1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

When he introduced the framework now known as Construction Grammar, Charles Fillmore said: “Grammatical Construction Theory differs from […] other frameworks […] in its insistence that syntactic patterns are often tightly associated with interpretation instructions” (Fillmore 1989: 17). Construction Grammarians view the patterns, the associations and the interpretive instructionsas a matter of linguistic convention-a fact not generally appreciated within the wider cognitive-functional community that embraces Construction Grammar, In CxG, we do not use general principles to explain the existence of the form-function pairs we encounter in a language, but rather treat those as the product of lexical and constructional licensing (Zwicky 1994). But emergentists and stipulators share one core belief: grammatical structure is inherently symbolic. Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG) makes this insight formally explicit by treating constructions as licensors of signs-signs that are phrases, lexemes or words-and allowing for semantic and usage constraints to be directly associated with constructions. But practitioners of Construction Grammar might reasonably reject the SBCG formalism as incompatible with major foundations of constructional thinking: the top-down nature of constructional meaning, the idiomaticity continuum and the narrow scope of linguistic generalizations. My task in this article is to address this concern, illustrating a variety of applications.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23012.mic
2024-08-26
2024-09-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.23012.mic
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, M. C.
    (1996) The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195093070.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195093070.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barðdal, J.
    (2011) Lexical vs. structural case: A false dichotomy. Morphology, (), –. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9174‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9174-1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Booij, G.
    (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Borer, H.
    (2005) Structuring sense (Vol. 1): In name only. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brenier, J. M., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2005) Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, , –. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.45
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.45 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cappelle, B.
    (2022) Lexical integrity: A mere construct or more a construction?Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, (), –. 10.1515/gcla‑2022‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2022-0009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783112316009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  8. (1989) Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R.
    (1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, , –. 10.1037/0096‑3445.113.1.121
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T.
    (1998) Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, (), –. 10.1006/cogp.1998.0693
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0693 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coppock, E.
    (2010) Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes, (), –. 10.1080/01690960902840261
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960902840261 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  14. Diffenbaugh, N. S., & Barnes, E. A.
    (2023) Data-driven predictions of the time remaining until critical global warming thresholds are reached. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (), e2207183120. 10.1073/pnas.2207183120
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207183120 [Google Scholar]
  15. Duffield, C. J., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2011) Why subject relatives prevail: Constraints versus constructional licensing. Language and Cognition, , –. 10.1515/LANGCOG.2011.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2011.007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1977) The case for case reopened. InP. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 8): Grammatical relations (pp.–). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, , –
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (1989) Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. InR. Dietrich & C. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp.–). Elsevier Publishers. 10.1016/B978‑0‑444‑87144‑2.50004‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-87144-2.50004-5 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1999) Inversion and constructional inheritance. InG. Webelhuth, J-P. Koenig, & A. Kathol, (Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (pp.–). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2013) Berkeley Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.–). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2020) Form and meaning in language. Papers on linguistic theory and constructions (P. Gras, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren, Eds.). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R.
    (2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, , –. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P.
    (1995) Construction grammar coursebook. University of California, Berkeley. [Unpublished manuscript].
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, (), –. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhodes, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet Constructicon. InH. Boas and I. Sag. (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.–). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Francis, E.
    (2022) Gradient acceptability and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Francis, E. J., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2016) When relative clause extraposition is the right choice, it’s easier. Language and Cognition, , –. 10.1017/langcog.2016.21
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.21 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gildea, S., & Barðdal, J.
    (2023) From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar: A natural evolution of the paradigm. Studies in Language, (), –. 10.1075/sl.20079.gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20079.gil [Google Scholar]
  30. Givón, T.
    (1979) On understanding grammar. Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gould, K. M., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2018) Match, mismatch and envisioning transfer events: How verbal constructional bias and lexical-class concord shape motor simulation effects. Constructions and Frames, , –. 10.1075/cf.00020.gou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00020.gou [Google Scholar]
  34. Gregory, M. L., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2001) Topicalization and left dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00063‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00063-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J.
    (1998) The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working papers in linguistics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoffmann, T.
    (2020) What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar? Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the constructionist enterprise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/bjl.00042.hof
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00042.hof [Google Scholar]
  37. Hilpert, M.
    (2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2020) The great temptation: What diachronic corpora do and do not reveal about social change. InP. Rautionaho, A. Nurmi & J. Klemola (Eds.), Corpora and the changing society: Studies in the evolution of English (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.96.01hil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.96.01hil [Google Scholar]
  39. Kay, P.
    (1992) At least. InA. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp.–). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (1997) Words and the grammar of context. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 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 (pp.–). Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. (2018) A few words to do with multiword expressions. InC. Condoravdi & T. H. King (Eds.), Tokens of meaning: Papers in honor of Lauri Karttunen (pp.–). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kim, J., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2020) Syntactic constructions of English. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Koutsoukos, N., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2021) Pleonastic complex words as functional amalgams. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/bjl.00046.kou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00046.kou [Google Scholar]
  45. Kosse, M.
    (2022) Ted Cruz cucks again: the insult term cuck as an alt-right masculinist signifier. Gender and Language, (), –. 10.1558/genl.21079
     https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.21079 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kuperberg, G., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2010) Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, (), –. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21333
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21333 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2000, March8). Senses of “formal”. The Funknet Archives. https://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/2000-March/001755.html
  49. (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, (), –. 10.1080/17524030903529749
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2014) The all new don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Lambrecht, K., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (1998) Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy, , –. 10.1023/A:1005327212709
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005327212709 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lee, R.
    (2021) Ideology, Frame Semantics, and variation: A cognitive sociolinguistic study of the English lexeme racist. InM. Hewett, C. Kasper, S. Kim & N. Kurtz (Eds.), CLS 56, 2021: Proceedings of the Fifty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.–). Chicago Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Malouf, R.
    (2003) Cooperating Constructions. InE. Francis & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp.–). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Mansouri, A.
    (2015) Stative and stativizing constructions in Arabic news reports: A corpus-based study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Colorado Boulder.
  55. Michaelis, L. A.
    (1994) A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language, , –. 10.1075/sl.18.1.04mic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18.1.04mic [Google Scholar]
  56. (2011) Stative by construction. Linguistics, , –. 10.1515/ling.2011.038
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.038 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2012) Making the case for Construction Grammar. InH. Boas & I. Sag, (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.–). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. (2015) Constructions license verb frames. InJ. Rudanko, J. Havu, M. Höglund & P. Rickman (Eds.), Perspectives on complementation (pp.–). Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2022) Aspectual coercion and lexical semantics Part 1: Using selection to describe the interaction between construction and verb meaning. Cognitive Semantics, (), –. 10.1163/23526416‑bja10036
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10036 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2024) What is the Event Elaboration Constraint?InA. De Wit, F. Brisard, C. Madden-Lombardi, M. Meeuwis, & A. Patard (Eds.), Beyond aspectual semantics: Explorations in the pragmatic and cognitive realms of aspect (pp.–). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780192849311.003.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192849311.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  61. Michaelis, L. A., & Feng, H.
    (2015) What is this, sarcastic syntax?Constructions and Frames, , –. 10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic [Google Scholar]
  62. Michaelis, L. A., & Francis, H. S.
    (2007) Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. InN. Hedberg & R. Zacharski (Eds.), Topics in the grammar-pragmatics interface: Papers in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.155.04mic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.155.04mic [Google Scholar]
  63. Michaelis, L. A., & Hsiao, A. M.
    (2021) Verbing and linguistic innovation. Frontiers in Communication, , 604763. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.604763
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.604763 [Google Scholar]
  64. Michaelis, L. A., & Lambrecht, K.
    (1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, , –. 10.2307/416650
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  65. Michaelis, L. A., & Ruppenhofer, J.
    (2001) Beyond alternations: A constructional account of the applicative pattern in German. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Riehemann, S. Z.
    (1998) Type-based derivational morphology. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, (), –. 10.1023/A:1009746617055
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009746617055 [Google Scholar]
  67. Rothstein, S.
    (2010) Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, (), –. 10.1093/jos/ffq007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq007 [Google Scholar]
  68. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Schwarzer-Petruck, M., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. International Computer Science Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Sag, I. A.
    (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. InH. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.–). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Sag, I. A., Boas, H. C., & Kay, P.
    (2012) Introducing Sign-Based Construction Grammar. InH. Boas & I. Sag, (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.–). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Sag, I. A., Chaves, R. P., Abeillé, A., Estigarribia, B., Flickinger, D., Kay, P., Michaelis, L. A., Müller, S., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2019) Lessons from the English auxiliary system. Journal of Linguistics, , –. 10.1017/S002222671800052X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671800052X [Google Scholar]
  72. Shieber, S. M.
    (2003) An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Microtome Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Steel, D., DesRoches, C. T., & Mintz-Woo, K.
    (2022) Climate change and the threat to civilization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, (), e2210525119. 10.1073/pnas.2210525119
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210525119 [Google Scholar]
  74. Stump, G.
    (2001) Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486333
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486333 [Google Scholar]
  75. Supran, G., & Oreskes, N.
    (2021) Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate change communications. One Earth, (), –. 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014 [Google Scholar]
  76. Torrent, T. T., Ellsworth, M., Baker, C., & Matos, E. E.
    (2018) The Multilingual FrameNet shared annotation task: A preliminary report. InT. T. Torrent, L. Borin & C. F. Bake (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp.–). ELRA.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Van Valin, R. & LaPolla, R.
    (1997) Syntax. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  78. Wellens, P., van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Steels, L.
    (2013) Fluid Construction Grammar for historical and evolutionary linguistics. InM. Butt & S. Hussain (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.–). Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Zwicky, A.
    (1994) Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of syntactic constructions. Proceedings of the twentieth meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Societys, (), –. 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1446
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1446 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23012.mic
Loading
Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23012.mic
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23012.mic
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23012.mic
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: coercion ; Social Semiotic Syntax ; usage ; Sign-Based Construction Grammar

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