Constructions and Frames - Volume 16, Issue 1, 2024

Abstract

In cognitive linguistics, grammatical structure is known to be representative of meaning. This is also true of English articles. In this paper, we argue that the choice of article, when the grammar allows it, is dependent on the wider discourse context and most importantly on how the speaker construes this context. Using survey data from 181 native speakers of English, we show that the choice of article depends on the activation of semantic frames and how speakers may choose to highlight different elements of a frame to construe the situation differently. We rely on Entropy to measure the restrictiveness of a context and to identify particular contexts in which choice is allowed or inhibited. We find that some contextual features such as the specificity of the referent are more restrictive while Hearer Knowledge is more open to construal.

Abstract

Recent models of constructional networks combine vertical links between schemas and their subtypes with horizontal links between constructions at the same level of abstraction. It remains unclear, however, whether vertical and horizontal analyses express distinct information about the network, or whether one can be reformulated in terms of the other. In this paper, it is argued that vertical and horizontal links do not encode distinct cognitive mechanisms but that they are notational variants for representing a common notion of constructional similarity. The practical advantages of each notation are outlined, and some potential objections to the present account are addressed.

Abstract

Studies have demonstrated that Dutch has a much stronger tendency towards compounding than French (e.g., Du. badkamer vs Fr. salle de bains ‘bathroom’) when adopting a restrictive approach of compounding in which the presence of prepositions and/or internal inflection in multi-word expressions is considered evidence for their syntactic formation. The example above illustrates that Dutch compounding differs from French in another important aspect: while Germanic compounding is by definition right-headed, French has a general tendency towards left-hand headed compounds and phrases. In this study, we investigate the impact of these typological differences on the acquisition of Dutch nominal compounds by French-speaking learners in the context of multilingual Belgium. We provide an in-depth corpus analysis of the acquisition of Dutch compounds at different levels of abstraction (schematic and substantive compound constructions). Moreover, we investigate the impact of additional target-language input through CLIL programs (Content and Language Integrated Learning) on the acquisition of Dutch compounds by French-speaking learners of Dutch. The results are described and interpreted from the perspective of Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG), which conceptualizes the linguistic competence of multilingual speakers as one integrated network of constructions, containing language-specific idioconstructions and shared diaconstructions.

Abstract

Little attention has been paid to the English Superlative Object Construction (SOC), as in She worked her hardest. The historical grammarians Jespersen (1909–1949) and Poutsma (1904–1929) are the only ones who do touch on the SOC, and they do so in passing relying on what seem to be the prototypical examples of the construction. This empirical evidence, though valuable for a first characterisation of the pattern, is insufficient to provide a detailed analysis of the form, function, frequency, and distribution of the SOC in Present Day English from the perspective of Construction Grammar. Based on usage-based data from COCA, this paper argues that the SOC qualifies as an intensifying comparative construction. Despite being low frequent and showing a set of highly entrenched, lexicalised units (e.g., smile [X] prettiest, work [X] hardest), the SOC is relatively productive, especially in informal registers where the construction can be easily accommodated to serve emotive, phatic, and conative functions.

Abstract

The decline of certain core modals in English, including may and might, is a well-documented phenomenon (cf. Daugs 2017). It is less clear, however, whether this tendency will lead to the loss of these modals or whether other changes are also underway. I aim to address this issue by looking at the use of may and might in concessive clauses. I will first present the results of a corpus study (COHA) aimed at understanding the diachronic development of concessive may and might. The analysis reveals a significant increase of may and might in concessive contexts since the 1960s, especially in factual concessives with but. This new finding is important as it shows that, though decreasing in frequency, the two modals are developing new patterns of use. This raises the question whether the status of may and might as modal verbs is also changing. I argue that the two verbs are going through a process of post-modal (secondary) grammaticalisation and constructionalisation, and that the concessive meaning is linked to the more complex ‘subj {may/might} VP, but-clause’ construction. I also claim that, within the paradigm of concessive constructions, those with may and might are best viewed as hedged concessives that serve politeness purposes.

This article reviews Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units