1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 15, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The semantic classification of over 2,200 constructions in the Russian Constructicon has emerged objectively from empirical analysis. The resulting semantic classification comports with and goes beyond frame semantics, revealing complex patterns of related constructions verified against corpus data and by a panel of native speakers. Our model of a constructicon can inform and complement existing approaches with additional findings. We detail our discovery procedure and the semantic relationships that link constructions. While our methods and findings are based on a single language, they can serve as a basis for cross-linguistic comparison in the field of Construction Grammar and constructicography research.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00066.jan
2023-10-19
2024-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.00066.jan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (2004) The semantic path from modality to aspect: Be able to in a cross-linguistic perspective. InH. Lindquist & C. Mair (Eds.). Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 57–78). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.13.05aij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.13.05aij [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, A.
    (2012) The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 161, 435–485. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  3. Apresjan, Ju. D.
    (1974/1995) Leksičeskaja semantika [Lexical semantics]. Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Apresjan, V. Ju
    (1999) Ustupitel’nost’ v jazyke i slova so značeniem ustupki [Concession in language and the words that designate concession]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 51, 24–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barðdal, J., Smithermana, T., Bjarnadóttir, V., Danesia, S., Jenset, G. B. & McGillivray, B.
    (2012) Reconstructing constructional semantics: The Dative Subject Construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language, 36(3), 511–547. 10.1075/sl.36.3.03bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.03bar [Google Scholar]
  6. Baydina, E.
    (2016) The Russian apprehensive construction: Syntactic status reassessed, negation vindicated. MA Thesis, Leiden University. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/46284
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boas, H. C., Dux, R. & Ziem, A.
    (2016) Frames and constructions in an online learner’s dictionary of German. InS. De Knop & G. Guilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 303–326). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268‑012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-012 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolinger, D.
    (1972) Degree words. Mouton. 10.1515/9783110877786
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877786 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bondarko, V. A.
    (1984) Funkcional’naja grammatika [Functional grammar]. Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Boye, K.
    (2016) The expression of epistemic modality. InJ. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 117–140). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chvany, C. V.
    (1998) Vid kak čast’ universal’nogo nabora semantičeskix priznakov [Aspect as part of universal set of semantic features]. InM. Ju. Čertkova (Ed.), Tipologija vida: problemy, poiski, rešenija [Typology of aspect: problems, investigations, solutions] (pp. 490–497). Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Comrie, B.
    (1976) Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M., Bickel, B.
    (2008) The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Max Planck Institute for Evolutional Anthropology. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft, William
    (2016) Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology, 201, 377–393. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0012 [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLancey, S.
    (1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 11, 33–52. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dik, S. C.
    (1989) The theory of functional grammar. Part I: The structure of the clause. Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dobrushina, N. R.
    (2006) Grammatičeskie formy i konstrukcii so značeniem opasenija i preodstereženija [Grammatical forms and constructions with the meaning of fear and caution]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 21, 28–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Ehrlemark, A., Johansson, R., Lyngfelt, B.
    (2016) Retrieving occurrences of grammatical constructions. Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers. Osaka, Japan 2016, 815–824.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Endresen, A. & Janda, L. A.
    (2020) Taking Construction Grammar one step further: Families, clusters, and networks of evaluative constructions in Russian. InM. Putnam, M. Carlson, A. Fábregas & E. Wittenberg (Eds.), Defining Construction: Insights into the emergence and generation of linguistic representations [special issue of Frontiers in Psychology, 11] (pp. 1–22). 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574353
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574353 [Google Scholar]
  20. Endresen, A., Janda, L. A., Zhukova, V., Mordashova, D. & Rakhilina, E.
    (forthcoming). Turning a list into a network via family-based expansion of the Russian Constructicon. InA. Ziem, A. Willich, S. Michel Eds. Constructing Constructicons. John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fillmore, Ch. J.
    (1988) The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. InProceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fillmore, Ch. J. & Atkins, B. T.
    (1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. InA. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrast: New essays in semantics and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, Ch. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fillmore, Ch. J., Lee-Goldman, R. & Rhodes, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet constructicon. InH. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, A. E. & Herbst, T.
    (2021) The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics, 59(1), 285–318. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0274
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0274 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jackendoff, R.
    (1983) Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jakobson, R.
    (1957) Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Janda, L. A., Endresen, A., Zhukova, V., Mordashova, D., & Rakhilina, E.
    (2020) How to build a constructicon in five years: The Russian example. InF. Brisard, T. Colleman, A. De Wit, R. Enghels, N. Koutsoukos, T. Mortelmans & M. Sol Sansiñena (Eds.), The wealth and breadth of construction-based research [special issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34] (pp. 162–175).
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Janda, L. A. & Clancy, S. J.
    (2002) The case book for Russian. Slavica Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jespersen, O.
    (1924) The philosophy of grammar. Allen and Unwin. Reprinted in 2010 byRoutledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Khrakovski, V. S.
    (2003) Kategorija taksisa (Obščaja xarakteristika) [The category of taxis (General characteristics)]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 21, 33–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2009) Taksis: Semantika, sintaksis, tipologija [Taxis: semantics, syntax, typology]. InV. S. Khrakovski (Ed.). Tipologija taksisnyx konstrukcij [The typology of taxis constructions] (pp. 11–113). Znak.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kibisova, E.
    (2020) How do we measure “measure”? Measure constructions and metaphor. Poljarnyj vestnik, 231, 1–17. 10.7557/6.5548
     https://doi.org/10.7557/6.5548 [Google Scholar]
  36. Klavan, J. & Veismann, A.
    (2017) Are corpus-based predictions mirrored in the preferential choices and ratings of native speakers? Predicting the alternation between the Estonian adessive case and the adposition peal ‘on’. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 8(2), 59–91. 10.12697/jeful.2017.8.2.03
     https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2017.8.2.03 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ladygina, A. S. & Rakhilina, E. V.
    (2016) Russkie konstrukcii so značeniem čeredovanija situacij [Russian constructions encoding the meaning of alternating situations]. InM. V. Ljapon (Ed.), Jazyk: poiski, fakty, gipotezy [Language: investigations, facts, hypotheses] (pp. 320–336). Leksrus.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Langacker, R. W.
    (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]
  39. Letuchiy, A. B.
    (2007) Russkij “ugrozativ” i ego rodstvenniki [Russian construction of threat and its relatives]. Komp’juternaja lingvistika i intellektual’nye texnologii [Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies], 375–381. www.dialog-21.ru/media/1878/57.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lyngfelt, B.
    (2018) Introduction: Constructicons and constructicography. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 1–18). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.01lyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.01lyn [Google Scholar]
  41. Mel’čuk, I. A.
    (1998) Kurs obščej morfologii. T. II. Part 2: Morfologičeskie značenija [A course in general morphology, Vol. 2, Part 2: Morphological meanings]. Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury; Wiener Slavistischer Almanach.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Mitrofanova, N.
    (2016) Paths and places: Aspects of grammar and acquisition. PhD dissertation, The Arctic University of Norway. https://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/11250
  43. Newman, P.
    (1980) Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic. Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Nida, E.
    (1949) Morphology: The descriptive analysis of words. University of Michigan Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Nuyts, J.
    (2006) Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. InW. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 1–26). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197570.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197570.1 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2016) Analyses of modal meanings. InJ. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 31–49). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Ohara & K. H.
    (2018) Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet constructicon. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 141–164). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.05oha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.05oha [Google Scholar]
  48. Oskol’skaja, S. A., Zaika, N. M., Klimenko, S. B. & Fedotov, M. L.
    (2020) Opredelenie karitiva kak sravnitel’nogo ponjatija [Defining caritive as a comparative concept]. Voprosy jazykoznanija (3), 7–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Paperno, D.
    (2012) Quantification in Standard Russian. InE. L. Keenan & D. Paperno (Eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language (pp. 729–780). Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑2681‑9_14
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9_14 [Google Scholar]
  50. Plungian, V. A.
    (1999) A typology of phasal meanings. InW. Abraham & L. Kulikov, L. (Eds.), Tense-aspect, transitivity, and causativity: Essays in honor of Vladimir Nedjalkov (pp. 311–321). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.50.21plu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.50.21plu [Google Scholar]
  51. (2001) Antirezul’tativ: do i posle rezul’tata [Antiresultative: before and after the result]. InV. A. Plungian (Ed.), Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki [Studies in theoretical grammar], Vol.11: Grammatičeskie kategorii [Grammatical categories] (pp. 50–88). Russkie slovari.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2011) Vvedenie v grammatičeskuju semantiku: Grammatičeskie značenija i grammatičeskie sistemy jazykov mira [An introduction to grammatical semantics: Grammatical meanings and grammatical systems in the languages of the world]. Russian State University for the Humanities Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Rakhilina, E. V.
    (2013) Konduktor, nažmi na tormoza… [Conductor, press the brakes…]. Komp’juternaja lingvistika i intellektual’nye texnologii [Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies], 12(19), 665–673.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (Ed.) (2010) Lingvistika konstrukcij [Linguistics of constructions]. Azbukovnik.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Rakhilina, E. V. & Li, S. H.
    (2009) Semantika leksičeskoj množestvennosti v russkom jazyjke [Semantics of lexical plurality in Russian]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 41. 13–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Shluinsky, A. B.
    (2005) Tipologija predikatnoj množestvennosti: količestvennye aspektual’nye značenija [A typology of pluractionality: quantitative aspectual meanings]. PhD dissertation, Moscow State University. https://iling-ran.ru/Shluinsky/ashl/TipologijaPredikatnoj_2005_disser.pdf
  58. Talmy, L.
    (1985) Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. InT. Shopen. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 36–149). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2000) Lexicalization patterns, Surveying lexicalization patterns. InL. Talmy (Ed.), Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring (pp. 21–212). MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  60. Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., Tavares, T. S. & Matos, E. E.
    (2014) Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 61, 34–51. 10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor [Google Scholar]
  61. Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Treis, Y.
    (2018) Comparative constructions: An introduction. Linguistic Discovery, 16(1), i–xxvi. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.492
     https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.492 [Google Scholar]
  63. Van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V.
    (1998) Modality’s Semantic Map. Linguistic Typology, 21, 79–124. 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 [Google Scholar]
  64. Zaliznjak, A. A. & Šmelev, A. D.
    (2000) Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju [Introduction to the Russian aspectology]. Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Zhukova, V.
    (2020) Intensifying constructions in Russian based on data from Russian Constructicon. MA Thesis, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00066.jan
Loading
From data to theory
Constructions and Frames 15, 1 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00066.jan
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00066.jan
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00066.jan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructicon; Construction Grammar; corpus; Russian; semantics

Most Cited

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