It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles

References

• Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1–39. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(90)90035-I
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butt, M. (2010). The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In M. Amberber, M. Harvey, & B. Baker (Eds.), Complex predicates in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 48–78). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, G. (1998). Thematic roles and the individuation of events. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 35–51). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, K. E., Onishi, K. H., & Fisher, C. (2010). A vowel is a vowel: Generalizing newly-learned phonotactic constraints to new contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 821–828. doi:10.1037/a0018991
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1981/1993). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 644–650. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.5.644
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., Miller, C., & Ostrin, R. (1996). Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition, 58, 321–376. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00686-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41, 153–195. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90035-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hale, K. L., & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, K. L., & Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartshorne, J. K., & Snedeker, J. (2012). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1–35. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.689305
   Google Scholar
• Hommel, B., Alonso, D., & Fuentes, L. (2003). Acquisition and generalization of action effects. Visual Cognition, 10, 965–986. doi:10.1080/13506280344000176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (1974). A deep structure projection rule. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 481–505. Retreived from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177840
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1–14. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.717632
   Google Scholar
• Majid, A., Sanford, A. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The linguistic description of minimal social scenarios affects the extent of causal inference making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 918–932. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C. (1994). Water is Not H2O. Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 41–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1999). Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology, 38(4), 495–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenberg, E., Jackendoff, R., Kuperberg, G., Paczynski, M., Snedeker, J., & Wiese, H. ( in press). The processing and representation of light verb constructions. In A. Bachrach, I. Roy, & L. Stockall (Eds.), Structuring the argument. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Wittenberg, E., & Snedeker, J. (2011). Syntactic priming across constructions: Light verbs. Paris: Poster, AMLaP Conference.
   Google Scholar