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

Abstract

Abstract

This paper suggests two possible ways in which cognitively-oriented constructionist approaches (Cognitive Construction Grammar, Radical Construction Grammar, and Embodied Construction Grammar) could enhance the explanatory power of constructions. First, the anatomy of a construction should spell out how the morphosyntactic realizations of arguments are specifically mapped onto their inherent semantico-pragmatic properties, while also including detailed information concerning illocutionary force, information structure, register, politeness, etc. Second, it is argued that coercion should be best understood as a continuum allowing for varying degrees of (in-)compatibility between the verb and the construction taken as a whole. Moreover, parameterization and linguistic cueing prove useful to handle the dynamic interaction of the morphosyntactic, semantico-pragmatic, and discourse-functional hallmarks of constructions, including those which invite metonymic inferencing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00039.gon
2020-12-31
2021-07-31
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Brdar, Mario
    2018 “Novel Metonymies, Wine and Wineskins, Old and New Ones.” Jezici i Kulture u Vremenu i Prostoru7 (1): 123–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Butler, Christopher S. , and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
    2014Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, Joan L.
    2013 “Exemplars and Constructions.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cappelle, Bert
    2017 “What’s Pragmatics Doing outside Constructions?” InSemantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by Ilse Depraetere , and Ralph Salkie , 115–151. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
    2008 “Cognitive Construction Grammar Works: An Interview with Adele E. Goldberg.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6: 345–360. 10.1075/arcl.6.19gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.19gon [Google Scholar]
  8. 2009 “The Family of Object-related Depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a Usage-based, Constructionist Analysis.” Language Sciences31 (5): 663–723. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2011 “Metaphor and Metonymy do not Render Coercion Superfluous: Evidence from the Subjective-Transitive Construction.” Linguistics49 (6): 1305–1358. 10.1515/ling.2011.037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.037 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2019 “Exploring the Pedagogical Potential of Vertical and Horizontal Relations in the Constructicon: The Case of the Family of Subjective-Transitive Constructions with Decir in Spanish.” International Review of Applied Linguistics57 (1): 121–145. 10.1515/iral‑2018‑2009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-2009 [Google Scholar]
  11. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 “Cognitive (Construction) Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics20 (1): 167–176. 10.1515/COGL.2009.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.010 [Google Scholar]
  13. Leclercq, Benoît
    2019 “Coercion: A Case of Saturation.” Constructions and Frames11 (2): 270–289. 10.1075/cf.00031.lec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00031.lec [Google Scholar]
  14. Newmeyer, Frederick J.
    2003 “Theoretical Implications of Grammatical Theory – Grammatical Relation Mismatches.” InMismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar, ed. by Elaine J. Francis , and Laura A. Michaelis , 149–178. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J.
    2011 “Metonymy and Cognitive Operations.” InDefining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View, ed. by Réka Benczes , Antonio Barcelona , and Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez , 103–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  16. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. , and Alicia Galera Masegosa
    2014Cognitive Modeling: A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. , and Lorena Pérez Hernández
    2001 “Metonymy and the Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and Interaction.” Language and Communication21: 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ziegeler, Debra
    2010 “Count-Mass Coercion, and the Perspective of Time and Variation.” Constructions and Frames2 (1): 33–73. 10.1075/cf.2.1.02zie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.1.02zie [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00039.gon
Loading
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