  overlaps to establish classes. :or instance< gabe and grine as 6ell as vokse all predicate more or less unvolitional one-participant situations. Do6ever< it is a matter of debate 6hether this is enough to argue that they belong to the same semantic category.

## 9. Conclusion

The present study is by no means any sort of exhaustive account of the ihjel -constructionM nor is it intended as such. If anything< it is more like the  rst fumbling steps to6ards a usage-based constructionist account of the phenomenon. Nhile a number of usage-patterns have been identi  ed  in  the  corpora<  and  proposed  as  potential  subconstructions<  the most important observation in this study is perhaps the complexity of the ihjel -construction in that 6hat formally appears to be a simple t6oitem phrasal verb covers several different patterns of use.

Hy far< most of the observed facets of ihjel could not have been accounted for in a construction grammar based on complete inheritance< since complete inheritance net6orks are " at and symmetrical in structure< meaning that each and every instance inherits its features directly from the central constructional con  guration< the conseFuences of 6hich are 1) there is no room for subconstructions in the constructional net6ork because theres is bound to be some recundancy bet6een sub- constructions and the central abstract construction< and 2) many usagepatterns 6ill have to be left out< because< 6ithout subconstructions< all information is stored in the central abstract construction< 6hich cannot contain con " icting or differing features 6hich then 6ill have to be  ltered out. This 6ould result in incomplete descriptions of many constructions< including the ihjel -construction.

The  collostructional  analyses  of  the ihjel -construction  indicate that its ontological status is much more complex than 6hat a complete inheritance  model  could  cope  6ith<  as  it  6ere.  .ust  the  fact  that  the verbs that appear in the construction display differing degrees of attraction sho6s that its instances are not symmetrically ordered. Aome individial verbs< like slå < are highly attracted to the construction< forming item-speci  c subconstructions< 6hile others form clusters< or classes< of semantic-types-based item-class-speci  c subconstructions< many of 6hich display their o6n patterns of behavior. Lnd serve their o6n speci  c communicative functions.

Ls mentioned above< 6hile the results of this investigation are far from exhaustive< these observations 6ill< hopehully< pave the 6ay< so to speak< for future usage-based constructionist studies into the seemingly simple yet very complex t6o-element construction.

## Notes

- 1   Aee the glossary of verbs in the appendix for %nglish glosses of Banish verbs referred to in this paper.
- 2 The brackets before the slash indicate the form< 6hile the ones after the slash indicate the content. The slash itself represents the symbolic relation bet6een form and meaning.
- 3 I used WriesJ (2007) coll.analysis 3.2 < 6hich is a soft6are program speci- cally designed for collostruction analysis< to calculate the collostruction strengths in all three corpora.
- 4   Ln item-speci  c  construction  or  subconstruction is one 6hich is de  ned by the occurrence of one lexically substantive item< 6hich an item-classspeci  c construction is one 6hich is de  ned by the occurrence of a limited set< or class< of items.
- 5 jote that ligge y ihjel is often listed in dictionaries as a lexical unit 6hich refers to the situation of a female animal crushing her offspring to death 6hile sleeping. Ligge is  not saliently attracted to ihjel in any of the three corpora used for this study. This does not mean< ho6ever< that the dictionaries are 6rong. The corpora used in this study are general corpora< but ligge ihjel is  a  speci  c farming term and is probably much more productive in varieties of Banish pertaining to farming and agriculture. Ky guess is that ligge ihjel 6ould  gure much more prominently in a corpus based on these varieties of Banish.

- 6 Thanks to !en :arø for pointing this out.
- 7 Interestingly< h køre ihjel i seems to follo6 the same stress distributional pattern as h slå ihjel i< 6hich may indicate that h køre ihjel i displays subconstructional salience.
- 8 This presupposes< of course< that 6e accept that the main function of hAoH. n ZH. re " exive i is to predicate a A%L:-BIR%CT%B AIToLTIZj in 6hich the LW%jT and the kLTI%jT are realibed by the same entity. The re " exive construction is< technically< an argument structure construction 6hose parent is the general transitive construction.
- 9 Nhether or not the use of verbs of ingestion in the ihjel -construction exceeds these three verbs is a Fuestion that reFuires more empirical research to be ans6ered.
- 10 If that is indeed the case then 6e are dealing 6ith inheritance from 6hat Hoas (2003) calls a miniconstruction< 6hich is the argument structure construction associated 6ith the speci  c sense of a polysemous verb.

## References

- Hergen<  Henjamin  !  Y  jancy  C.  Chang  (2005).  %mbodied  construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In: .an-Zla zstman Y Kirjam :ried (eds.) Construction  Grammar(s): Cognitive and Crosslanguage Dimensions < Lmsterdam: .ohn Henjamins:145-90.
- Hiber<  Bouglas  (2000).  Investigating  language  use  through  corpus-based analyses of association patterns. In: Harlo6< Kichael Y Aubanne !emmer (eds.) Usage-Based  Models  of  Language <  Atanford:  Atanford  oniversity kress:287-313.
- Hiber< Bouglas< Ausan Conrad Y Randi Reppen (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use <  Cambridge: Cambridge oniversity kress.
- Hick< %ckhard (2005). Corpus%ye: et brugervenligt 6eb-interface for grammatisk  opmærkede  korpora.  In:  keter  Nidell  Y  Kette  !unøe  (red.) 10. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog 7.-8. okt. 2004, Proceedings .  Larhus: Larhus oniversity kress:46-57.
- Hoas<  Dans  (2003). A  Constructional  Approach  to  Resultatives .  Atanford: Atanford oniversity kress.
- Croft< Nilliam L. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach < London: Longman.
- Croft< Nilliam L. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in a Typological Perspective < Zxford: Zxford oniversity kress.
- Croft< Nilliam L. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In:  Cuyckens<  D.< T.  Herg<  R  Birven  Y  !.  kanther  (eds.) Motivation  in Language: Studies in Honour of Gfnter Radden < Lmsterdam: .ohn Henjamins:49-68.

- Croft< Nilliam L. (2005). Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction  Wrammar.  In:  zstman<  .an-Zla  (ed.) Construction  Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions < Lmsterdam: .ohn Henjamins:273-314.
- Croft< Nilliam L. Y B.L. Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics <  Cambridge: Cambridge oniversity kress.
- :illmore< Charles ..< kaul !ay Y Kary Catherine ZJConnor (1988). Regularity  and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone< Language < 64 (1988):501-39.
- :rancis< %laine .. Y Laura L. Kichaelis (2003). Kismatch: a crucible for linguistic theory. In: :rancis< %laine ..< Laura L. Kichaelis (eds.) Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar <  Atanford< CL: Atanford oniversity kress:1-27.
- Woldberg<  Ldele  %.  (1995).  Constructions: A  Construction  Grammar  Approach to Argument Structure < Chicago: oniversity of Chicago kress.
- Wries< Atefan Th. (2007). Coll.analysis 3.2 .< R-based soft6are.
- Wries< Atefan Th. Y Lnatol Atefano6itsch (2004). Covarying collemes in the into-causative.  In: Lchard<  Kichael<  Aubanne  !emmer  (eds.) Language, Culture, and Mind < Atanford< CL: Atanford oniversity kress:225-236.
- Dopper< kaul .. (1998). %mergent grammar. In: Kichael Tomasello (ed.) The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure < Kah6ah< j.: La6rence %rlbaum:155-175.
- !emmer<  Aubanne  Y  Kichael  Harlo6  (2000).  Introduction:  a  usage-based conception of language. In: Harlo6< Kichael< Aubanne !emmer (eds.) Usage-Based Models of Language < Atanford: Atanford oniversity kress:vii-xxviii.
- Lakoff< Weorge (1977). Linguistic gestalts< Chicago Linguistics Society 13< Chicago: CAL:236-87.
- Lakoff< Weorge (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind < Chicago: Chicago oniversity kress.
- Langacker< Ronald N. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites < Atanford< CL: Atanford oniversity kress.
- Langacker< Ronald N. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application, Atanford< CL: Atanford oniversity kress.
- Lipka< Leonhard< Dans-.{rg Achmid (1994). ^To begin 6ith: degrees of idiomaticity< textual functions and pragmatic exploitations of a  xed expres-sion\_< Zeitschrift ffr Anglistik und   Amerikanistik < 42 (1994):6-15.
- Kichaelis<  Laura L.  (1998). Aspectual  Grammar and Past-time Reference < London: Routledge.
- ZBA m Bet Banske Aprog- og Litteraturselskab (2007 h2005-2007i). Ordbog Over Det Danske Sprog < hZnlinei (http:ddordnet.dkdodsd)
- A6art< Denrietta de (2003). Coercion in a cross-linguistic theory of aspect. In: %laine .. :rancis Y Laura L. Kichaelis (eds.) Mismatch: Form-Function

## Kim Ebensgaard Jensen

- Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar < Atanford< CL: Atanford oniversity kress:231-58.
- Atefano6itsch< Lnatol Y Atefan Th. Wries (2003). ^Collostructions: investigating the interaction bet6een 6ords and constructions\_< International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2005):2-43.
- Atefano6itsch<  Lnatol<  Atefan  Th.  Wries  (2005).  ^Covarying  collexemes\_< Corpus Linguistics and the Linguistic Theory 1 (2005):1-43.
- Tomasello< Kichael (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition < Cambridge< KL: Davard oniversity kress.
- nIAL  (2008  h1996i).  nIAL: Visual  Interactive  Syntax  Learning .  hZnlinei. fhttp:ddvisl.sdu.dkg

| Lppendix: Wlossary of verbs   | Lppendix: Wlossary of verbs           | Lppendix: Wlossary of verbs   | Lppendix: Wlossary of verbs   |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| analysere m tanalybet         | hakke m tpeckt                        | ryge m tsmoket                | sulte m tstarvet              |
| anmelde m trevie6t            | hygge m thave a nice timet            | sejre m tdefeatt              | svede m ts6eatt               |
| arbejde m t6orkt              | intellektualisere m tintellectualibet | skolde m tscaldt              | synge m tsingt                |
| bagatellisere m ttrivialibet  | jokke m tstompt                       | skyde m tshoott               | søde m ts6eetent              |
| banke m tknocktdtbeat upt     | kede m tboret                         | skygge m tshadet              | sørge m tmournt               |
| behandle m ttreatt            | klemme m tsFueebetdtcrusht            | skylle m t " usht             | tale m tspeakt                |
| beskatte m ttaxt              | klippe m tcutt                        | slide m t6ear outt            | tie m tremain silentt         |
| bide m tbitet                 | knokle m t6ork hardt                  | slikke m tlickt               | tortere m ttorturet           |
| blende m tblendt              | koge m tboilt                         | slæbe m tdragt                | trampe m tstamptdtstompt      |
| brænde m tburnt               | konkurrere m tcompetet                | slå m thitt                   | træde m tsteptdttreadt        |
| danse m tdanset               | kvæle m tstrangletdtsuffocatet        | smadre m tsmasht              | træne m ttraint               |
| diskutere m tdiscusst         | køre m tdrivet                        | snakke m ttalkt               | tvivle m tdoubtt              |
| dolke m tstabt                | ligge m tliet                         | snappe m tsnatcht             | tærske m tthrasht             |
| drikke m tdrinkt              | lure m tpeept                         | spare m tsavet                | tæske m tbeat upt             |
| elske m tlovet                | mase m tcrusht                        | sparke m tkickt               | tæve m tbeat upt              |
| fortie m tsilencet            | pine m ttorturet                      | spise m teat like a humant    | tørste m tthirstt             |
| fryse m tfreebet              | piske m t6hipt                        | spørge m taskt                | udpege m tpoint outt          |
| gabe m tya6nt                 | producere m tproducet                 | stampe m tstampt              | underholde m tentertaint      |
| gasse m tgast                 | pro  lere m tpro  let               | stange m tgoret               | visne m t6ithert              |
| grine m tlaught               | prygle m tbeat upt                    | stene m tstonet               | vokse m tgro6t                |
| gå m t6alkt                   | riste m troastt                       | stikke m tpricktdtstabt       | æde m teat like an animalt    |

## !im %bensgaard .ensen

Institut for !ultur og Wlobale Atudier

Lalborg oniversitet

kim|cgs.aau.dk