1887
Volume 34, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We develop the notion of found in some complete-inheritance models of Construction Grammar (Fillmore 1997Kay 2013), which are processes used to coin new units based on analogy with an existing one. Unlike constructions, they cannot be considered systematically productive in synchrony. After providing measurement methods, we assess the productivity of three patterns (‧, ‧ and ‧). To do so, we carried out a statistical analysis using two web corpora. Unlike Kay, we show that the difference between constructions and patterns of coining is not so clear-cut, since patterns of coining may undergo constructionalization, and that qualitative aspects should be taken into account along with quantitative data when trying to assess the status of a word-formation pattern.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00032.del
2020-12-31
2021-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, Harald
    2009 “Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity.” InCorpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, ed. by Anke Lüdeling , and Merja Kytö , 900–919. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bybee, Joan
    2001Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2006 “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language82 (4): 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cappelle, Bert
    2014 “Conventional Combinations in Pockets of Productivity: English Resultatives and Dutch Ditransitives Expressing Excess.” InExtending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart , Timothy Colleman , and Gijsbert Rutten , 251–281. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110366273.251
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.251 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dal, Georgette , and Fiammetta Namer
    2017 “Playful Nonce-Formations, Creativity and Productivity.” InExpanding the Lexicon. Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity, and Ludicity, ed. by Sabine Arndt-Lappe , Angelika Braun , Claudine Moulin , and Esme Winter-Froemel , 203–228. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Desagulier, Guillaume
    2016 “A Lesson from Associative Learning: Asymmetry and Productivity in Multiple-Slot Constructions.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12 (2): 173–219. 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0012 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1997 Construction Grammar Lecture Notes. (www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/lec02.html)
  8. Fillmore, Charles J. , Paul Kay , and Mary C. O’Connor
    1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Regular Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.” Language64 (3): 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldberg, Adele
    2019Explain Me This. Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hamans, Camiel
    2020 “Contra de linguïstische preutsheid: Over -gate en andere libfixen [Against linguistic prudishness: On -gate and other libfixes].” Nederlandse Taalkunde25 (2/3): 319–332. 10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2‑3.015.HAMA
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.015.HAMA [Google Scholar]
  11. Kay, Paul
    2002 Patterns of coining. Typoscript available at www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/coining.pdf
  12. 2013 “The Limits of (Construction) Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lakoff, George , and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Norde, Muriel , and Sarah Sippach
    2019 “Nerdalicious Scientainment: A Network Analysis of English Libfixes.” Word Structure12 (3): 353–384. 10.3366/word.2019.0153
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0153 [Google Scholar]
  15. Perek, Florent
    2018 “Recent Change in the Productivity and Schematicity of the Way-Construction: A Distributional Semantic Analysis”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory14 (1): 65–97. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  16. Pfänder, Stefan , and Heike Behrens
    2016Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Plag, Ingo
    1999Morphological productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pullum, Geoffrey , and Rodney Huddleston
    2002 “Prepositions and preposition phrases.” InThe Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston , and Geoffrey Pullum , 597–661. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Schultink, Hendrik
    1961 “Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen [Productivity as a morphological phenomenon].” Forum der Letteren2: 110–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Tyler, Andrea , and Vyvyan Evans
    2003The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00032.del
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00032.del
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructionalization; pattern of coining; productivity; ‧holic; ‧licious; ‧whelm
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error