219-7677 10 7500817 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 201608250416 ONIX title feed eng 01 EUR
800007547 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code SLCS 107 Eb 15 9789027289605 06 10.1075/slcs.107 13 2008038844 DG 002 02 01 SLCS 02 0165-7763 Studies in Language Companion Series 107 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Deconstructing Constructions</TitleText> 01 slcs.107 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.107 1 B01 Christopher S. Butler Butler, Christopher S. Christopher S. Butler Swansea University 2 B01 Javier Martín Arista Martín Arista, Javier Javier Martín Arista University of La Rioja 01 eng 328 xx 306 LAN009000 v.2006 CFK 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.DISC Discourse studies 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.FUNCT Functional linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.PRAG Pragmatics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SEMAN Semantics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 This collection of papers brings together contributions from experts in functional linguistics and in Construction Grammar approaches, with the aim of exploring the concept of construction from different angles and trying to arrive at a better understanding of what a construction is, and what roles constructions play in the frameworks which can be located within a multidimensional functional-cognitive space. At the same time, the volume has a historical dimension, for instance in plotting the developments which led to recent models. The book is organised in three sections: the first deals with particular theoretical issues, the second is devoted to the recent Lexical Constructional Model, and the third presents a number of analyses of specific constructions. The volume thus makes an important contribution to the ongoing debate about the relationship between functionalist and constructionist models. 05 This volume makes a significant contribution to the field of cognitive-functional linguistics. The contributions explain why it is desirable to make further move towards convergence between projectionist and constructionist approaches on the topic of argument structure, and how it is possible. Florent Perek, Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies / Université Charles de Gaulle Lille 3, on ICLA Book Reviews, 2010 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/slcs.107.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027205742.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027205742.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/slcs.107.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/slcs.107.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/slcs.107.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/slcs.107.hb.png 10 01 JB code slcs.107.01con vii xiv 8 Miscellaneous 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Contributors</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.02int xv xx 6 Article 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Introduction</TitleText> 1 A01 Christopher S. Butler Butler, Christopher S. Christopher S. Butler 2 A01 Javier Martín Arista Martín Arista, Javier Javier Martín Arista 10 01 JB code slcs.107.p1 Section header 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I. Theoretical issues</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.03inn 3 24 22 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Innovative coinage</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Its place in the grammar</Subtitle> 1 A01 Daniel García Velasco García Velasco, Daniel Daniel García Velasco 01 The innovative creation of lexical items is not a topic of chief relevance among those which tend to mark the development of grammatical models. Yet nonce-formations and neologisms show the speaker's remarkable ability to create new lexical items in speech interaction and should thus be accounted for by linguistic theories of functional orientation. This article deals with a particular case of innovative lexical creation: the use of proper nouns in verbal function. Following the analysis in Clark &#38; Clark (1979), I will defend the view that verbal eponyms are <b>contextuals</b>, that is, expressions whose interpretation is strongly tied to the context in which they are used. Unlike authors who have argued that the meaning of these units is predictable, I will show that verbal eponyms may receive multiple interpretations out of context, and that their meaning may shift from one setting to another. Next I will examine the extent to which the observed facts can be incorporated in two functional theories of language: Construction Grammar and Functional Discourse Grammar. After discarding the possibility of treating verbal eponyms as an example of coercion, a notion frequently adduced to justify a constructional approach to grammar, I will propose that the organization of Functional Discourse Grammar, which systematically links up with a conceptual and a contextual component, offers a more adequate architecture to implement the analysis proposed. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.04the 25 62 38 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The construction of macro-events</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">construction of macro-events</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">A typological perspective</Subtitle> 1 A01 Johan Pedersen Pedersen, Johan Johan Pedersen 01 In this article Talmy&#8217;s influential typology of macro-events (Talmy 1985, 1987, 1991, 2000) is discussed from the point of view of construction grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006). Talmy has described typological differences of lexicalization between what he calls satellite-framed languages and verb-framed languages. The discussion originates in a contrastive analysis of a short story by H.C. Andersen available in six parallel versions: the original Danish version, an English, a German, a Spanish, an Italian and a French version. The article argues that the generalized version of the typology (Talmy 1991, 2000) suffers from being formulated exclusively in terms of lexicalization patterns, and that the typology should include both the lexical level and a schematic constructional level of analysis. A framework is proposed in which the typological patterns are interpreted as an information structure phenomenon. Constructions of the main information (MIC) and the supportive information (SIC), of varying degree of specificity, are the basic constituents of the typology. From this point of view, Germanic languages tend to map the main information (MI) onto a complex schematic construction and the supportive information (SI) onto a lexical (verbal) construction. Romance languages tend to map the MI onto the verb, while the SI may be mapped onto a complex schematic construction. The article hypothesizes that MIC and SIC stem from generalizations from usage, that they have their own, procedural role in grammar, as a device for organizing the information, and that the typology is anchored in this task. The interpretation of Talmy&#8217;s descriptive typology is in this perspective that some pairs of MIC/SIC are more entrenched in the grammar of some languages than in others. The proposed framework is well suited for analyzing usage data that does not fit the basic patterns. It is also adequate for identifying patterns in data that are similar to those recognized in Talmy&#8217;s work, yet not recognized as part of his typology. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.05con 63 84 22 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Constructions, co-composition and merge</TitleText> 1 A01 Beatriz Martínez Fernández Martínez Fernández, Beatriz Beatriz Martínez Fernández 01 This article follows the line of research proposed in this volume by Mairal and Ruiz de Mendoza, Cort&#233;s Rodr&#237;guez, and Mart&#237;n Arista, combining functional and constructional models of language. I discuss some interesting examples of <i>break</i> verbs with argument-adjuncts of motion which, being syntactically similar to Goldberg&#8217;s caused-motion construction, do not meet the definition for constructions devised by Goldberg. These structures are characterised by acquiring the semantics of motion without losing the semantics of change of state. Therefore, I have labelled them <i>merge</i> structures. Since Construction Grammar focuses mainly on constructions, I resort to Pustejovsky&#8217;s Generative Lexicon (henceforth GL) in search of a mechanism that allows me to explain this type of structure, because it is purposely designed to deal with creative uses of language and, more precisely, with polysemy. In a sense, it is not that different from Goldberg&#8217;s constructions, but it has the advantage that using the same system of lexical representation that is used for co-composition, it can also explain merge. The comparison of the two representations, co-composition and merge, indicates that the main differences can be explained by putting some of the semantic weight on the event and qualia structures. Although these representations capture the main differences existing between merge and co-composition, this argument only works at the level of interpretation or comprehension, a problem that was already pointed out by Goldberg (1995, 2006). Therefore, this article has also addressed the question of how to account for the production of those structures. Van Valin (in press) foresees the possibility of reconciling projectionist accounts like Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) and constructionist approaches like Pustejovsky&#8217;s GL and argues that the interpretive role of co-composition is helpful in the linking from syntax to semantics in RRG. Thus, when presented with a certain syntactic structure, the choice between a merge or a co-compositional reading will be determined by their lexical representations. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.06aty 85 114 30 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">A typology of morphological constructions</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>A </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">typology of morphological constructions</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Javier Martín Arista Martín Arista, Javier Javier Martín Arista 01 This article is a contribution to the development of the theory of morphology of Role and Reference Grammar in line with the more central role that constructions play in the latest version of this linguistic theory. In order to propose a principled definition of morphological processes that is not dependent on fuzzy notions like class membership, this article applies the distinction between constructions and constructional schemas to morphology in the following way. As regards morphological constructions, which are typologically relevant, the defining criterion is the distribution of markedness, that is, whether the morphologically relevant features are in the Nucleus or not. Two possibilities arise in this respect: the nuclear element or one or more non-nuclear elements are marked. If the nuclear element is marked, there is projection of morphological features. If the non-nuclear elements are marked, there is percolation as well as projection of features. Regarding constructional schemas, which are language-specific instantiations of constructions and can combine with one another, they fall into the following types: recursive/non-recursive, analytic/synthetic and continuous/discontinuous. After an application to the language of analysis, Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara, the conclusion is drawn that derivation (including compounding and affixation) can be endocentric or exocentric, whereas inflection is endocentric. Inflection and derivation can be analytic and synthetic as well as continuous and discontinuous. Unlike derivation, inflection is typically non-recursive, but the evidence provided by double case in Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara is relevant for this question. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.p2 115 198 84 Article 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II. The Lexical Constructional Model: An overview</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.07the 117 152 36 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The Lexical Constructional Model</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">Lexical Constructional Model</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">Genesis, strengths and challenges</Subtitle> 1 A01 Christopher S. Butler Butler, Christopher S. Christopher S. Butler 01 This article reviews briefly some recent work on relationships across a spectrum of functionalist, cognitivist and constructionist approaches to language. It then goes on to chart the history of the model currently known as the Lexical Constructional Model, showing how it has developed from work in a range of earlier approaches: Dikkian Functional Grammar, Coseriu&#8217;s Lexematics, Role and Reference Grammar, Wierzbicka&#8217;s Natural Semantic Metalanguage model, Mel&#8217;&#232;uk&#8217;s Meaning-Text Theory, and most recently Goldberg&#8217;s version of Construction Grammar and the theory of metaphor and metonymy. The strengths of the model are then summarised, and a number of challenges for the future are discussed. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.08lev 153 198 46 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction</TitleText> 1 A01 Ricardo Mairal Usón Mairal Usón, Ricardo Ricardo Mairal Usón 2 A01 Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 01 This article proposes the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM) as an explanatorily adequate model for the investigation of meaning construction at all levels of linguistic description, including pragmatics and discourse. The LCM has an argument structure module or level 1 module consisting of elements of syntactically relevant semantic interpretation. Then it has three basically idiomatic modules dealing with cognitively entrenched meaning implications deriving from the application of low-level and high-level inferential schemas (levels 2 and 3 respectively) and with discourse aspects of meaning, especially cohesion and coherence phenomena (level 4). Each level is either subsumed into a higher-level constructional configuration or acts as a cue for the activation of a relevant conceptual structure that yields an implicit meaning derivation. Interaction between lexical and constructional configurations (at whatever description level) is regulated by a number of constraints that are either internal or external to the process. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.09mea 201 246 46 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Measuring out reflexivity in secondary predication in English and Spanish</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Evidence from cognition verbs</Subtitle> 1 A01 Francisco Gonzálvez-García Gonzálvez-García, Francisco Francisco Gonzálvez-García 01 This article provides a usage-based, bottom-up constructionist analysis <i> la</i> Goldberg (2006) of formally identical instances of secondary predication featuring <i>find/encontrar</i> (find) and a reflexive pronoun in the object slot in English and Spanish. Specifically, it shows that these two configurations can be aptly regarded as two different, though closely connected, constructions (i.e. learned form-function pairings), namely, the <i>reflexive subjective-transitive</i> construction and the <i>self-descriptive subjective-transitive</i> construction. At a higher level of resolution, it is argued that the <i>reflexive subjective-transitive</i> construction imposes an agentive, intentional construal on the event/state of affairs in question, while the <i>self-descriptive subjective-transitive</i> construction requires a non-volitional, non-agentive construal. Crucially, configurations of the <i>reflexive subjective-transitive</i> construction are shown to be closer to a two-participant event elaboration in which the entity encoded in the main clause and the reflexive is construed as a divided self (Haiman 1998) between an experiencer subject and an affected object. By contrast, instances of the <i>self-descriptive subjective-transitive</i> construction can be aptly considered to be functionally equivalent to one-participant events, and can thus often be paraphrased by means of (in-)transitive or intensive clauses. At an ever higher level of granularity, the continuum between reflexives (encoding two-participant events) and middles (encoding one-participant events) can also be observed vertically within the <i>self-descriptive subjective-transitive</i> construction. The crucial determinant in this respect is taken to be the inherent meaning and form properties of the object-related predicative phrase (i.e. the XPCOMP) and its transitivity properties (Hopper &amp; Thompson 1980). Finally, corpus-based evidence is provided that although English and Spanish share a considerable number of morphosyntactic realizations of the XPCOMP, the inventory of such realizations is not fully symmetrical, thus lending further credence to Crofts (2003) contention that argument structure is not only construction-specific but also language-specific. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.10the 247 270 24 Article 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The inchoative construction</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">inchoative construction</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">Semantic representation and unification constraints</Subtitle> 1 A01 Francisco J. Cortés-Rodriguez Cortés-Rodriguez, Francisco J. Francisco J. Cortés-Rodriguez 01 This article provides an analysis of English inchoative structures within the framework of a functionally-based conception of language and, specifically, of the lexicon. This theoretical framework &#8211; the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM henceforth) &#8211; proposes a lexical component composed of two central elements: a repository of lexical units grouped into lexical classes, which are established on the basis of the commonality of meaning of predicates, and a catalogue of constructions, which is also devised as having internal organization. The LCM also postulates that lexical-constructional subsumption is subject to the conditions imposed on the semantic compatibility between predicates and constructions. Conditions invoke higher level cognitive mechanisms like metonymy and metaphor and lower-level semantic restrictions affecting event or argument structure in semantic representations. The analysis of lexical subsumption within the inchoative construction will be subject to two types of restrictions: firstly, there is an external constraint affecting the unification of causative predicates and inchoative structures. This external constraint is based on a high-level metonymic process which has been labelled <sc>process for action</sc>: an action is treated as if it were a process that in turn stands for the action. Secondly, unification is conditioned by some internal constraints imposed upon the semantic structure of predicates. Among these there are also two subtypes: (1) constraints on the event structure of predicates, which make reference to the codification of telicity and causativity in the case of causative/inchoative verbs; (2) constraints on the arguments of lexical templates, among which the &#8216;agent-causer blocking&#8217; and the &#8216;cause expletivization&#8217; constraints play a crucial role. The analysis of these constraints will in fact reveal the feasibility and explanatory potential of the LCM for meaning construction. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.11sem 271 294 24 Article 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Semantic and pragmatic constraints on the English <i>get</i>-passive</TitleText> 1 A01 Pilar Guerrero Medina Guerrero Medina, Pilar Pilar Guerrero Medina 01 This article focuses on the so-called <i>get</i>-passive, frequently regarded as a problematic construction in the linguistic literature. It is my contention that a lexically-based approach is insufficient to account for the appropriateness of the <i>get</i>-passive, since pragmatic and contextual factors are also crucial to ascertain its acceptability. Basing my discussion on corpus data, I will analyze how the semantics of the <i>get</i>-passive interacts with the semantic properties of verbs from five semantic types that can be integrated within the construction: <sc>affect</sc>, <sc>giving</sc>, <sc>motion</sc> (<sc>take</sc>-subtype), <sc>corporeal</sc> and <sc>annoying</sc>. Along the lines of Goldberg &#38; Jackendoff (2004: 563), I suggest that the <i>get</i>-passive should be treated as a family of constructions in order to account for its semantic and pragmatic properties. Two main subconstructions will be posited: the &#8220;causative&#8221; <i>get</i>-passive and the &#8220;spontaneous&#8221; <i>get</i>-passive. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.15nam 295 297 3 Miscellaneous 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Name index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.16lan 299 1 Miscellaneous 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Language index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.17sub 301 306 6 Miscellaneous 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Subject index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20090114 2009 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027205742 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 jbe-platform.com 09 WORLD 21 01 00 105.00 EUR R 01 00 88.00 GBP Z 01 gen 00 158.00 USD S 141007002 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code SLCS 107 Hb 15 9789027205742 13 2008038844 BB 01 SLCS 02 0165-7763 Studies in Language Companion Series 107 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Deconstructing Constructions</TitleText> 01 slcs.107 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs.107 1 B01 Christopher S. Butler Butler, Christopher S. Christopher S. Butler Swansea University 2 B01 Javier Martín Arista Martín Arista, Javier Javier Martín Arista University of La Rioja 01 eng 328 xx 306 LAN009000 v.2006 CFK 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.DISC Discourse studies 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.FUNCT Functional linguistics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.PRAG Pragmatics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SEMAN Semantics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 This collection of papers brings together contributions from experts in functional linguistics and in Construction Grammar approaches, with the aim of exploring the concept of construction from different angles and trying to arrive at a better understanding of what a construction is, and what roles constructions play in the frameworks which can be located within a multidimensional functional-cognitive space. At the same time, the volume has a historical dimension, for instance in plotting the developments which led to recent models. The book is organised in three sections: the first deals with particular theoretical issues, the second is devoted to the recent Lexical Constructional Model, and the third presents a number of analyses of specific constructions. The volume thus makes an important contribution to the ongoing debate about the relationship between functionalist and constructionist models. 05 This volume makes a significant contribution to the field of cognitive-functional linguistics. The contributions explain why it is desirable to make further move towards convergence between projectionist and constructionist approaches on the topic of argument structure, and how it is possible. Florent Perek, Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies / Université Charles de Gaulle Lille 3, on ICLA Book Reviews, 2010 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/slcs.107.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027205742.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027205742.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/slcs.107.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/slcs.107.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/slcs.107.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/slcs.107.hb.png 10 01 JB code slcs.107.01con vii xiv 8 Miscellaneous 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Contributors</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.02int xv xx 6 Article 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Introduction</TitleText> 1 A01 Christopher S. Butler Butler, Christopher S. Christopher S. Butler 2 A01 Javier Martín Arista Martín Arista, Javier Javier Martín Arista 10 01 JB code slcs.107.p1 Section header 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I. Theoretical issues</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.03inn 3 24 22 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Innovative coinage</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Its place in the grammar</Subtitle> 1 A01 Daniel García Velasco García Velasco, Daniel Daniel García Velasco 01 The innovative creation of lexical items is not a topic of chief relevance among those which tend to mark the development of grammatical models. Yet nonce-formations and neologisms show the speaker's remarkable ability to create new lexical items in speech interaction and should thus be accounted for by linguistic theories of functional orientation. This article deals with a particular case of innovative lexical creation: the use of proper nouns in verbal function. Following the analysis in Clark &#38; Clark (1979), I will defend the view that verbal eponyms are <b>contextuals</b>, that is, expressions whose interpretation is strongly tied to the context in which they are used. Unlike authors who have argued that the meaning of these units is predictable, I will show that verbal eponyms may receive multiple interpretations out of context, and that their meaning may shift from one setting to another. Next I will examine the extent to which the observed facts can be incorporated in two functional theories of language: Construction Grammar and Functional Discourse Grammar. After discarding the possibility of treating verbal eponyms as an example of coercion, a notion frequently adduced to justify a constructional approach to grammar, I will propose that the organization of Functional Discourse Grammar, which systematically links up with a conceptual and a contextual component, offers a more adequate architecture to implement the analysis proposed. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.04the 25 62 38 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The construction of macro-events</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">construction of macro-events</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">A typological perspective</Subtitle> 1 A01 Johan Pedersen Pedersen, Johan Johan Pedersen 01 In this article Talmy&#8217;s influential typology of macro-events (Talmy 1985, 1987, 1991, 2000) is discussed from the point of view of construction grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006). Talmy has described typological differences of lexicalization between what he calls satellite-framed languages and verb-framed languages. The discussion originates in a contrastive analysis of a short story by H.C. Andersen available in six parallel versions: the original Danish version, an English, a German, a Spanish, an Italian and a French version. The article argues that the generalized version of the typology (Talmy 1991, 2000) suffers from being formulated exclusively in terms of lexicalization patterns, and that the typology should include both the lexical level and a schematic constructional level of analysis. A framework is proposed in which the typological patterns are interpreted as an information structure phenomenon. Constructions of the main information (MIC) and the supportive information (SIC), of varying degree of specificity, are the basic constituents of the typology. From this point of view, Germanic languages tend to map the main information (MI) onto a complex schematic construction and the supportive information (SI) onto a lexical (verbal) construction. Romance languages tend to map the MI onto the verb, while the SI may be mapped onto a complex schematic construction. The article hypothesizes that MIC and SIC stem from generalizations from usage, that they have their own, procedural role in grammar, as a device for organizing the information, and that the typology is anchored in this task. The interpretation of Talmy&#8217;s descriptive typology is in this perspective that some pairs of MIC/SIC are more entrenched in the grammar of some languages than in others. The proposed framework is well suited for analyzing usage data that does not fit the basic patterns. It is also adequate for identifying patterns in data that are similar to those recognized in Talmy&#8217;s work, yet not recognized as part of his typology. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.05con 63 84 22 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Constructions, co-composition and merge</TitleText> 1 A01 Beatriz Martínez Fernández Martínez Fernández, Beatriz Beatriz Martínez Fernández 01 This article follows the line of research proposed in this volume by Mairal and Ruiz de Mendoza, Cort&#233;s Rodr&#237;guez, and Mart&#237;n Arista, combining functional and constructional models of language. I discuss some interesting examples of <i>break</i> verbs with argument-adjuncts of motion which, being syntactically similar to Goldberg&#8217;s caused-motion construction, do not meet the definition for constructions devised by Goldberg. These structures are characterised by acquiring the semantics of motion without losing the semantics of change of state. Therefore, I have labelled them <i>merge</i> structures. Since Construction Grammar focuses mainly on constructions, I resort to Pustejovsky&#8217;s Generative Lexicon (henceforth GL) in search of a mechanism that allows me to explain this type of structure, because it is purposely designed to deal with creative uses of language and, more precisely, with polysemy. In a sense, it is not that different from Goldberg&#8217;s constructions, but it has the advantage that using the same system of lexical representation that is used for co-composition, it can also explain merge. The comparison of the two representations, co-composition and merge, indicates that the main differences can be explained by putting some of the semantic weight on the event and qualia structures. Although these representations capture the main differences existing between merge and co-composition, this argument only works at the level of interpretation or comprehension, a problem that was already pointed out by Goldberg (1995, 2006). Therefore, this article has also addressed the question of how to account for the production of those structures. Van Valin (in press) foresees the possibility of reconciling projectionist accounts like Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) and constructionist approaches like Pustejovsky&#8217;s GL and argues that the interpretive role of co-composition is helpful in the linking from syntax to semantics in RRG. Thus, when presented with a certain syntactic structure, the choice between a merge or a co-compositional reading will be determined by their lexical representations. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.06aty 85 114 30 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">A typology of morphological constructions</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>A </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">typology of morphological constructions</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Javier Martín Arista Martín Arista, Javier Javier Martín Arista 01 This article is a contribution to the development of the theory of morphology of Role and Reference Grammar in line with the more central role that constructions play in the latest version of this linguistic theory. In order to propose a principled definition of morphological processes that is not dependent on fuzzy notions like class membership, this article applies the distinction between constructions and constructional schemas to morphology in the following way. As regards morphological constructions, which are typologically relevant, the defining criterion is the distribution of markedness, that is, whether the morphologically relevant features are in the Nucleus or not. Two possibilities arise in this respect: the nuclear element or one or more non-nuclear elements are marked. If the nuclear element is marked, there is projection of morphological features. If the non-nuclear elements are marked, there is percolation as well as projection of features. Regarding constructional schemas, which are language-specific instantiations of constructions and can combine with one another, they fall into the following types: recursive/non-recursive, analytic/synthetic and continuous/discontinuous. After an application to the language of analysis, Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara, the conclusion is drawn that derivation (including compounding and affixation) can be endocentric or exocentric, whereas inflection is endocentric. Inflection and derivation can be analytic and synthetic as well as continuous and discontinuous. Unlike derivation, inflection is typically non-recursive, but the evidence provided by double case in Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara is relevant for this question. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.p2 115 198 84 Article 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II. The Lexical Constructional Model: An overview</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.07the 117 152 36 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The Lexical Constructional Model</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">Lexical Constructional Model</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">Genesis, strengths and challenges</Subtitle> 1 A01 Christopher S. Butler Butler, Christopher S. Christopher S. Butler 01 This article reviews briefly some recent work on relationships across a spectrum of functionalist, cognitivist and constructionist approaches to language. It then goes on to chart the history of the model currently known as the Lexical Constructional Model, showing how it has developed from work in a range of earlier approaches: Dikkian Functional Grammar, Coseriu&#8217;s Lexematics, Role and Reference Grammar, Wierzbicka&#8217;s Natural Semantic Metalanguage model, Mel&#8217;&#232;uk&#8217;s Meaning-Text Theory, and most recently Goldberg&#8217;s version of Construction Grammar and the theory of metaphor and metonymy. The strengths of the model are then summarised, and a number of challenges for the future are discussed. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.08lev 153 198 46 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction</TitleText> 1 A01 Ricardo Mairal Usón Mairal Usón, Ricardo Ricardo Mairal Usón 2 A01 Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 01 This article proposes the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM) as an explanatorily adequate model for the investigation of meaning construction at all levels of linguistic description, including pragmatics and discourse. The LCM has an argument structure module or level 1 module consisting of elements of syntactically relevant semantic interpretation. Then it has three basically idiomatic modules dealing with cognitively entrenched meaning implications deriving from the application of low-level and high-level inferential schemas (levels 2 and 3 respectively) and with discourse aspects of meaning, especially cohesion and coherence phenomena (level 4). Each level is either subsumed into a higher-level constructional configuration or acts as a cue for the activation of a relevant conceptual structure that yields an implicit meaning derivation. Interaction between lexical and constructional configurations (at whatever description level) is regulated by a number of constraints that are either internal or external to the process. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.09mea 201 246 46 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Measuring out reflexivity in secondary predication in English and Spanish</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Evidence from cognition verbs</Subtitle> 1 A01 Francisco Gonzálvez-García Gonzálvez-García, Francisco Francisco Gonzálvez-García 01 This article provides a usage-based, bottom-up constructionist analysis <i> la</i> Goldberg (2006) of formally identical instances of secondary predication featuring <i>find/encontrar</i> (find) and a reflexive pronoun in the object slot in English and Spanish. Specifically, it shows that these two configurations can be aptly regarded as two different, though closely connected, constructions (i.e. learned form-function pairings), namely, the <i>reflexive subjective-transitive</i> construction and the <i>self-descriptive subjective-transitive</i> construction. At a higher level of resolution, it is argued that the <i>reflexive subjective-transitive</i> construction imposes an agentive, intentional construal on the event/state of affairs in question, while the <i>self-descriptive subjective-transitive</i> construction requires a non-volitional, non-agentive construal. Crucially, configurations of the <i>reflexive subjective-transitive</i> construction are shown to be closer to a two-participant event elaboration in which the entity encoded in the main clause and the reflexive is construed as a divided self (Haiman 1998) between an experiencer subject and an affected object. By contrast, instances of the <i>self-descriptive subjective-transitive</i> construction can be aptly considered to be functionally equivalent to one-participant events, and can thus often be paraphrased by means of (in-)transitive or intensive clauses. At an ever higher level of granularity, the continuum between reflexives (encoding two-participant events) and middles (encoding one-participant events) can also be observed vertically within the <i>self-descriptive subjective-transitive</i> construction. The crucial determinant in this respect is taken to be the inherent meaning and form properties of the object-related predicative phrase (i.e. the XPCOMP) and its transitivity properties (Hopper &amp; Thompson 1980). Finally, corpus-based evidence is provided that although English and Spanish share a considerable number of morphosyntactic realizations of the XPCOMP, the inventory of such realizations is not fully symmetrical, thus lending further credence to Crofts (2003) contention that argument structure is not only construction-specific but also language-specific. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.10the 247 270 24 Article 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The inchoative construction</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">inchoative construction</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">Semantic representation and unification constraints</Subtitle> 1 A01 Francisco J. Cortés-Rodriguez Cortés-Rodriguez, Francisco J. Francisco J. Cortés-Rodriguez 01 This article provides an analysis of English inchoative structures within the framework of a functionally-based conception of language and, specifically, of the lexicon. This theoretical framework &#8211; the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM henceforth) &#8211; proposes a lexical component composed of two central elements: a repository of lexical units grouped into lexical classes, which are established on the basis of the commonality of meaning of predicates, and a catalogue of constructions, which is also devised as having internal organization. The LCM also postulates that lexical-constructional subsumption is subject to the conditions imposed on the semantic compatibility between predicates and constructions. Conditions invoke higher level cognitive mechanisms like metonymy and metaphor and lower-level semantic restrictions affecting event or argument structure in semantic representations. The analysis of lexical subsumption within the inchoative construction will be subject to two types of restrictions: firstly, there is an external constraint affecting the unification of causative predicates and inchoative structures. This external constraint is based on a high-level metonymic process which has been labelled <sc>process for action</sc>: an action is treated as if it were a process that in turn stands for the action. Secondly, unification is conditioned by some internal constraints imposed upon the semantic structure of predicates. Among these there are also two subtypes: (1) constraints on the event structure of predicates, which make reference to the codification of telicity and causativity in the case of causative/inchoative verbs; (2) constraints on the arguments of lexical templates, among which the &#8216;agent-causer blocking&#8217; and the &#8216;cause expletivization&#8217; constraints play a crucial role. The analysis of these constraints will in fact reveal the feasibility and explanatory potential of the LCM for meaning construction. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.11sem 271 294 24 Article 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Semantic and pragmatic constraints on the English <i>get</i>-passive</TitleText> 1 A01 Pilar Guerrero Medina Guerrero Medina, Pilar Pilar Guerrero Medina 01 This article focuses on the so-called <i>get</i>-passive, frequently regarded as a problematic construction in the linguistic literature. It is my contention that a lexically-based approach is insufficient to account for the appropriateness of the <i>get</i>-passive, since pragmatic and contextual factors are also crucial to ascertain its acceptability. Basing my discussion on corpus data, I will analyze how the semantics of the <i>get</i>-passive interacts with the semantic properties of verbs from five semantic types that can be integrated within the construction: <sc>affect</sc>, <sc>giving</sc>, <sc>motion</sc> (<sc>take</sc>-subtype), <sc>corporeal</sc> and <sc>annoying</sc>. Along the lines of Goldberg &#38; Jackendoff (2004: 563), I suggest that the <i>get</i>-passive should be treated as a family of constructions in order to account for its semantic and pragmatic properties. Two main subconstructions will be posited: the &#8220;causative&#8221; <i>get</i>-passive and the &#8220;spontaneous&#8221; <i>get</i>-passive. 10 01 JB code slcs.107.15nam 295 297 3 Miscellaneous 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Name index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.16lan 299 1 Miscellaneous 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Language index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code slcs.107.17sub 301 306 6 Miscellaneous 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Subject index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20090114 2009 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 01 245 mm 02 164 mm 08 735 gr 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 01 WORLD US CA MX 21 13 16 01 02 JB 1 00 105.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 111.30 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 16 02 02 JB 1 00 88.00 GBP Z 01 JB 2 John Benjamins North America +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 01 US CA MX 21 16 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 158.00 USD