- Home
- e-Journals
- Constructions and Frames
- Previous Issues
- Volume 2, Issue, 2010
Constructions and Frames - Volume 2, Issue 1, 2010
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2010
-
A frame-semantic approach to logical metonymy
Author(s): Josefien Sweeppp.: 1–32 (32)More LessPustejovsky’s well-known analysis of so-called logical metonymy, such as she began the book (= ‘reading’ or ‘writing’ the book), fails in several respects (cf. e.g. Godard & Jayez 1993, Lascarides & Copestake 1998, Verspoor 1997). The main problem is that his account is based on just a few prototypical examples of logical metonymy. When more examples with other verbs and other objects are analysed, his theory runs into problems. Since verb-concrete object combinations diverge widely in their interpretations, one can even ask to which extent metonymy is actually involved. With the help of FrameNet, this article analyses the semantics of these verbs and their combinations with metonymical objects. On this basis, a new analysis of logical metonymy is proposed.
-
Count-mass coercion, and the perspective of time and variation
Author(s): Debra Ziegelerpp.: 33–73 (41)More LessIn an earlier study (Ziegeler 2007), it was emphasised that it was redundant to discuss construction coercion in the face of more transparent mechanisms of cognitive pragmatics such as metonymy, and within the sphere of grammaticalisation studies. The present paper extends such arguments, including examples of (apparent) coercion of count-to-mass nouns in Colloquial Singaporean English, and, comparing the data with examples of noun referentiality in earlier historical English, illustrates that what on the surface may appear to be coercion is just a sub-type of metonymy, involved in the metaphorical generalisation of constructions across lexical-syntactic boundaries. Comparison with retention and unresolved mismatch in grammaticalisation is also considered.
-
Aspectual meanings in two cognitive domains: A constructional approach to aspect in Serbian
Author(s): Luna Filipovićpp.: 74–89 (16)More LessI argue that certain aspectual forms that have given rise to descriptive problems in the past can be accounted for if we understand the contexts in which these forms appear as constructions. I provide evidence for two aspectual constructions in Serbian, which are used to describe situations in two cognitive domains, motion and consumption. These two domains are chosen because of their ubiquity in both language and cognition. The two aspectual constructions, termed type focus and duration focus, license the use of imperfective verb forms in Serbian with external arguments that refer to specified quantity, which other theories dismiss as exceptions to the rule or consider odd or even impossible. Furthermore, I show how adverbials such as for an hour add aspectual meaning in their own right and should be treated as construction elements on a par with verbs and internal arguments. I discuss these constructions in a contrastive context by looking at their potential meaning counterparts in Russian, English and Italian. I also show how semantic, syntactic and pragmatic information is integrated in the formulation of construction meaning.
-
Variably future-marked conditionals in Greek: Integrating discourse and grammar
Author(s): Kiki Nikiforidou and Rena Torres Cacoullospp.: 90–123 (34)More LessIt has been proposed that future-marked conditionals have discourse-pragmatic functions other than future temporal reference (Comrie 1982, Fillmore 1990, Dancygier & Sweetser 2005). Through a corpus-based multivariate analysis we show that future-marked conditionals in Greek are associated with speech-act conditional uses and correlate systematically with formal contextual features of polarity and subject-person and form. We argue that some of these associations are entrenched enough to warrant constructional status and that the data support the emergence of specific conditional constructions, on a continuum between fixed formulas and schematic or more productive constructions, defined by particular tense-aspect combinations, preferred lexical fillers, and specialized functions, which are really of a discoursal nature. We suggest that construction grammar provides an appropriate framework for integrating discourse-pragmatic conventions, not merely semantics, into grammatical theory; we further propose some attributes and values that may be used for this purpose.
Most Read This Month
Article
content/journals/18761941
Journal
10
5
false
![Loading](/images/jp/spinner.gif)
-
-
Change in modal meanings
Author(s): Martin Hilpert
-
-
-
Cascades in metaphor and grammar
Author(s): Oana David, George Lakoff and Elise Stickles
-
-
-
What is this, sarcastic syntax?
Author(s): Laura A. Michaelis and Hanbing Feng
-
- More Less