Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study revisits constructionist (CxG) views concerning detailed and often unusual semantics of schematic constructions, especially those located toward the closed-class end of the lexicon-grammar continuum. The discussion is based mainly on a previously unstudied grammatical construction with interesting semantic properties, and it is shown that although clear semantic patterns can be observed in its most common uses, the construction is capable of expressing meanings that go beyond a preliminary characterization suggested by typical attestations. It is hypothesized that two kinds of meanings can be observed in grammatical constructions. One is the typically grammatical, relatively general meaning known to be conveyed by closed-class forms. The other includes highly detailed readings found in clearly productive patterns, which function within a construction; these relatively rich meanings are not necessarily the content of a construction. Based on uses of a number of constructions discussed here, it is suggested that many characterizations of the semantic content of schematic constructions proposed in the literature may be too detailed. The study concludes in proposing a correlation, under which the degree of specificity of a construction’s meaning depends on the amount of fixed lexical material found in it.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Achard, M.
    (2015) Impersonals and other agent defocusing constructions in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.50
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.50 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, M.
    (2011) In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203832929
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832929 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berg, T.
    (2015) Locating affixes on the lexicon-grammar continuum. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2 (1), 150–180. 10.1075/cogls.2.1.08ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.2.1.08ber [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowerman, M.
    (1996) Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. InP. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (383–436). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, W.
    (2000) Lexical and grammatical meaning. InG. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphologie / Morphology (257–263). Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2001) Radical 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]
  10. (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  11. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Damer, T. E.
    (2005) Attacking faulty reasoning: a practical guide to fallacy-free arguments. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Davies, M.
    (2015) Corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words 2010–2015 Available at: http:corpus.byu.edu/coca/
  14. Foolen, A.
    (2004) Expressive binominal NPs in Germanic and Romance languages. InG. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.75–100). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1993) Why idioms are not dead metaphors. InC. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure and interpretation (pp.57–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gries, S. Th
    (2017) Ten Lectures on Quantitative Approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-linguistic, experimental, and statistical applications. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004336223
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004336223 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Grammaticalization. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  20. Israel, M.
    (1996) The way constructions grow. InA. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Janda, L. A.
    (2013) Quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. InL. A. Janda (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn (pp.1–32). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110335255.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255.1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackendoff, R.
    (2002) Foundations 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]
  23. (2010) Meaning and the lexicon: The parallel architecture 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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, Vol. 2 (pp.2271–2296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kearns, K.
    (2002/1988) Light verbs in English. Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Retrieved fromciteseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi= (last accessedNovember 8, 2017).
  26. Kim, M.
    (2010) On the Time Away Construction: A corpus-based approach. Linguistic Research, 27(1), 121–136. 10.17250/khisli.27.1.201004.005
    https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.27.1.201004.005 [Google Scholar]
  27. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2008) Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Langlotz, A.
    (2006) Idiomatic creativity: A cognitive-linguistic model of idiom-representation and idiom-variation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.17 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lehmann, Ch.
    (2002) Thoughts on grammaticalization: Second, revised edition. Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9. Erfurt: Universität Erfurt.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Meillet, A.
    (1912) L’evolution des formes grammaticales. Rivista di Scienza, 12 (XXVI), 130–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Murphy, M. L.
    (2010) Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511780684
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511780684 [Google Scholar]
  34. Panther, K.-U.
    (2014) Metaphor and metonymy shaping grammar: The role of animal terms in expressive morphology and syntax. InG. Drożdż & A. Łyda (Eds.), Extension and its limits (pp.10–38). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Perek, F.
    (2016) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Ahead-of-print. Retrieved fromhttps://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cllt.ahead-of-print/cllt-2016-0014/cllt-2016-0014.xml (last accessedNovember 8, 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of 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]
  37. Szcześniak, K.
    (2013) You can’t cry your way to candy: Motion events and paths in the x’s way construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24 (1), 159–194. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0006 [Google Scholar]
  38. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Trousdale, G.
    (2008) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. InG. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp.33–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199178.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199178.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wen, X., Yang, K. & Kuang, F. T.
    (2014) Cognitive linguistics: Retrospect and prospect. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1 (2), 155–179. 10.1075/cogls.1.2.01wen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.1.2.01wen [Google Scholar]
  41. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1988) The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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