Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 135–172

Chapter 5
Exploring inter-constructional relations in the constructicon

A view from Contrastive (Cognitive) Construction Grammar

| University of Almería
Drawing on a cursory contrastive analysis of (i) the reflexive subjective-transitive construction, (ii) the self-descriptive subjective transitive construction, and (iii) the What’s X doing Y? (WXDY) construction in English and Spanish, this chapter explores the feasibility of capturing intra- and inter-constructional generalizations. Specifically, all three constructions must encode a characterization in keeping with the inherent subjective meaning of the secondary predication frame. At a higher level of resolution, in the case of two prima facie distinct constructions such as those in (ii) and (iii), the state of affairs in question should involve a stage-level rather than individual-level construal. I suggest that a similarity in pragmatic function, viz. the subject/speaker’s judgment of a state of affairs as being unexpected or incongruous, may be the unifying factor binding them together in the constructicon.
Keywords: pragmatic function, reflexive subjective-transitive construction, secondary predication, self-descriptive subjective-transitive construction, WXYD construction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The reflexive construction
  • 3.The reflexive subjective-transitive construction
  • 4.The self-descriptive subjective-transitive construction
  • 5.The WXDY construction
  • 6.Closing remarks and outlook
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.06gar
References (77)
References
Aarts, B. 1995. Secondary predicates in English. In B. Aarts, & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in contemporary English. Theory and description (75–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., & Goldberg, A. 1996. Constraints on adjectival past participles. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Discourse and language (17–30). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2003. Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (223–255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M. 1996. Corpora for theory and practice. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1), 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Boas, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(Ed.). 2010. Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1973. Essence and accidence: English analogs of Hispanic ser-estar . In B. Kachru, R. B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli, & S. Saporta (Eds.), Issues in Linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane (57–69). Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez, F. 2014. Exploring functional-cognitive space [Studies in Language Companion Series 157]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Camacho Ballesta, J. A. 2012. Ser and Estar: The individual/ stage-level distinction and aspectual predication. In J. I. Gualde, A. Olarrea, & E. O’ Rourke (Eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics (453–476). New York: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. forthcoming. What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere, & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logo
Carlson, G. N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H., & Verstraete, J-C. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365–392.Google Scholar
Demonte, V., & Masullo, P. 1999. La predicación: Los complementos predicativos. In I. Bosque, & V. Demonte (Dirs.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. (Vol. 2. Las construcciones sintácticas fundamentales. Relaciones temporales, aspectuales y modales) (2461–2523). Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. 2005. Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (69–100). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Escandell Vidal, V., & Leonetti, M. 2002. Coercion and the stage/individual distinction. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics (159–179). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Faltz, L. M. 1977. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. (Reprinted 1985, New York: Garland).Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. F. 1999. Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig, & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (113–128). Stanford, California: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fried, M. 2007. Constructing grammatical meaning. Isomorphism and polysemy in Czech reflexivization. Studies in Language, 31(4), 721–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. 2005. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language 2] (11–86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
García, E. 1975. The role of theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam and New York: North-Holland Publishing Company/American Elsevier Publishing Company. [North-Holland Linguistic Series 19].Google Scholar
García Miguel, J. M., & Comesaña, S. 2004. Verbs of cognition in Spanish: constructional schemas and reference Points. In A. Torres, A. Soares de Silva, & M. Gonçalves (Eds.), Linguagem, cultura e cognição: Estudos de Linguística Cognitiva (367–384). Coimbra: Almedina.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1998. Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language [Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure], vol. 1 (203–219). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Suttle, L. 2010. Construction grammar. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 468–477.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez, F. 2001. ‘I found myself led into the path of constructions’: A brief overview of how construction-based approaches can furnish new ways of understanding in English grammar. In L. González Romero, M. Martínez Vázquez, B. Rodríguez Arrizabalaga, & P. Ron Vaz (Eds.), Recent approaches to English grammar (151–182). Huelva: Grupo de Gramática Contrastiva.Google Scholar
2003. Reconstructing object complements in English and Spanish. In M. Martínez (Ed.), Gramática de Construcciones (Contrastes entre el inglés y el español) (17–58). Huelva: Grupo de Gramática Contrastiva.Google Scholar
2006. Passives without actives: Evidence from verbless complement constructions in Spanish. Constructions SV1-5/2006.Google Scholar
2009a. The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based, constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31(5), 663–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. Measuring out reflexivity in secondary predication in English and Spanish: Evidence from verba cogitandi in English and Spanish. In C. S. Butler, & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (101–145). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1305–1358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Breves consideraciones en torno a la interacción entre coerción y polisemia: El caso de la predicación secundaria con verbos de cognición en español. In S. De Knop, F. Mollica, & J. Kuhn (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik und Romanische sprachen [Studia Romanica et Linguistica 39] (187–203). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2014. Bringing together fragments and constructions: Evidence from complementation in English and Spanish. In H. C. Boas, & F. Gonzálvez (Eds.), Construction grammar perspectives on Romance languages [Constructional Approaches to Language 15] (181–226). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015. Items and generalizations: Evidence from decir within the family of subjective-transitive constructions in Spanish. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 194–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 1998. Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., & Hudson, R. 2005. Constructions in Word Grammar. In M. Fried, & J.-O Östman (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (243–272). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1997. Language, consciousness, culture. Essays on mental structure. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. 1993. The semantics of Russian and Czech reflexives. In R. A. Maguire, & A. Timberlake (Eds.), American contributions to the eleventh international congress of Slavists (310–319). Columbus, OH: Bratislava Slavica.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. F. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S. E. 1993. The middle voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Middle voice, transitivity and events. In B. Fox, & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and function (179–230). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Human cognition and the elaboration of events. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (Cognitive and functional approaches to language), Vol. 2 (89–118). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1988. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In M. Krifka (Ed.), Genericity in natural language (247–284). University of Tübingen: SNS-Bericht 88–42, Seminar für natürlich-sprachliche Systeme.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1990. What me worry? – Mad Magazine sentences revisited. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 215–228. UC Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
1994. Information structure and sentence form. A theory of topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2003. Constructions in Cognitive Grammar. English Linguistics, 20, 41–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Aspects of the grammar of finite clauses. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (535–577). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lázaro, F. A. 1983. Observaciones sobre se medio. In E. Alarcos, & F. Lázaro (Eds.), Serta Philologica F. Lázaro Carreter: Natalem diem sexagesimun celebranti dicata (Vol. 1. Estudios de lingüística y lengua literaria) (301–307). Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Luján, M. 1977. El análisis de los verbos reflexivos incoativos. Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística, 7, 97–120.Google Scholar
Luzondo, A. 2014. Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 30–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In R. J. Jarvella, & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (101–124). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Maldonado, R. 1999. A media voz: Problemas conceptuales del clítico se. [Publicaciones del Centro de Lingüística Hispánica 46]. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Méjico: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Ciudad de Méjico.Google Scholar
2007. Grammatical voice in Cognitive Grammar. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (829–868). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Spanish middle syntax: A usage-based proposal for grammar teaching. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar – Volume in honor of René Dirven (150–190). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Martín, M. A. 1979. Las construcciones pronominales en español: Paradigmas y desviaciones. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Martínez, M. 1998. Diátesis. Alternancias oracionales en la lengua inglesa. Huelva: Grupo de Gramática Contrastiva.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. 2011. Stative by construction. Linguistics, 49, 1359–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. L. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 1999. Coercion and metonymy: The interaction of constructional and lexical meaning. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on language [Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 1] (37–52). Frankfurt um Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Peña, M. S. 2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences, 31(6), 740–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. K. 1973. What’s a sentence like this doing showing up in English? York Papers in Linguistics, 3, 113–115.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Espiñeira, M. J. 1989. El complemento predicativo del complemento directo en español. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2015. Entrenching inferences in implicational and illocutionary constructions. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 258–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & J. L. Otal. 2002. Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote, Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Sánchez, C. 2002. Las construcciones con se. Estado de la cuestión. In C. Sánchez (Ed.), Las construcciones con se [Colección Gramática del Español 8] (13–163). Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J. 2002. Point of view and grammar. Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, &. H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (29–71). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Ek, J. A., & Robat, N. J. 1984. The student’s grammar of English. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vera, A. 1996. Esquemas oracionales ergativos reflexivos. Estudios Lingüísticos de la Universidad de Alicante, 11, 385–409.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Mellado Blanco, Carmen
2023. Chapter 5. From idioms to semi-schematic constructions and vice versa. In Constructions in Spanish [Constructional Approaches to Language, 34], ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
López Meirama, Belén
2020. [A todo + INF]: speed and intensification in a Spanish constructional idiom. Romanica Olomucensia 32:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.