1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Construction grammar – most notably Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg 2006), Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001) and Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 2008) – has been extremely inspiring in providing tools for modelling gradience in variation and change. Verbal constructions have been investigated within the paradigm of construction grammar from a number of angles including idiomaticization processes as well as argument structure constructions (Boas 2003Engelberg 2009Faulhaber 2011Goldberg 1995Rostila 2007). Usage-based approaches (Barlow & Kemmer 2000Bybee & Hopper 2001Diessel 20152019Langacker 1988Tomasello 2003) have pointed out that usage is the place to look for variation and change. Data-driven, corpus-based approaches have introduced quantitative methods for analyzing constructional functionality and variety synchronically (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003Gries 2006Glynn 2014) and diachronically (Hilpert 2006). These techniques have given rise to detailed studies of verbal constructions, lexicalization and idiomaticization.

This volume presents papers which in their majority have arisen in connection with the workshop “Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions”, held at the 51st SLE Annual Meeting at Tallinn, 29th August – 1st September 2018. Its focus is on verbal constructions in Germanic languages, constructional variation and degrees of polyfunctionality between lexical, idiomatic and grammaticalized usages. The major object of this volume is to investigate the conditions and interdependencies of such variations and polyfunctionalities. The theoretical and conceptual foundations of the studies united here rest upon grammaticalization theory, usage-based constructional approaches, and frame semantics, allway in combination with empirical testing. The scope of interest comprises synchronic as well as diachronic phenomena in various registers and communicative types.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00062.int
2022-08-09
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S.
    (Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boas, H.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. J.
    (Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. & Pagliuca, W.
    (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Davies, M.
    (2010) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. corpus.byu.edu/coha
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Diessel, H.
    (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.295–321). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  9. Diewald, G.
    (1999) Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110945942
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110945942 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. InI. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp.103–120). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  11. (2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions. Special Vol. 1. 10.24338/cons‑443
    https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-443 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2008) The catalytic function of constructional restrictions in grammaticalization. InE. Verhoeven [] (Eds.), Studies on Grammaticalization (pp.219–240). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructionsInL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.277–315). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.08die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die [Google Scholar]
  14. Diewald, G., Dekalo, V. & Czicza, D.
    (2021) Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality: An item-driven, usage-based approach. InM. Hilpert, B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.81–122). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.32.04die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.32.04die [Google Scholar]
  15. Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L. & Falster Jakobsen, L.
    (Eds.) (1996) Content, expression and structure. Studies in Danish Functional Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.29
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.29 [Google Scholar]
  16. Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L., Herslund, M. & Falster Jakobsen, L.
    (2005) Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School & Roskilde University.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Engelberg, S.
    (2009) Blätter knistern über den Beton. Zwischenbericht aus einer korpuslinguistischen Studie zur Bewegungsinterpretation bei Geräuschverben. InE. Winkler (Ed.), Konstruktionelle Varianz bei Verben (pp.75–97). Institut für Deutsche Sprache.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Faulhaber, S.
    (2011) Verb valency patterns. A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110240788
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240788 [Google Scholar]
  19. Glynn, D.
    (2014) The many uses of run. Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.117–144). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.05gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.05gly [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gries, S. Th.
    (2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. InS. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp.57–99). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197709.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.57 [Google Scholar]
  23. Harder, P.
    (2006) Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. NyS, 34–35, 92–130. 10.7146/nys.v34i34‑35.13459
    https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v34i34-35.13459 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hilpert, M.
    (2006) Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–256. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  25. Himmelmann, N.
    (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?InW. Bisang, N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp.21–42). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hopper, Paul J.
    (1991) On some principles of grammaticalization. InE. Closs Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol.1 (pp.17–35). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  27. Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuteva, T.
    (2001) Auxiliation. An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Langacker, R. W.
    (1988) A usage-based model. InB. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.127–161). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  30. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.1–60). CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lehmann, Ch.
    (1988) Towards a typology of clause linkage. InJ. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp.181–225). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.09leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.09leh [Google Scholar]
  33. (2002) New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In: I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp.1–18). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.03leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.03leh [Google Scholar]
  34. (2004) Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 32, 152–187. 10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.152
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.152 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2015) Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lehmann, Ch., Lima, J. Pinto de & Soares, R.
    (2010) Periphrastic voice with ‘see’ in Portuguese. InG. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Paradigmaticity and obligatoriness (pp.75–100). Routledge (Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, special issue, 42/1). 10.1080/03740463.2010.487748
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2010.487748 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lichtenberk, F.
    (1991) Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67, 475–546. 10.1353/lan.1991.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0009 [Google Scholar]
  38. Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. & McEnery, T.
    (2017) The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344. 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov [Google Scholar]
  39. Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L.
    (2011) Connecting grammaticalisation. The role of paradigmatic structure. John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.65
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.65 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rostila, J.
    (2007) Konstruktionsansätze zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. Tampere University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  42. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Zitterbart, J. P.
    (2002) Zur korrelativen Subordination im Deutschen. Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110911657
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911657 [Google Scholar]
  44. Zúñiga, F.
    (2011) Why should beneficiaries be subjects (or objects)? Affaction and grammatical relations. InS. Kittilä (Eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (pp.329–348). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.12zun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.12zun [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00062.int
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