Cover not available
Article published In:
The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research
Edited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 320–331

Why we avoid the ‘Multiple Inheritance’ issue in Usage-based Cognitive Construction Grammar

| Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
This squib revisits the phenomenon of ‘Multiple Inheritance’ (MI) and discusses reasons why many usage-based, cognitive construction grammarians seem to be avoiding it when modeling the constructicon and linguistic knowledge. After a brief discussion of the concept and some examples from the literature, the paper examines potential reasons for the apparent disinterest. Finally, the author points to some open questions regarding MI by discussing a specific example, namely modified NPN constructions like day after hellish day or hour after hour of dominoes. It can be argued that these strings inherit their characteristic features from several different abstract templates.
Keywords: multiple inheritance, Usage-based Cognitive Construction Grammar, unification, NPN constructions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Multiple inheritance – Definition and examples
  • 3.Avoidance of MI in usage-based cognitive constructional research
  • 4.A concrete example – Modified NPN constructions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00056.som
References (38)
References
Barðdal, Johanna, and Spike Gildea. 2015. “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Johanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 1–50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal About the Mind. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2013. “Cognitive Construction Grammar.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, and Freek Van De Velde. 2013. “Serving to Masters: Form-Function Friction in Syntactic Amalgams.” Studies in Language 37(3): 534–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2011. “Review of Language, Usage and Cognition by Joan Bybee.” Language 871: 830–844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Usage-Based Construction Grammar.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Ewa Dąbrowska, and Dagmar Divjak, 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar. 2019. Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, and Paul Kay. 1993. Construction Grammar Coursebook, Chapters 1–11 (Reading Materials for Ling X20). Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch.” In Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, ed. by Mirjam Fried, and Jan-Ola Östman, 11–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan and Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013. “Constructionist Approaches.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haïk, Isabelle. 2009. “Symmetric Structures.” CORELA 11(1). <[URL]> (Last accessed Nov 1st, 2018).
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin, and Holger Diessel. 2016. “Entrenchment in Construction Grammar.” In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 57–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2013. “Abstract Phrasal and Clausal Constructions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 307–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2000. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “‘Construction after Construction’ and Its Theoretical Challenges.” Language 84 (1): 8–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok, and Peter Sells. 2015. “English Binominal NPs: A Construction-Based Perspective.” Journal of linguistics 51(1): 41–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1974. “Syntactic Amalgams.” Chicago Linguistic Society 101: 321–44.Google Scholar
. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. “An Overview of Cognitive Grammar.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 3–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A., and Knud Lambrecht. 1996. “Toward a Construction-Based Theory of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition.” Language 72 (2): 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. forthcoming. “ Day to Day and Night After Night: Temporal NPN Constructions in English.” In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current Issues, ed. by Lotte Sommerer, and Evelien Keizer. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sommerer, Lotte and Elena Smirnova (eds.). 2020. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte and Andreas Baumann. 2021,aop. “Of Absent Mothers, Strong Sisters and Peculiar Daughters: The Constructional Network of English NPN Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics.
Steels, Luc (ed.). 2011. Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. “Multiple Inheritance and Constructional Change.” Studies in Language 37 (3): 491–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Trijp, Remi. 2013. “A Comparison Between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames 5 (1): 88–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 2013. “From N to N: The Anatomy of a Construction.” Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (1): 65–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Sommerer, Lotte
2022. Day to day and night after night. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 364 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.