Cover not available
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
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.04hod
References (52)
Basbøll, H. (2003). Prosody, productivity and word structure: The stød pattern of Modern Danish. Nordic journal of linguistics, 261, 5–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B.K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 801, 290–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2008). Constructions and language change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., Green, D.W., & Gollan, T.H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological science in the public interest, 101, 89–129. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 871, 55–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (2006). Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions, special volume 11, 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, 371, 445–468. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of pragmatics, 371, 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle 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 <[URL]>, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and language, 361, 3–15. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic future constructions. A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1990. “What me worry?” ‘Mad Magazine sentences’ revisited. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 161, 215–228. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdi, G. (1996). Mehrsprachigkeit. In H. Goebl, et al. (Eds.), Contact linguistics. An international handbook of contemporary research, Vol. 11 (pp. 233–245). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1949). La double articulation linguistique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 51, 30–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J.J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic inquiry, 121, 373–418.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of language,141, 177–202. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, L. (2010). What has changed in Hiberno-English: Constructions and their role in contact-induced change. Language typology and universals, 631, 118–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riad, T. (2009). Prosodi i svenskans ordbildning och ordböjning. <[URL]>, 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, 391, 64–92. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M., & Croft, W. (2007). Phonological development: Toward a ‘radical’ templatic phonology. Linguistics, 451, 683–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1954). Is a structural dialectology possible? Word, 101, 388–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1964/1953). Languages in contact. Findings and problems. 3rd edn. London/The Hague/Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Hagel, Anna
2023. Chapter 3. One man’s [ɕœtː] is another man’s [kʰøð̞]. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo
Höder, Steffen, Julia Prentice & Sofia Tingsell
2021. Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Jach, Daniel
2021. Something I was dealing with. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
Lepic, Ryan
2021. From letters to families. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 268 ff. DOI logo
Urban, Aileen
2021. Idioconstructions in conflict. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2020. Jürgen Erfurt & Sabine De Knop (Hg.). 2019.Konstruktionsgrammatik und Mehrsprachigkeit(OBST 94). Duisburg: Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr. 204 S.. Zeitschrift für Rezensionen zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft 12:1-2 ► pp. 142 ff. DOI logo
Höder, Steffen
2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 334 ff. DOI logo
Höder, Steffen
2023. Chapter 4. The Devil is in the schema. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2018. Construction Grammar and language contact. In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2021. Widening the scope. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Koutsoukos, Nikos, Kristel Van Goethem & Hendrik De Smet
2018. Asymmetries, mismatches and construction grammar. Constructions and Frames 10:2 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Tiago Timponi Torrent, Adrieli Laviola, Linnéa Bäckström, Anna Helga Hannesdóttir & Ely Edison da Silva Matos
2018. Chapter 9. Aligning constructicons across languages. In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo

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