Constructions and Frames - Volume 5, Issue 1, 2013

This paper discusses the issues that emerged from applying frame semantics to the development of a small-scale bilingual database for Greek and English motion verbs. Proposing an alternative to current lexicography in Greece, the database exploits available corpora and query systems, and carries out a (manual) frame-semantic analysis of the extracted data. The most important theoretical implication of the database is that by combining frame semantics with conceptual metaphor theory and corpus-based information on usage patterns, we can make precise (monolingual) descriptions and effective (cross-linguistic) comparisons. From a practical perspective, the database complements existing English FrameNet and contributes to the creation of a new resource, i.e. a FrameNet for Greek.

The article offers new data to the debate on lexical vs. constructional approaches to valency. Research on valency has mainly been concerned with verbs, and in this article it is argued that the neglected area of adjectival valency can shed some new light on this fundamental question. Among the evidence in favour of a constructional approach are the considerable differences in the possibilities of valency realisation between adjectives in attributive and in predicative function. It is also argued that a constructional approach allows for a more principled treatment of polysemy between valency variants.

Modern Russian contains a significant number of right-headed compounds modeled on Germanic [N[N]] compounds and containing recently borrowed English or German stems. The present article argues that these compounds are a family of partially lexically-specific constructions. Quantitative corpus data from the restricted semantic domain consisting of names of food/drink establishments support this claim by showing that the [N[N]] structure is specifically associated with certain head nouns. The article discusses the relationship between these and related constructions, and suggests motivations for the partial productivity of [N[N]] constructions in Russian.1

Construction Grammar has reached a stage of maturity where many researchers are looking for an explicit formal grounding of their work. Recently, there have been exciting developments to cater for this demand, most notably in Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG) and Fluid Construction Grammar (FCG). Unfortunately, like playing a music instrument, the formalisms used by SBCG and FCG take time and effort to master, and linguists who are unfamiliar with them may not always appreciate the far-reaching theoretical consequences of adopting this or that approach. This paper undresses SBCG and FCG to their bare essentials, and offers a linguist-friendly comparison that looks at how both approaches define constructions, linguistic knowledge and language processing.