Article published in:
Reflections on Constructions across Grammars
Edited by Martin Hilpert and Jan-Ola Östman
[Constructions and Frames 6:2] 2014
► pp. 202–231

Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar

| Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel image/svg+xml
Usage-based CxG approaches share the central assumption that any grammar has to be acquired and organised through input-based abstraction and categorisation. Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG) is based on the idea that these processes are not sensitive to language boundaries. Multilingual input thus results in multilingual grammars which are conceived of as constructicons containing language-specific as well as language-unspecific constructions. Within such systems, phonological structures play an important part in the identification of schematic constructions. However, the status of phonology in DCxG, as in CxG in general, yet remains unclear. This paper presents some arguments for including phonological elements systematically in the construction-based analysis of (multilingual) constructional systems.
Keywords: language contact, phonology, multilingualism, contact-induced change, Diasystematic Construction Grammar
Published online: 30 March 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.04hod
References

References

Basbøll, H.
(2003) Prosody, productivity and word structure: The stød pattern of Modern Danish. Nordic journal of linguistics, 26, 5–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B.K.
(2004) The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80, 290–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and language change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., Green, D.W., & Gollan, T.H.
(2009) Bilingual minds. Psychological science in the public interest, 10, 89–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L.
(1965) Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Boas, H.C.
(2013) Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J.K., & Goldberg, A.E.
(2011) Learning what not to say: the role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87, 55–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions, special volume 1, 9.Google Scholar
(2007) Konstruktionen in der diachronen Sprachwissenschaft. In K. Fischer & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (pp. 79–103). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2009) Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 37, 445–468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(2004) Construction Grammar. A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gil, D.
(2011) Para-linguistic usages of clicks. In M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online (Chapter 142). Munich www​.wals​.info​/chapter​/142, 1 March 2013.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(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 etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J.
(1976) Autosegmental phonology. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.
Grice, M., Baumann, S., & Benzmüller, R.
(2005) German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Sun-Ah Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology. The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 55–83). Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F.
(1989) Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and language, 36, 3–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Studying bilinguals. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, S., & Imo, W.
(Eds.) (2006) Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E.
(1956) Bilingualism in the Americas. A bibliography and research guide. University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(2005) Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2008) Germanic future constructions. A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Was ist Konstruktionswandel? In A. Lasch & A. Ziem (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze (pp. 59–75). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Höder, S.
(2012) Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 241–257). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014a) Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. Åfarli & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Convergence vs. divergence from a diasystematic perspective. In K. Braunmüller, S. Höder & K.H. Kühl (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact. Factors and mechanisms (pp. 39–60), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014c) Low German: A profile of a word language – and why it matters. In J. Caro Reina & R. Szczepaniak (Eds.), Syllable and word languages (pp. 305–326). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
1990 “What me worry?” ‘Mad Magazine sentences’ revisited. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 16, 215–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leino, P., & Östman, J.-O.
(2008) Language change, variability, and functional load: Finnish genericity from a constructional point of view. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
Martinet, A.
(1949) La double articulation linguistique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 5, 30–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y.
(2009) Language contact. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J.J.
(1981) A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic inquiry, 12, 373–418.Google Scholar
Noël, D.
(2007) Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of language,14, 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oksaar, E.
(1980) Mehrsprachigkeit, Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt. In P.H. Nelde (Ed.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt (pp. 43–52). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O.
(2005) Construction discourse. A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, L.
(2010) What has changed in Hiberno-English: Constructions and their role in contact-induced change. Language typology and universals, 63, 118–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riad, T.
(2009) Prosodi i svenskans ordbildning och ordböjning. www​.nordiska​.su​.se​/polopoly​_fs​/1​.29929​.1320939953!​/ProsodiOrdbildningRiadNov12​.pdf, 15 August 2014.
Rubba, J.
(1993) Discontinuous morphology in Modern Aramaic. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, San Diego.
Schachtenhaufen, R.
(2010) Schwa-assimilation og stavelsesgrænser. Nydanske sprogstudier, 39, 64–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2005) Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C.
(2003) Constructions in grammaticalization. In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–347). Malden etc.: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M., & Croft, W.
(2007) Phonological development: Toward a ‘radical’ templatic phonology. Linguistics, 45, 683–725. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U.
(1954) Is a structural dialectology possible? Word, 10, 388–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1964/1953) Languages in contact. Findings and problems. 3rd edn. London/The Hague/Paris: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wide, C.
(2009) Interactional Construction Grammar. Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 111–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 5 ff. Crossref logo
Höder, Steffen
2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 334 ff. Crossref logo
Koutsoukos, Nikos, Kristel Van Goethem & Hendrik De Smet
2018. Asymmetries, mismatches and construction grammar. Constructions and Frames 10:2 ► pp. 123 ff. Crossref logo
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Tiago Timponi Torrent, Adrieli Laviola, Linnéa Bäckström, Anna Helga Hannesdóttir & Ely Edison da Silva Matos
2018.  In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 255 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 02 october 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.