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



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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]
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