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

Abstract

Abstract

This squib revisits the phenomenon of ‘Multiple Inheritance’ (MI) and discusses reasons why many usage-based, cognitive construction grammarians seem to be avoiding it when modeling the constructicon and linguistic knowledge. After a brief discussion of the concept and some examples from the literature, the paper examines potential reasons for the apparent disinterest. Finally, the author points to some open questions regarding MI by discussing a specific example, namely modified NPN constructions like or . It can be argued that these strings inherit their characteristic features from several different abstract templates.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00056.som
2020-12-31
2021-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barðdal, Johanna , and Spike Gildea
    2015 “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” InDiachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Johanna Barðdal , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea , 1–50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
  2. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
    2012Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal About the Mind. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110294002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, Hans C.
    2013 “Cognitive Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, Joan
    2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. De Smet, Hendrik , and Freek Van De Velde
    2013 “Serving to Masters: Form-Function Friction in Syntactic Amalgams.” Studies in Language37(3): 534–565. 10.1075/sl.37.3.04des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.04des [Google Scholar]
  7. Diessel, Holger
    2011 “Review of Language, Usage and Cognition by Joan Bybee.” Language87: 830–844. 10.1353/lan.2011.0082
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0082 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2015 “Usage-Based Construction Grammar.” InHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Ewa Dąbrowska , and Dagmar Divjak , 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2019The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  10. Divjak, Dagmar
    2019Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316084410
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084410 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, Charles , and Paul Kay
    1993Construction Grammar Coursebook, Chapters 1–11 (Reading Materials for Ling X20). Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fried, Mirjam and Jan-Ola Östman
    2004 “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch.” InConstruction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, ed. by Mirjam Fried , and Jan-Ola Östman , 11–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  13. Ginzburg, Jonathan and Ivan A. Sag
    2000Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, Adele. E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldberg, Adele E.
    2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013 “Constructionist Approaches.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Haïk, Isabelle
    2009 “Symmetric Structures.” CORELA11(1). https://journals.openedition.org/corela/2875 (Last accessedNov 1st, 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hilpert, Martin
    2014Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hilpert, Martin , and Holger Diessel
    2016 “Entrenchment in Construction Grammar.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid , 57–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2013 “Abstract Phrasal and Clausal Constructions.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 307–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoffmann, Thomas , and Graeme Trousdale
    (eds.) 2013The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hudson, Richard A.
    2000English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jackendoff, Ray
    2002Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2008 “‘Construction after Construction’ and Its Theoretical Challenges.” Language84 (1): 8–28. 10.1353/lan.2008.0058
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2008.0058 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, Jong-Bok , and Peter Sells
    2015 “English Binominal NPs: A Construction-Based Perspective.” Journal of linguistics51(1): 41–73. 10.1017/S002222671400005X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671400005X [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, George
    1974 “Syntactic Amalgams.” Chicago Linguistic Society10: 321–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1988 “An Overview of Cognitive Grammar.” InTopics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn , 3–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.03lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.03lan [Google Scholar]
  29. Michaelis, Laura A. , and Knud Lambrecht
    1996 “Toward a Construction-Based Theory of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition.” Language72 (2): 215–247. 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sommerer, Lotte
    . forthcoming. “ Day to Day and Night After Night: Temporal NPN Constructions in English.” InEnglish Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current Issues ed. by Lotte Sommerer , and Evelien Keizer . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sommerer, Lotte and Elena Smirnova
    (eds.) 2020Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sommerer, Lotte and Andreas Baumann
    . 2021,aop. “Of Absent Mothers, Strong Sisters and Peculiar Daughters: The Constructional Network of English NPN Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Steels, Luc
    (ed.) 2011Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  34. Tomasello, Michael
    2003Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Traugott, Elizabeth C. , and Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Trousdale, Graeme
    2013 “Multiple Inheritance and Constructional Change.” Studies in Language37 (3): 491–514. 10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro [Google Scholar]
  37. Van Trijp, Remi
    2013 “A Comparison Between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames5 (1): 88–116. 10.1075/cf.5.1.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.1.04van [Google Scholar]
  38. Zwarts, Joost
    2013 “From N to N: The Anatomy of a Construction.” Linguistics and Philosophy36 (1): 65–90. 10.1007/s10988‑013‑9131‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9131-7 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00056.som
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