Constructions and Frames - Volume 9, Issue 1, 2017

This paper is concerned with the classification and analysis of different types of German synthetic compounds headed by deverbal agent nouns in -er, such as Romanleser ‘novel-reader’ or Gedankenleser ‘mind-reader’, where the non-head is seen to saturate an argument of the head lexeme while adhering to the semantic interpretation found in corresponding VPs (e.g. the distinct senses of read in the previous examples). In contrast to several previous approaches, which attempt to explain the relationship between VPs and compounds using a unified mechanism of incorporation or derivation, we argue that different compounding patterns require different analyses and that the respective constructions are to some extent independent of each other. While some compounds are modelled after frequent, familiar VPs and take account of the usage profile of syntactic phrases, other productive sets of compounds extend independently lexicalized schemas with fixed compound heads. To support our analysis we undertake the largest empirical survey of these formations to date, using a broad coverage Web corpus. We suggest several categories of verb-object lexeme pairs to account for our data and formulate an analysis of the facts within the framework of Construction Morphology.

This paper is about constructional change that is brought about through change in non-linguistic practice. The English construction of interest is one that speakers use to initiate bets with their addressees. Its verb is lay, its subject is the speaker, and its direct object is the stake the speaker proposes to risk. It is argued that the motivation for the use of lay comes partly from the practice of laying down stakes when making bets. However, it is shown that over the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries this practice declines, weakening the basis for a physical interpretation and leading hearers to attend instead to the speaker-addressee relation. Concurrently, this relation is increasingly expressed through the use of a dative argument. This development is discussed in relation to Ariel et al.’s (2015) account of added datives.

This study investigates the development of a polysemy network within a constructional framework. The synchronic variation of Chinese ‘one’-phrases is explained by diachronic developments. The results of a quantitative corpus analysis show that each of the senses of the ‘one’ phrase tends to occur in specific syntactic constructions due to inheritance from extant constructions. The results contribute to explaining the formation of a diachronic polysemy network by investigating the hierarchical structure of its constructions, thus allowing a deeper understanding of how semantic extensions have been formed through gradual constructional association.

This paper concentrates on the diachronic development of the so-called Colorative Construction (CoC) in Finnish, a two-verb expression consisting of an A-infinitive and an ideophonically based descriptive (or ‘colorative’) finite verb, e.g. susi juos-ta jolkottele-e [wolf run-inf col-prs.3sg] ‘wolf runs trotting’. The paper combines variationist dialectal data, grammaticalization theory, and Construction Grammar formalization. The detailed diachronic description demonstrates that the development from proto-CoC to modern CoC is the epitome of constructionalization, i.e., a gradual process of grammatical changes whereby both the form and the function of an existing construction are altered, creating a new expression type. Major changes in the Balto-Finnic case system were the primary force behind this process. Constructionalization of the CoC itself included the first syntagmatic changes through reanalysis. This gradually created a new paradigmatic expression type, followed by paradigmatic extension through analogy, which widened the frame semantics of the newly coined type.

Van Trijp ( 2013 , 2014 ) claims that Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG) and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) are fundamentally different from Fluid Construction Grammar (FCG). He claims that the former approaches are generative ones while the latter is a cognitive-functional one. I argue that it is not legitimate to draw these distinctions on the basis of what is done in FCG. Van Trijp claims that there are differences in the scientific model, the linguistic approach, formalization, the way constructions are seen, and in terms of processing. This paper discusses all these alleged differences. Van Trijp also claims that his cognitive-functional approach is superior in terms of completeness, explanatory adequacy, and theoretical parsimony. In order to facilitate a discussion and comparison, I introduce the reader to basic assumptions made in FCG and the analyses suggested by Van Trijp: I first deal with the representations that are used in FCG, talk about argument structure constructions, the combination operations fusion and merging that are used in FCG, I than discuss the analysis of nonlocal dependencies and show that the suggested FCG analysis is not explanatorily adequate since it is not descriptively adequate and that a full formalization of approaches with discontinuous constituents is not more parsimonious than existing HPSG analyses either. After the discussion of specific analyses, I then provide a detailed comparison of FCG and SBCG/HPSG and discuss questions like the competence/performance distinction, mathematical formalization vs. computer implementation, fuzziness and fluidity in grammars, and permissiveness of theories. I conclude that HPSG, SBCG, and FCG belong to the same family of theories and that all claims to the contrary are unjustified.