Cover not available
Review article published In:
Asymmetries, Mismatches and Construction Grammar
Edited by Nikos Koutsoukos, Kristel Van Goethem and Hendrik De Smet
[Constructions and Frames 10:2] 2018
► pp. 123–146
Introduction

Asymmetries, mismatches and construction grammar

An introduction

 | F.R.S.-FNRS | Université catholique de Louvain
 | F.R.S.-FNRS | Université catholique de Louvain
 | KU Leuven
Article outline
  • 1.Canonical and non-canonical form-meaning correspondences: A historical overview
    • 1.1The notion of the sign: Canonical form-meaning correspondence
    • 1.2Lack of form-meaning correspondence
    • 1.3A typology of asymmetries and mismatches
  • 2.Asymmetries and mismatches in construction grammar
    • 2.1Background: Constructions as extended signs
    • 2.2Asymmetries/mismatches and construction grammar
  • 3.Aim of this issue and contributions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00016.kou
References (93)
References
Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). A short history of morphological theory. In J. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory (pp. 19–33). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R., & Saussure, L. de. (Eds). (2018). René de Saussure and the theory of word formation. Language science press. [Open access publication: [URL]]
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Morphology by itself. Stems and inflectional classes. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bach, E. W. (1989). Informal lectures on formal semantics. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bazell, C. E. (1966). The correspondence fallacy in structural linguistics. In E. P. Hamp, F. W. Householder, & R. Austerlitz (Eds.), Readings in linguistics II (pp. 271–298). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Reprint of Bazell 1952 in Studies by members of the English department. Istanbul University)Google Scholar
(2004). On the problem of the morpheme. In F. Katamba (Ed.), Morphology: Critical concepts in linguistics, Volume 1: Word structure: a variety of views (pp. 97–109). London & New York: Routledge. (Reprint of Bazell 1949 in Archivum Linguisticum, 11, 1–15).Google Scholar
Bisetto, A., & Melloni, C. (2008). Parasynthetic compounding. Rivista Lingue e Linguaggio, 7(2), 233–260.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2016). The minimal sign. In A. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp. 50–69). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933/1967). Language. London: Allen and Unwin. (Reprint of the original work published in 1933.)Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 21, 119–127.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(2013). Morphology in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 255–273). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Masini, F. (2015). The role of second order schemas in word formation. In L. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 47–66). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G. (2015). On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. A study of relation between meaning and form [Typological studies in language]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohnitz, D. (2005). Is compositionality an a priori principle? In M. Werning, E. Machery, & G. Schurz (Eds.), The compositionality of meaning and content. Vol. 1: Foundational Issues (pp. 23–58). Frankfurt: Ontos. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 221, 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbin, D. (1987). Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Vol. I1. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
(1989). Form, structure, and meaning of constructed words in an associative and stratified lexical component. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1989 (pp. 31–54). Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H., Lobke, G., & Van de Velde, F. (Eds.). (2013). On multiple source constructions in language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., D’hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). The changing functions of competing forms. Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(2), 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’hoedt, F. (2017). Language change in constructional networks. The development of the English secondary predicate construction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (2007). Compositionality as an empirical problem. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 23–101). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O., & Wurzel, W. U. (Eds.) (1987). Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology [Studies in Language Companion Series 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Efthymiou, A. (2015). Modern Greek parasynthetic verbs: A hierarchical relationship between prefixes and suffixes? In S. Manova (Ed.), Affix ordering across languages and frameworks (pp. 82–110). New York: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, E. J., & Michaelis, L. (2003). Mismatch: A crucible for linguistics theory. In E. J. Francis & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 1–27). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100(1), 25–50.Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2013). Principles of constructional change. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 419–437). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N., & Russell, K. (2004). Contrastive focus reduplication in English (the salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 221, 307–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haas, W. (1957). Zero in linguistic description. In Studies in linguistic analysis (pp. 33–53). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D. (2010). Understanding morphology (Second edition). London: Hachette.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W., Markus, W., & Machery, E. (2012). Introduction. In M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality (pp. 1–16). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis (1943). Omkring sprogteoriens Grundlaeggelse. København: Cercle linguistique de Copenhague.Google Scholar
(1954). La stratification du langage. Word 101, 163–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, J. (1987). Categorial Morphology. New York: Garland PressGoogle Scholar
(2000). Compositionality of meaning. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.) in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas, Morphologie. Morphology. 1. Halbband/Volume 11 (pp. 851–857). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Construction grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 1–12). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Holdcroft, D. (1991). Saussure: Signs, system, and arbitrariness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2014). Phonological elements in diasystematic construction grammar. Constructions and frames, 61, 202–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iyeiri, Y. (2001). Negative constructions in Middle English. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). The architecture of the language faculty. USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Meaning and the lexicon. The parallel architecture 1975–2010. USA: OUP.Google Scholar
(2013). Constructions in the parallel architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 70–92). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. (2004). The linguistic sign. In C. Sanders (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Saussure (pp. 59–75). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karcevkij, S. (1929/1964). Du dualisme asymétrique du signe linguistique. In J. Vachek (Ed.), A Prague school reader in linguistics (pp. 81–87). Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press. (Reprint of Karcevkij 1929 in Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, I1, 33–38.)Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (2006). Typological changes in derivational morphology. In A. van Kemenade & B. Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English (pp. 151–176). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Volume 31 (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (2000). Are affixes signs? The semantic relationships of English derivational affixes. In W. U. Dressler, O. E. Pfeiffer, M. A. Pöchtrager, & J. R. Rennison (Eds.), Morphological analysis in comparison (pp. 143–154). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., & Londen, A.-M. (2008). Constructing reasoning. The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive), and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 105–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word formation. A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Marzo, D. (2015). Motivation, compositionality, idiomatization. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, Vol. 21 (pp. 984–1001). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology (Second edition). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, W. (2003). The nothing that is, the zero that isn’t. Studia Linguistica, 571, 75–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. (2006). The structure of linguistic signs and semantic-formal relations between them. In D. Beck (ed.), Aspects of the theory of morphology (pp. 517–540). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2003). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 163–209). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Sign-based construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 133–152). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Miclău, P. (1970). Le signe linguistique. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Moortgat, M., & ‎ Hulst, H. van der. (1981). Geïnterpreteerde morfologie. In R. Knopper (Ed.), Woordstructuur (pp. 17–53). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. K. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 701, 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ralli, A. (2004). Stem-based versus word-based morphological configurations: The case of Modern Greek preverbs. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2004(2), 269–302.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. (1992). What is a morpheme? A view from construction grammar. In Proceedings of the eighteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on the place of morphology in a grammar (pp. 409–423). University of California at Berkeley, Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Sag, I. (2012). Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 61–196). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. (1916/1995). Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par C. Bailly & A. Séchehaye. Paris: Editions Payot & Rivages.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
(2012). Identifying stems. Word Structure, 51, 88–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. (1997). Template morphology and inflectional morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 217–241). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swiggers, P. (2000). Linguistic sign. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), in collaboration with W. Kesselheim & S. Skopeteas, Morphologie. Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. An international handbook on inflection and word formation. 1. Halbband/Volume 11 (pp. 210–224). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szymanek, B. (1988). Categories and categorization in morphology. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.Google Scholar
Thornton, A. M. (2012). Reduction and maintenance of overabundance. A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure, 5(2), 183–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Wurff, W. (1998). On expletive negation with adversative predicates in the history of English. In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, G. Tottie, & W. van der Wurff (Eds.), Negation in the history of English (pp. 295–327). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–180). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K., Vanderbauwhede, G., & De Smet, H. (2018). The emergence of a new adverbial downtoner: Constructional change and constructionalization of Dutch [ver van X] and [verre van X]. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, G. Vanderbauwhede, & E. Coussé (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 179–205). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Marle, J. (1985). On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. In H. E. M. Schuchardt, T. Vennemann, & T. H. Wilbur (Eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change: four essays (pp. 183–204) [Linguistische Forschungen, 26]. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.Google Scholar
Wagner, S. (2018). Never saw one – first-person null subjects in spoken English. English Language and Linguistics, 221, 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. (2013). Words and idioms. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 274–289). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Zwanenburg, W. (2000). Correspondence between formal and semantic relations. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), in collaboration with W. Kesselheim & S. Skopeteas, Morphologie. Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. An international handbook on inflection and word formation. 1. Halbband/Volume 11 (pp. 840–850). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Bardenstein, Ruti & Avi Gvura
2023. Motion verbs and future constructions: the case of Hebrew omed le-V ‘standing (up) to-V’/‘(be) about to-V’. Journal of Pragmatics 218 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Koutsoukos, Νikos & Angela Ralli
2023. Zero suffixes in Modern Greek derived adjectival formations with alpha privative. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 42:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Van Goethem, Kristel
2021. Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 27). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2020. Pp. vi + 355. ISBN 9789027205445.. English Language and Linguistics 25:4 ► pp. 895 ff. DOI logo
Tarasova, Elizaveta & José A. Sánchez Fajardo
2020. Iconicity and word-formation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 332 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 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.