1887
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Asymmetries, mismatches and construction grammar, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/cf.00016.kou-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00016.kou
2019-01-21
2019-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, S. R.
    (1992) A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511586262
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586262 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2018) A short history of morphological theory. InJ. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory (pp.19–33). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, S. R., & Saussure, L. de
    (Eds) (2018) René de Saussure and the theory of word formation. Language science press. [Open access publication: langsci-press.org/catalog/book/199]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aronoff, M.
    (1976) Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1994) Morphology by itself. Stems and inflectional classes. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bach, E. W.
    (1989) Informal lectures on formal semantics. New York: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bazell, C. E.
    (1966) The correspondence fallacy in structural linguistics. InE. P. Hamp, F. W. Householder, & R. Austerlitz (Eds.), Readings in linguistics II (pp.271–298). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Reprint of Bazell 1952 inStudies by members of the English department. Istanbul University)
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2004) On the problem of the morpheme. InF. Katamba (Ed.), Morphology: Critical concepts in linguistics, Volume 1: Word structure: a variety of views (pp.97–109). London & New York: Routledge. (Reprint of Bazell 1949 inArchivum Linguisticum, 1, 1–15).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bisetto, A., & Melloni, C.
    (2008) Parasynthetic compounding. Rivista Lingue e Linguaggio, 7(2), 233–260.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blevins, J. P.
    (2016) The minimal sign. InA. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp.50–69). Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781139814720.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.003 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bloomfield, L.
    (1933/1967) Language. London: Allen and Unwin. (Reprint of the original work published in 1933.)
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolinger, D.
    (1968) Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2, 119–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Booij, G.
    (2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2013) Morphology in construction grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.255–273). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Booij, G., & Masini, F.
    (2015) The role of second order schemas in word formation. InL. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp.47–66). Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G.
    (2015) On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–382. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12068
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12068 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bybee, J.
    (1985) Morphology. A study of relation between meaning and form [Typological studies in language]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cohnitz, D.
    (2005) Is compositionality an a priori principle?InM. Werning, E. Machery, & G. Schurz (Eds.), The compositionality of meaning and content. Vol. 1: Foundational Issues (pp.23–58). Frankfurt: Ontos. 10.1515/9783110323627.23
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110323627.23 [Google Scholar]
  20. Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B.
    (2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 183–209. 10.1515/cogl.2011.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.008 [Google Scholar]
  21. Corbin, D.
    (1987) Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Vol.I. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (1989) Form, structure, and meaning of constructed words in an associative and stratified lexical component. InG. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1989 (pp.31–54). Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Croft, W.
    (2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2001) Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  26. De Smet, H., Lobke, G., & Van de Velde, F.
    (Eds.) (2013) On multiple source constructions in language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. De Smet, H., D’hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., & Van Goethem, K.
    (2018) The changing functions of competing forms. Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(2), 197–234. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025 [Google Scholar]
  28. D’hoedt, F.
    (2017) Language change in constructional networks. The development of the English secondary predicate construction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven: Department of Linguistics.
  29. Dowty, D.
    (2007) Compositionality as an empirical problem. InC. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp.23–101). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dressler, W. U., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O., & Wurzel, W. U.
    (Eds.) (1987) Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology [Studies in Language Companion Series 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.10 [Google Scholar]
  31. Efthymiou, A.
    (2015) Modern Greek parasynthetic verbs: A hierarchical relationship between prefixes and suffixes?InS. Manova (Ed.), Affix ordering across languages and frameworks (pp.82–110). New York: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210434.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210434.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Francis, E. J., & Michaelis, L.
    (2003) Mismatch: A crucible for linguistics theory. InE. J. Francis & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp.1–27). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Frege, G.
    (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100(1), 25–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fried, M.
    (2013) Principles of constructional change. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.419–437). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
    (2005) Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N., & Russell, K.
    (2004) Contrastive focus reduplication in English (the salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 307–357. 10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Haas, W.
    (1957) Zero in linguistic description. InStudies in linguistic analysis (pp.33–53). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D.
    (2010) Understanding morphology (Second edition). London: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hinzen, W., Markus, W., & Machery, E.
    (2012) Introduction. InM. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality (pp.1–16). Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hjelmslev, Louis
    (1943) Omkring sprogteoriens Grundlaeggelse. København: Cercle linguistique de Copenhague.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (1954) La stratification du langage. Word10, 163–188. 10.1080/00437956.1954.11659521
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659521 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hoeksema, J.
    (1987) Categorial Morphology. New York: Garland Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2000) Compositionality of meaning. InG. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.) in collaboration withWolfgang Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas, Morphologie. Morphology. 1. Halbband/Volume1 (pp.851–857). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Construction grammar: Introduction. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.1–12). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Holdcroft, D.
    (1991) Saussure: Signs, system, and arbitrariness. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511624599
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624599 [Google Scholar]
  48. Höder, S.
    (2014) Phonological elements in diasystematic construction grammar. Constructions and frames, 6, 202–231. 10.1075/cf.6.2.04hod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.04hod [Google Scholar]
  49. Iyeiri, Y.
    (2001) Negative constructions in Middle English. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Jackendoff, R.
    (1975) Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671. 10.2307/412891
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412891 [Google Scholar]
  51. (1997) The architecture of the language faculty. USA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (2010) Meaning and the lexicon. The parallel architecture 1975–2010. USA: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (2013) Constructions in the parallel architecture. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.70–92). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Joseph, J.
    (2004) The linguistic sign. InC. Sanders (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Saussure (pp.59–75). Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CCOL052180051X.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052180051X.005 [Google Scholar]
  55. Karcevkij, S.
    (1929/1964) Du dualisme asymétrique du signe linguistique. InJ. Vachek (Ed.), A Prague school reader in linguistics (pp.81–87). Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press. (Reprint of Karcevkij 1929 inTravaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, I, 33–38.)
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kastovsky, D.
    (2006) Typological changes in derivational morphology. InA. van Kemenade & B. Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English (pp.151–176). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757048.ch7
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757048.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2012) Constructional meaning and compositionality. InC. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Volume3 (pp.2271–2296). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lehrer, A.
    (2000) Are affixes signs? The semantic relationships of English derivational affixes. InW. U. Dressler, O. E. Pfeiffer, M. A. Pöchtrager, & J. R. Rennison (Eds.), Morphological analysis in comparison (pp.143–154). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.201.08leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.201.08leh [Google Scholar]
  60. Lieber, R.
    (2004) Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511486296
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486296 [Google Scholar]
  61. Lindström, J., & Londen, A.-M.
    (2008) Constructing reasoning. The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive), and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. InJ. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp.105–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.5.06lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.5.06lin [Google Scholar]
  62. Marchand, H.
    (1969) The categories and types of present-day English word formation. A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Marzo, D.
    (2015) Motivation, compositionality, idiomatization. InP. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, Vol.2 (pp.984–1001). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Matthews, P. H.
    (1991) Morphology (Second edition). Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139166485
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166485 [Google Scholar]
  65. McGregor, W.
    (2003) The nothing that is, the zero that isn’t. Studia Linguistica, 57, 75–119. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00100
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00100 [Google Scholar]
  66. Mel’čuk, I.
    (2006) The structure of linguistic signs and semantic-formal relations between them. InD. Beck (ed.), Aspects of the theory of morphology (pp.517–540). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Michaelis, L.
    (2003) Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. InH. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.163–209). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219074.163
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.163 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2013) Sign-based construction grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.133–152). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Miclău, P.
    (1970) Le signe linguistique. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Moortgat, M., & ‎ Hulst, H. van der
    (1981) Geïnterpreteerde morfologie. InR. Knopper (Ed.), Woordstructuur (pp.17–53). Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. K.
    (2014) What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0060
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0060 [Google Scholar]
  72. Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T.
    (1994) Idioms. Language, 70, 491–538. 10.1353/lan.1994.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0007 [Google Scholar]
  73. Ralli, A.
    (2004) Stem-based versus word-based morphological configurations: The case of Modern Greek preverbs. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2004(2), 269–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Rhodes, R.
    (1992) What is a morpheme? A view from construction grammar. InProceedings of the eighteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on the place of morphology in a grammar (pp.409–423). University of California at Berkeley, Linguistics Department.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Sag, I.
    (2012) Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. InH. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp.61–196). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Saussure, F. de
    (1916/1995) Cours de linguistique générale. Publié parC. Bailly & A. Séchehaye. Paris: Editions Payot & Rivages.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Spencer, A.
    (1991) Morphological theory. Blackwell: Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. (2012) Identifying stems. Word Structure, 5, 88–108. 10.3366/word.2012.0021
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2012.0021 [Google Scholar]
  79. Stump, G.
    (1997) Template morphology and inflectional morphology. InG. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp.217–241). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3718‑0_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3718-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  80. (2001) Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511486333
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486333 [Google Scholar]
  81. Swiggers, P.
    (2000) Linguistic sign. InG. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), in collaboration withW. Kesselheim & S. Skopeteas, Morphologie. Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. An international handbook on inflection and word formation. 1. Halbband/Volume1 (pp.210–224). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Szymanek, B.
    (1988) Categories and categorization in morphology. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Thornton, A. M.
    (2012) Reduction and maintenance of overabundance. A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure, 5(2), 183–207. 10.3366/word.2012.0026
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2012.0026 [Google Scholar]
  84. Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  85. Van der Wurff, W.
    (1998) On expletive negation with adversative predicates in the history of English. InI. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, G. Tottie, & W. van der Wurff (Eds.), Negation in the history of English (pp.295–327). Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp.141–180). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Van Goethem, K., Vanderbauwhede, G., & De Smet, H.
    (2018) The emergence of a new adverbial downtoner: Constructional change and constructionalization of Dutch [ver van X] and [verre van X]. InK. Van Goethem, M. Norde, G. Vanderbauwhede, & E. Coussé (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp.179–205). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20.07goe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.07goe [Google Scholar]
  88. Van Marle, J.
    (1985) On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Vennemann, T.
    (1972) Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. InH. E. M. Schuchardt, T. Vennemann, & T. H. Wilbur (Eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change: four essays (pp.183–204) [Linguistische Forschungen, 26]. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Wagner, S.
    (2018) Never saw one – first-person null subjects in spoken English. English Language and Linguistics, 22, 1–34. 10.1017/S1360674316000216
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000216 [Google Scholar]
  91. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1988) The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing company. 10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wulff, S.
    (2013) Words and idioms. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.274–289). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Zwanenburg, W.
    (2000) Correspondence between formal and semantic relations. InG. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), in collaboration withW. Kesselheim & S. Skopeteas, Morphologie. Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. An international handbook on inflection and word formation. 1. Halbband/Volume1 (pp. 840–850). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00016.kou
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00016.kou
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Introduction
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