Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 30] 2021
► pp. 17–53

Idioconstructions in conflict

Ad hoc generalization in multilingual speech processing

| Kiel University
On the basis of corpus data from Norwegian and Swedish as heritage languages in the United States of America, this article explores the role of potentially conflicting information in constructs that cannot be considered as stereotypical multilingual practices in classical approaches, such as Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame model or Muysken’s Code-Mixing model. Following the approach of Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG), the article focuses on the differentiation between diaconstructions, i. e. language-unspecific elements the involved languages have in common, and idioconstructions, i. e. language-specific elements that distinguish them. From this perspective, typical multilingual practices can be analyzed as constructs comprising a combination of idioconstructions that carry conflicting pragmatic information. The article proposes that conflicts of this kind reflect a spontaneous generalization, i. e. pragmatic bleaching, of the involved idioconstructions.
Keywords: Construction Grammar, Diasystematic Construction Grammar, language contact, multilingualism, multilingual practices, multilingual speech processing, cognition, conceptual integration
Article outline
  • 1.Phenomena under investigation
  • 2.Traditional theories vs. usage-based CxG
    • 2.1Codeswitching and other multilingual practices
    • 2.2Speech processing in multilingual speakers – a matter of form or function?
    • 2.3Multilingual practices from a CxG perspective
  • 3.Multilingual speech processing in CxG
    • 3.1The basic concepts of Diasystematic CxG
    • 3.2The multilingual constructicon
    • 3.3Ad hoc generalization in two ways
      • 3.3.1Conceptual integration – a brief introduction
      • 3.3.2Ad hoc generalization relying on existing diaconstructions
      • 3.3.3Ad hoc generalization relying on ad hoc diaconstructions
    • 3.4Ad hoc generalization and schematicity
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Corpus
  • References
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.02urb
References (55)
Corpus
CANS = Corpus of American Nordic Speech v.3 Oslo University. [URL] (last access: 12/11/2019).
References
Andréasson, M. et al. (2013). På jakt efter amerikasvenskan. In B. Bihl, P. Andersson, & L. Lötmarker (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 32. Förhandlingar vid trettioandra sammankomsten för senskans beskrivning (pp. 83–93). Karlstad: Karlstads universitet.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. et al. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10, 89–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, J.-P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1986 [1972]). Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-switching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnography of communication (pp. 407–434). Oxford etc.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boas, H., & Höder, S. (2018a). Construction Grammar and language contact. An introduction. In H. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives in contact phenomena in Germanic languages (p. 5–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives in contact phenomena in Germanic languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A. (2010). Self Comes to Mind. Constructing the Conscious Brain. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., & Vannebo, K. I. (1997). Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago etc.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Studying Bilinguals. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasselmo, N. (1974). Amerikasvenska. En bok om språkutvecklingen i Svensk-Amerika. Stockholm: Esselte Studium.Google Scholar
(2005). History of the scandinavian emigrant languages. In O. Bandle et al. (Eds.), The nordic languages. An international handbook of the North Germanic languages (vol. 2, pp. 2127–2141). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Havermeier, H. (2015). Deutsch-schwedisches Codeswitching an der internationalen Universität. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2003). On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 27, 529–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Contact and grammaticalization. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp. 86–105). Malden etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2014). Reflections on constructions across grammars. Constructions and Frames, 6, 137–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2010). Sprachausbau im Sprachkontakt. Syntaktischer Wandel im Altschwedischen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
(2012). Multilingual constructions. A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 241–257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Årfali, & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Convergence vs. divergence from a diasystematic perspective. In K. Braunmüller, S. Höder, & K. Kühl (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact. Factors and mechanisms (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014c). Phonlogical elements in Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6, 202–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016a). Niederdeutsche Form, unspezifische Struktur. Diasystematische Konstruktionen in der deutsch-dänischen Kontaktzone. In H. Spiekermann et al. (Eds.), Niederdeutsch: Grenzen, Strukturen, Variation (pp. 293–309). Wien etc: Böhlau.Google Scholar
(2016b). Though this be contact, yet there is system in ’t: Was man noch heute von Uriel Weinreich über Sprachkontakt lernen kann. In A. Walker (Ed.), Classics revisited (pp. 157–178). Frankfurt am Main etc.: Lang.Google Scholar
(2018a). Grammar is community-specific. Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives in contact phenomena in Germanic languages (p. 37–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Schwedisch ist gut, Latein ist besser? Spätmittelalterliche Sprachmischung aus normativer Perspektive. In T. Burkard, & M. Hundt (Eds.), Sprachmischung – Mischsprachen. Vom Nutzen und Nachteil gegenseitiger Sprachbeeinflussung (pp. 145–164). Berlin: Lang.Google Scholar
(2019). Mehrsprachige Äußerungen aus dem Blickwinkel der Diasystematischen Konstruktionsgrammatik: eine Annäherung. In J. Erfurt, & S. De Knop (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik und Mehrsprachigkeit (pp. 27–50). Duisburg: Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. (2015). The Corpus of American Norwegian Speech (CANS). In B. Megyesi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics, NODALIDA 2015, May 11–13, 2015 (pp. 297–300). Vilnius. NEALT Proceedings Series 23.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B., &. Salmons, J. (2012). Innledning. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift, 30, 139–148.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. (2002). Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In M. C. Jones, & E. Esch (Eds.), Language change. The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors (pp. 285–313). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). On copying grammatical meaning. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 58, 75–83.Google Scholar
(2008). Remodeling grammar. Copying, conventionalization, grammaticalization. In P. Siemund, & N. Kintana (Eds.), Language contact and contact languages (pp. 61–79). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 159–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F. (2015). Bilingualism, mind and brain. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 377–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, I., Tingsell, S., & Andréasson, M. (2015). Variation and change in American Swedish. In J. B. Johannessen, & J. C. Salmons (Eds.), Germanic heritage languages in North America. Acquisition, attrition and change (pp. 359–388). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdi, G. (1996). Mehrsprachigkeit. In H. Goebl et al. (Eds.), Contact linguistics. An international handbook of contemporary research (vol. 1, pp. 233–245). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual Speech. A Typology of Code-mixing. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (2010 [2002]). Contact linguistics. Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pahta, P., Skaffari, J., & Wright, L. (2018). From historical code-switching to multilingual practices in the past. In P. Pahta, J. Skaffari, & L. Wright (Eds.), Multilingual practices in language history. English and beyond (pp. 3–17). Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. (2007). Conceptual integration. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 377–393). New York etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wasserscheidt, P. (2014). Constructions do not cross languages. On cross-linguistic generalization of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 6, 305–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Bilinguales Sprechen. Ein konstruktionsgrammatischer Ansatz. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1954). Is a structural dialectology possible? Word, 10, 388–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1964 [1953]). Languages in contact. Findings and problems. London/The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2015). Converging grammars. Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Coussé, Evie, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Julia Prentice
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.