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
01
Deconstructing Constructions
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
01
Contributors
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.02int
xv
xx
6
Article
2
01
Introduction
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
01
Part I. Theoretical issues
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.03inn
3
24
22
Article
4
01
Innovative coinage
Its place in the grammar
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 & 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
01
The construction of macro-events
The
construction of macro-events
A typological perspective
1
A01
Johan Pedersen
Pedersen, Johan
Johan
Pedersen
01
In this article Talmy’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’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’s work, yet not recognized as part of his typology.
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.05con
63
84
22
Article
6
01
Constructions, co-composition and merge
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, Cortés Rodríguez, and Martín 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’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’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’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’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
01
A typology of morphological constructions
A
typology of morphological constructions
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
01
Part II. The Lexical Constructional Model: An overview
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.07the
117
152
36
Article
9
01
The Lexical Constructional Model
The
Lexical Constructional Model
Genesis, strengths and challenges
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’s Lexematics, Role and Reference Grammar, Wierzbicka’s Natural Semantic Metalanguage model, Mel’èuk’s Meaning-Text Theory, and most recently Goldberg’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
01
Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction
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
01
Measuring out reflexivity in secondary predication in English and Spanish
Evidence from cognition verbs
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 & 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
01
The inchoative construction
The
inchoative construction
Semantic representation and unification constraints
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 – the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM henceforth) – 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 ‘agent-causer blocking’ and the ‘cause expletivization’ 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
01
Semantic and pragmatic constraints on the English <i>get</i>-passive
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 & 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 “causative” <i>get</i>-passive and the “spontaneous” <i>get</i>-passive.
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.15nam
295
297
3
Miscellaneous
14
01
Name index
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.16lan
299
1
Miscellaneous
15
01
Language index
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.17sub
301
306
6
Miscellaneous
16
01
Subject index
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
01
Deconstructing Constructions
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
01
Contributors
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.02int
xv
xx
6
Article
2
01
Introduction
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
01
Part I. Theoretical issues
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.03inn
3
24
22
Article
4
01
Innovative coinage
Its place in the grammar
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 & 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
01
The construction of macro-events
The
construction of macro-events
A typological perspective
1
A01
Johan Pedersen
Pedersen, Johan
Johan
Pedersen
01
In this article Talmy’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’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’s work, yet not recognized as part of his typology.
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.05con
63
84
22
Article
6
01
Constructions, co-composition and merge
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, Cortés Rodríguez, and Martín 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’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’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’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’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
01
A typology of morphological constructions
A
typology of morphological constructions
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
01
Part II. The Lexical Constructional Model: An overview
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.07the
117
152
36
Article
9
01
The Lexical Constructional Model
The
Lexical Constructional Model
Genesis, strengths and challenges
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’s Lexematics, Role and Reference Grammar, Wierzbicka’s Natural Semantic Metalanguage model, Mel’èuk’s Meaning-Text Theory, and most recently Goldberg’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
01
Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction
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
01
Measuring out reflexivity in secondary predication in English and Spanish
Evidence from cognition verbs
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 & 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
01
The inchoative construction
The
inchoative construction
Semantic representation and unification constraints
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 – the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM henceforth) – 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 ‘agent-causer blocking’ and the ‘cause expletivization’ 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
01
Semantic and pragmatic constraints on the English <i>get</i>-passive
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 & 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 “causative” <i>get</i>-passive and the “spontaneous” <i>get</i>-passive.
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.15nam
295
297
3
Miscellaneous
14
01
Name index
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.16lan
299
1
Miscellaneous
15
01
Language index
10
01
JB code
slcs.107.17sub
301
306
6
Miscellaneous
16
01
Subject index
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