Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective

H. Boas, Alexander Ziem
{"title":"Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective","authors":"H. Boas, Alexander Ziem","doi":"10.1515/9783110457155-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade or so, Construction Grammar (CxG) has evolved into an influential paradigm in linguistic research. CxG subsumes a family of related constructional approaches to language including Cognitive Construction Grammar (Lakoff 1987, Goldberg 1995, Boas 2013), Berkeley Construction Grammar (Fillmore et al. 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Fillmore 2013), Sign-based Construction Grammar (SBCG; Sag 2011, Boas and Sag 2012, Michaelis 2013), Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001, 2013), and Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, 2008; Broccias 2013), among others (for an overview see Hoffmann/Trousdale 2013, Ziem and Lasch 2013, and Lasch and Ziem 2014). Although such approaches differ not only in methodological terms but also with respect to the types of linguistic phenomena addressed, they all embrace the view that both lexicon and grammar essentially consist of constructions, i.e. non-compositional (and compositional) formmeaning pairings of varying abstractness and syntagmatic complexity. Building on this basic assumption, this volume investigates a variety of grammatical phenomena in German from a constructional point of view, including argument structure constructions, prepositional constructions, comparative correlatives, and relative clause constructions. Each contribution is anchored in a constructional approach to language, and the constructional nature of each phenomenon addressed is demonstrated in detail. Why German? Since its beginnings in the 1980s, constructional research has primarily focused on English, although languages such as Czech, Finnish, French, and Japanese have also received considerable attention. Since the 2000s, there has also been a significant amount of constructional research on German, including Järventausta (2006), Imo (2007), Nikula (2007), Chang (2008), Cloene and Willems (2006a, b), Deppermann (2007), Rostila (2008), Felfe (2012), Zeldes (2012), Hein (2015), and Lasch (2017); as well as a number of edited volumes such as Fischer and Stefanowitsch (2006), Stefanowitsch and Fischer (2008), Günthner and Bücker (2009), Engelberg et al. (2011), Lasch and Ziem (2011),","PeriodicalId":408755,"journal":{"name":"Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Over the last decade or so, Construction Grammar (CxG) has evolved into an influential paradigm in linguistic research. CxG subsumes a family of related constructional approaches to language including Cognitive Construction Grammar (Lakoff 1987, Goldberg 1995, Boas 2013), Berkeley Construction Grammar (Fillmore et al. 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Fillmore 2013), Sign-based Construction Grammar (SBCG; Sag 2011, Boas and Sag 2012, Michaelis 2013), Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001, 2013), and Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, 2008; Broccias 2013), among others (for an overview see Hoffmann/Trousdale 2013, Ziem and Lasch 2013, and Lasch and Ziem 2014). Although such approaches differ not only in methodological terms but also with respect to the types of linguistic phenomena addressed, they all embrace the view that both lexicon and grammar essentially consist of constructions, i.e. non-compositional (and compositional) formmeaning pairings of varying abstractness and syntagmatic complexity. Building on this basic assumption, this volume investigates a variety of grammatical phenomena in German from a constructional point of view, including argument structure constructions, prepositional constructions, comparative correlatives, and relative clause constructions. Each contribution is anchored in a constructional approach to language, and the constructional nature of each phenomenon addressed is demonstrated in detail. Why German? Since its beginnings in the 1980s, constructional research has primarily focused on English, although languages such as Czech, Finnish, French, and Japanese have also received considerable attention. Since the 2000s, there has also been a significant amount of constructional research on German, including Järventausta (2006), Imo (2007), Nikula (2007), Chang (2008), Cloene and Willems (2006a, b), Deppermann (2007), Rostila (2008), Felfe (2012), Zeldes (2012), Hein (2015), and Lasch (2017); as well as a number of edited volumes such as Fischer and Stefanowitsch (2006), Stefanowitsch and Fischer (2008), Günthner and Bücker (2009), Engelberg et al. (2011), Lasch and Ziem (2011),
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从构造主义的角度看德语语法
在过去的十多年里,构式语法(CxG)已经发展成为语言学研究中一个有影响力的范式。CxG包含了一系列相关的语言建构方法,包括认知建构语法(Lakoff 1987, Goldberg 1995, Boas 2013)、伯克利建构语法(Fillmore et al. 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Fillmore 2013)、基于符号的建构语法(SBCG;Sag 2011, Boas和Sag 2012, Michaelis 2013),激进结构语法(Croft 2001, 2013)和认知语法(Langacker 1987, 2008;brocias 2013)等(有关概述,请参阅Hoffmann/Trousdale 2013, Ziem and Lasch 2013以及Lasch and Ziem 2014)。尽管这些方法不仅在方法论上有所不同,而且在涉及的语言现象类型上也有所不同,但它们都认为词汇和语法本质上都是由结构组成的,即不同抽象性和句法复杂性的非构成(和构成)形式意义配对。建立在这个基本的假设,这卷调查各种语法现象在德国从结构的角度来看,包括论点结构结构,介词结构,比较关联词,和关系从句结构。每个贡献都是锚定在语言的结构方法,并详细说明了每个现象的结构性质。为什么德国?自20世纪80年代开始,结构研究主要集中在英语上,尽管捷克语、芬兰语、法语和日语等语言也受到了相当大的关注。自2000年代以来,对德语的建构研究也相当多,包括Järventausta(2006)、Imo(2007)、Nikula(2007)、Chang(2008)、Cloene and Willems (2006a, b)、Deppermann(2007)、Rostila(2008)、Felfe(2012)、Zeldes(2012)、Hein(2015)和Lasch (2017);以及一些编辑过的书籍,如Fischer and Stefanowitsch(2006)、Stefanowitsch and Fischer(2008)、g nthner and b cker(2009)、Engelberg et al.(2011)、Lasch and Ziem(2011)、
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Case for Caseless Prepositional Constructions with voller in German The argument structure of psych-verbs: A quantitative corpus study on cognitive entrenchment Type and token frequency effects on developing constructional productivity: The case of the German sein ‘be’ + present participle construction Constructions, compositionality, and the system of German particle verbs with ‘an’ Valence patterns, constructions, and interaction: Constructs with the German verb erinnern (‘remember’ / ‘remind’)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1