Verbs prefixed with over-exhibit varied subcategorization changes from the base verbs (load hay onto the wagon/$^{*}$overload hay onto the wagon, eat an apple/$^{*}$?overeat apples, $^{*}$sleep his appointment/oversleep his appointment, etc.), which seem to defy a principled explanation. This article argues that the apparently puzzling behaviors of over-verbs can be coherently accounted for within the framework of construction grammar.

Over-verbs, in the excess sense, divide into those involving a container-based understanding and those involving a scale-based understanding. Over-verbs involving a container-based understanding (e.g. overload) differ from their base verbs as to the force transmission in a causal chain. Accordingly, those over-verbs are sanctioned by a different verb-class-specific construction from that which sanctions their base verbs. But over-verbs involving a scale-based understanding (e.g. overheat) are unchanged from their base verbs as to the force transmission, and hence as to the syntactic frame.

On the other hand, over-verbs in the spatial sense (e.g. overfly) are sanctioned by a ‘landmark’-based construction, a construction that does not have to do with force transmission. And some excess over-verbs (e.g. oversleep) are also sanctioned by this verb-class-specific construction.

The proposed account pays close attention to both verbs and constructions. A verb's occurrence in a particular syntactic frame can be explained by claiming that that verb can be sanctioned by a particular verb-class-specific construction, irrespective of whether the verb is morphologically simple or complex. But in order to explain why that verb can be sanctioned by that construction at all, a detailed analysis of verb meanings is called for. In this sense, the proposed analysis is both lexical and constructional.