Conceptual Semantics

A micro-modular approach

| Åbo Akademi University
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027201171 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027263759 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
In this book, the micro-modular approach known as Tiernet within Conceptual Semantics is introduced. Constructions make up an important part in the approach, but in this approach constructions are considered to be exceptions, licensed links between micro-modules, one of the kinds of symbolic modules in the approach. Similar to construction grammar approaches, the micro-modular approach takes a solid interest in the ‘periphery’ and thus also studies irregular linking principles like constructions.

The book details particulars in the development of generative grammar and the relation of Conceptual Semantics to this development, and then introduces the micro-modular approach and shows its usefulness for the description of language generally by not only using examples from English, but also, and in particular, by applying the micro-modular approach of Conceptual Semantics to data from Finnish.

[Constructional Approaches to Language, 23]  2018.  xvi, 281 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
xiii
Introduction
xvi
Part I. Foundations
4–33
Chapter 1. The rules of the game
4–15
Chapter 2. Towards micro-modularity
18–33
Part II. “Semantics”
38–132
Chapter 3. Argument structure and its ingredients: F-chain, argument level, thematic features, and action tier
38–81
Chapter 4. Temporal structure of situations
84–104
Chapter 5. Semantic fields and the modal tier
106–132
Part III. “Syntax”
136–262
Chapter 6. The lexicon and argument linking
136–175
Chapter 7. Complex sentences
178–212
Chapter 8. The finite sentence
214–262
Part IV. Conclusion
266–267
Chapter 9. Conclusion
266–267
Abbreviations
269–270
References
271–275
Index
Index
Footnotes
References

References

Baker, M.
(1988) Incorporation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cambridge Dictionaries Online
. URL: http://​dictionary​.cambridge​.org/. [Downloaded 13 November 2013.]
Chomsky, N.
(1957) Syntactic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1965) Aspects of the theory of language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1970) ”Remarks on nominalizations.” In Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
(1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
(1986a) Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
(1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000) New Horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) ”Opening remarks.” In: M. Piatelli-Palmarini, J. Uriagerega, & P. Salaburu, eds., Of Minds and Language: A Dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
(1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N.
(1985) The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook, 2, 225–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ewen, C. J. & van der Hulst, H.
(2001) The Phonological Structure of Words: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1–89). New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Kay, P.
(1997) Berkeley Construction Grammar. Latest update: February 27, 1997. URL: http://​www1​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/~kay​/bcg​/ConGram​.html. [downloaded 19 August 2013.]
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. & C. O’Connor
(1988) “Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone.’“ Language, 64, 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A.
(1983) The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J. -O.
(Eds.) (2004) Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givon, T.
(1984) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J.
(1976) Autosegmental Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. 170 pp.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan, (Eds.), Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A.
(1976a) Suomen sitä: Pragmatiikan heijastuma syntaksissa, Sananjalka, 17: 25-41.Google Scholar
(1976b) Liitepartikkelin -han/-hän syntaksia ja pragmatiikkaa. In: A. Hakulinen: Suomen kielen generatiivista lauseoppia 2. Turku: Stiftelsens för Åbo Akademi forskningsinstitut.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. & Karlsson, F.
(1979) Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T.R. & Alho, I.
(2004) Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Harrikari, H.
(1999) Epenthesis, Geminates, and the OCP in Finnish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 22, 3–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A.
(2005) Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish Linguistic Inquiry , 36, 533–564. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. & Nikanne, U.
(1994) Expletives and Subject Positions in Finnish. In M. Gonzàlez, (Ed.), NELS 24 (pp. 173–187). Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
(2002) Expletives, Subjects, and Topics in Finnish. In P. Svenonius, (Ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, (pp. 71–105). Oxford University Press. Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
(2008) Subject doubling in Finnish: the role of deficient pronouns. In S. Barbiers, O. Koeneman, & M. Lekakou, (Eds.), Microvariations in Syntactic Doubling (pp. 325–349). Bingley: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A., Nikanne, U., Reime, H., Oraviita, I., & Trosterud, T.
(1993) The structure of INFL and the finite clause in Finnish. In A. Holmberg, & U. Nikanne, (Eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax (pp. 176–206). Studies in Generative Grammar 39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. & Platzack, C.
(1995) The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford/New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R.
(1990) English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2007) Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E.
(1983) Causality in Linguistic Theory. Kent: Groom Helm.Google Scholar
(1988) A critique on the ‘post-structuralist’ conception of language. Semiotica, 71, 305–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Universal History of Linguistics: India, China, Arabia, Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, T.
(1980) Spesies suomessa ja germaanisissa kielissä. Virittäjä, 83(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S.
(1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1976) Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(1): 89–150.Google Scholar
(1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1987a) Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1987b) The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3): 369–411.Google Scholar
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1992a) Languages of the mind: Essays on mental representation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1992b) Mme. Tussaud Meets the Binding Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 10(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S.
(2002) Foundations of language : brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Language, consciousness, culture: essays on mental structure. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karhu, A.
(1994) Suomen itämurteiden oikealle lohkeavat rakenteet ja niiden lähirakenteet: dislokaatioita, korviketopiikkeja, diskurssimerkitsimiä ja pragmaattisia partikkeleita. Licentiate’s thesis, University of Joensuu, Department of Finnish.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F.
(1983) Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Kay, P.
(1995) Construction Grammar. In J. Versceuren, J. -O. Östman, & J. Blommaert, (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual (pp. 171–177). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kettunen, L.
(1940a) Suomen murteet III A, murrekartasto. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
(1940b) Suomen murteet III B, selityksiä murrekartastoon. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1980) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987a) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical perquisites. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1987b) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larjavaara, M.
(2007) Pragmasemantiikka. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J.
(1978) How can we talk about what we see? Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Maling, J.
(1993) Of nominative and accusative: the hierarchical assignment of grammatical case in Finnish. In Anders Holmberg & Urpo Nikanne (Eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax (pp. 49–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U.
(1990) Zones and Tiers: A study of argument structure. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
(1993) On Assigning semantic cases in Finnish. In A. Holmberg & U. Nikanne (Eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, (pp. 75–87). Studies in Generative Grammar 39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1994) On Movement to the Spec(IP) Position in Finnish. In N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Studies on Scrambling pp 431–457). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Action tier formation and argument linking. Studia Linguistica 49, 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997a) Lexical Conceptual Structure and Syntactic Arguments. SKY 1997 (1997 Yearbook of Linguistic Association of Finland), 81–118.Google Scholar
(1997b) Suomen infiniittisten adjunktien temporaalinen tulkinta. Virittäjä, 101(4), 338–357.Google Scholar
(1998) The Lexicon and Conceptual Structure. In T. Haukioja (Ed.), Papers from the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (pp. 305–319). Department of Finnish and general linguistics of the University of Turku.Google Scholar
(2002) Kerrokset ja kytkennät: konseptuaalisen semantiikan perusteet. http://​web​.abo​.fi​/fak​/hf​/fin​/kurssit​/KONSEM​/index​.htm(downloaded 24 April 2018).Google Scholar
(2005a) Constructions in Conceptual Semantics. In J. -O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.) Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 191–242). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005b) Path expressions in Finnish and Swedish: The role of constructions. In L. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Functional Features in Language and Space (pp. 311–327). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Aspectual case marking of object in Finnish. Research in Language, 4, 215–242.Google Scholar
(2008) Conceptual Semantics. In J. -O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (20 pp). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2014) Kielioppi verkostona. In Janhunen, J. (Ed.) Sphinx. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, yearbook 2013–2014, (pp. 77–88). Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
(2015) What makes Conceptual Semantics special. In I. Toivonen, P. Csuri, & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Structures in the Mind: Essays on Language, Music, and Cognition in Honor of Ray Jackendoff (pp. 35–61). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2018): Finite sentences in Finnish Word order, morphology, and information structure. In Laura R. Bailey & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Order and structure in syntax I (pp. 69–98). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. & van der Zee, E.
(2013) The lexical representation of path curvature in motion expressions: a three-way path curvature distinction. In M. Vulchanova & E. van der Zee (Eds). Motion Encoding in Language and Space (pp. 187–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. & Östman, J.-O.
(2006) Finland-Swedish directionality in Conceptual Semantics and in Construction Grammar: A methodological dialogue. In M. Suominen, A. Arppe, A. Airola, O. Heinämäki, M. Miestamo, U. Määttä, J. Niemi, K. K. Pitkänen and K. Sinnemäki (eds.) A Man of Measure. Festscrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday, (pp. 66–86). SKY Journal, special supplement to vol. 19.Google Scholar
Oxford Dictionaries: Oxford Dictionaries Online
. URL: http://​www​.oxforddictionaries​.com/. [Downloaded 8 November 2013.]
Paulsen, G.
(2011) Causation and Dominance: A Study of Finnish causative verbs expressing social dominance. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.Google Scholar
Pekkarinen, H.
(2011) Monikasvoinen TAVA-partisiippi : Tutkimus suomen TAVA-partisiipin käyttökonteksteista ja verbiliittojen kieliopillistumisesta. Ph.D. dissertation: http://​urn​.fi/ URN:ISBN:978-952-10-6965-9
Petrova, O.
(2011) ‘Of Pearls and Pigs’: A conceptual-semantic Tiernet approach to formal representation of structure and variation of phraseological units. Åbo Akademi University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. -Y.
(1989) Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(3), 365–424.Google Scholar
Pörn, M.
(2004) Suomen tunnekausatiiviverbit ja niiden lausemaiset täydennykset. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M.
(2012) The Modular Architecture of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Sagey, E. C.
(1986) The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. URL: http://​dspace​.mit​.edu​/handle​/1721​.1​/15106
Siiroinen, M.
(2001) Kuka pelkää, ketä pelottaa: nykysuomen tunneverbien kielioppia ja semantiikkaa. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Siitonen, K.
(1999) Agenttia etsimässä. U-verbijohdokset edistyneen suomenoppijan ongelmana. Publications of the Department of Finnish Language and General Linguistics, vol. 63. University of Turku.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
(1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suomi, K.
(1990) Huomioita yleiskielen konsonanttien yhdistelyrajoituksista ja pohjalais murteiden epenteettisestä vokaalista. Virittäjä, 94(2), 139–160.Google Scholar
Tenny, C.
(1987) Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
van der Zee, E., Nikanne, U. & Sassenberg, U.
(2010) Grain levels in English path curvature descriptions and accompanying iconic gestures. In: Journal of Spatial Information Science, 1, 95–113Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
(1957) Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 56, 143–160. Reprinted in: Z. Vendler (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy (pp. 97–121). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, M.
(1984) Voiko kin-partikkelia ymmärtää. Virittäjä, 88(4), 393–408.Google Scholar
(1989) Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Vilppula, M.
(1984) Kurkikin jo lähti. Virittäjä, 88(1), 47–60.Google Scholar
von Wright, G. H.
(1957) Logical Studies, International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Published online 15 June 2009, URL: http://​filosofia​.fi​/tallennearkisto​/tekstit​/4537, downloaded 28 October 2013.)
Östman, J. -O. & Fried, M.
(Eds.) (2005) Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiik, K.
(1975) Suomen frekventatiivi ja kontinuatiivi. Virittäjä, 79(2), 153–167.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Paulsen, Geda & Urpo Nikanne
2019. Causative purpose adjuncts in Estonian and Finnish: A non-linear approach. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42:3  pp. 263 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 december 2020. 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.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018017377 | Marc record