The issue of specifying slots in argument structure constructions in terms of form and meaning

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Herbst ◽  
Peter Uhrig
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Formal Specifications ◽  
Motion Constructions

Abstract In Construction Grammar theory, constructions are generally described as form-meaning pairings. It will be argued here that the formal specifications of some abstract constructions are so vague that the notion of form needs to be discussed rather critically. We aim to demonstrate how, in the English predicative and intransitive-motion constructions, the slots of more general constructions can be seen as being specified indirectly through sets of mini-constructions.

A construction grammar analysis of the transitivebeperfect in present-day Canadian English

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
YURI YERASTOV
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Syntactic Analysis ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
Canadian English ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Fixed Material ◽  
Grammar Analysis ◽  
Generative Approach ◽  
Surface Realization

This article offers a syntactic analysis of the construction [be doneNP], e.g.I am done dinner, I am finished my homework, as found in Canadian English and some US dialects. After situating this construction in the context of a productive transitivebeperfect in Scots/English dialects, [be doneNP] will be distinguished from a set of its conceptual and structural relatives, and ultimately be shown not to be reducible to a surface realization of another underlying structure. From the perspective of syntactic theory, the article problematizes the parsimony of the mainstream generative approach (most recently in MacFadden & Alexiadou 2010) in accounting for the facts of [be doneNP] on strictly compositional grounds, as well as the mainstream view of lexical items as projecting theta grids and subcategorization frames (as e.g. in Grimshaw 1979; Emonds 2000). Following Fillmoreet al.(1988), Goldberg (1995, 2005) and others, what will be suggested instead is a construction grammar approach to [be doneNP], under which a construction holistically licenses its argument structure. Along these lines [be doneNP] will be characterized as an abstract construction with some fixed material.

Argument structure satisfaction via unselected adjuncts

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seiko Fujii ◽  
Russell Lee-Goldman
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Semantic Approach ◽  
The Core ◽  
Frame Element

Abstract This paper presents a frame-based constructional approach to argument structure satisfaction via unselected adjuncts, by focusing on one such case in Japanese. It points out an intriguing constructional phenomenon whereby causal adjunct clauses marked with node ‘because’, as used with main-clause predicates that evoke communication frames (such as Telling and Warning), serve to satisfy main-clause argument structure. The node clause precedes the main-clause speech act of telling/warning, and can be interpreted as a speech-act causal (Sweetser 1990). The node clause at the same time conveys the content of informing or warning, i.e., the core Frame Element message, which is absent as a main-clause complement. This analysis of argument structure satisfaction via unselected adjuncts provides evidence for a Frame Semantic approach to argument structure that incorporates Construction Grammar.

Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of coercion and argument structure

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 613-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remi van Trijp
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Argument Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Alternative Solution ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Competence Model ◽  
Problem Solving Model

AbstractOne of the most salient hallmarks of construction grammar is its approach to argument structure and coercion: rather than positing many different verb senses in the lexicon, the same lexical construction may freely interact with multiple argument structure constructions. This view has however been criticized from within the construction grammar movement for leading to overgeneration. This paper argues that this criticism falls flat for two reasons: (1) lexicalism, which is the alternative solution proposed by the critics, has already been proven to overgenerate itself, and (2) the argument of overgeneration becomes void if grammar is implemented as a problem-solving model rather than as a generative competence model; a claim that the paper substantiates through a computational operationalization of argument structure and coercion in Fluid Construction Grammar. The paper thus shows that the current debate on argument structure is hiding a much more fundamental rift between practitioners of construction grammar that touches upon the role of grammar itself.

Grammaticalisation through constructions

2004 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 159-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra Ziegeler
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Frequency Of Use ◽  
Gradual Development ◽  
Repeated Use ◽  
Verb Meaning ◽  
Diachronic Development ◽  
Over Time

Recent arguments by Langacker (2003) on the nature of verb meanings in constructions claim that such meanings are created by entrenchment and frequency of use, and only with repeated use can they become conventionalised and acceptable. Such a position raises the need for a diachronic perspective on Construction Grammar. The present paper investigates the evolution of constructions through the example of thehave-causative in English, which appears to have had its origins as a transfer verb in telic argument structure constructions. When the construction contains a transfer verb, construction meaning reinforces verb meaning and periphrastic causatives may grammaticalise as output; this is a gradual development over time. In one way, then, the verbhavegrammaticalises across a succession of constructions, but in another, the telic argument structure construction itself is seen to have a progressive diachronic development.

scholarly journals Working out multiword verbs within an Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar framework

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-86
Author(s):  
Sergio Torres-Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Data Driven ◽  
Linguistic Knowledge ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Focus On Form ◽  
Working Out ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Cognitive Construction Grammar

AbstractThis article presents a constructionist approach to the teaching of multiword verbs. To that end, I outline a pedagogical model, Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar (ACCxG), which is deemed to provide insight into a novel classification of multiword verbs as constructions (form-function pairings). The ACCxG framework integrates four cognitively-driven rationales, namely Focus on Form, Task-based Language Teaching, Data-driven Learning, and Paper-based Data-Driven Learning. It is argued that the syntax-semantics of multiword verbs can be better understood through recourse to their relation with syntactic constructions (Argument Structure Constructions). Endorsing this rationale entails, among other things, the recognition that the same general cognitive mechanisms intervening in the construction of our experience of the world are at play during the construction of linguistic knowledge.

scholarly journals Zur idiomatischen Komponente auffälliger kausativer Konstruktionen im Deutschen

2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martine Dalmas ◽  
Laurent Gautier
Keyword(s):  
Construction Grammar ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Semantic Level ◽  
Causative Constructions ◽  
Traditional Definition ◽  
Motion Constructions ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Given

This paper aims to analyze German caused-motion constructions such as jn aus dem Bett klingeln from both a phraseological and constructional perspective. Section 1 shows how the traditional definition of phraseologisms is nowadays challenged by new developments in construction grammar, especially within Goldberg’s framework. Section 2 focuses on the various possibilities existing in German to express causativity and proposes a continuum from mere morphological signs to the constructions under consideration here. Section 3 exemplifies the cognitive inscription of these causative constructions through the underlying frame semantic level. In section 4 we finally argue that several aspects of these structures, such as lexical constraint, figuration, and productivity suggest that some kinds of constructions should be integrated, at least peripherally, into the phraseological system of the given language.

scholarly journals Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florent Perek,
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Sorting Task ◽  
Syntactic Form ◽  
Dative Alternation ◽  
The Status

AbstractAccording to constructional approaches, grammar consists of an inventory of symbolic pairings of a syntactic form with an abstract meaning. Many of such so-called constructions can be perceived as having highly similar meanings: such pairs have been discussed under the name of alternations, especially in the domain of argument structure, for example the widely documented dative alternation (e.g. John gave Mary a book vs. John gave a book to Mary). This paper explores what status such pairs of constructions can be given in construction grammar, on the basis of a sorting task experiment.Construction grammar traditionally recognizes generalizations of a common syntactic form over semantically similar sentences, but the status of higher-level generalizations of a common meaning over syntactically different forms is rarely discussed. In our study, we devised a sorting task that subjects could resolve by relying on generalizations of either of these two kinds. We find that subjects rely on alternation-based generalizations more often than purely constructional ones in their sorting behavior. We suggest these results show that generalizations of a common meaning between formally different constructions are plausible categories stored by speakers and should be given more attention in construction grammar research.

More on the as-predicative: Granularity issues in the description of construction networks

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Beate Hampe
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
General Pattern ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Functional Difference ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Functional Differential

AbstractUsage-based construction grammar needs to determine which schematizations are really supported by usage: Previous research on argumentstructure constructions with object-related complements has assumed overarching constructions with a formally underspecified component (Gries et al. 2005, 2010; Gonzalvez-Garcia 2009). These schematize over a number of formally different subconstructions. It has been shown, however, that paying attention to the formally different realisations of a constructional component may bring out the functional differential between subconstructions which are closely related within a construction network (Hampe 2011a). Based on the data used by Gries and colleagues (2010), this paper presents a fine-grained collostruction analysis of the as-predicative as a network of tightly related subconstructions and checks whether there is a functional difference between the subconstructions with nominal and adjectival as-complements. It is shown that the extended uses of the construction sketched out by Gries et al. (2005) are licensed by the subconstruction with nominal as-complement, rather than present a property of the overarching, most general pattern. Beyond this, the present paper locates the as-predicative within the network of all argument-structure constructions with phrasal object-related complements. In this context, it also discusses under which conditions the occurrence of a specific verb as a collexeme of more than one argument-structure construction can be seen as a verb-specific constructeme uniting several allostructions (Capelle 2006).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document