Tiago Timponi Torrent, E. Matos, Natália Sigiliano
{"title":"Construction grammar across borders","authors":"Tiago Timponi Torrent, E. Matos, Natália Sigiliano","doi":"10.1075/cf.00033.int","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00033.int","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46979414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this paper is to analyze how speakers refer to non-exhaustive sets in spoken discourse, by means of open lists. We will propose an analysis of non-exhaustivity in terms of indexicality and we will therefore consider open lists as having an inherently pragmatic component. Based on corpus data of spoken Italian, we will identify three main types of non-exhaustive lists, showing different structural properties and non-compositional semantics. In order to account for the observed variation, we will take a construction grammatical perspective, arguing that what may appear as a heterogeneous set of strategies is instead an inheritance-based network of constructions sharing a schematic core (cf. Goldberg 1995). We will elaborate on the most recent approaches to list constructions, along the lines proposed by Masini, Mauri, & Pietrandrea (2018), and will identify three types of non-exhaustive list constructions, which inherit the core properties from the upper-level list construction, but at the same time show more specific features and constraints.
{"title":"Non-exhaustive lists in spoken language","authors":"Caterina Mauri, E. Goria, Ilaria Fiorentini","doi":"10.1075/cf.00032.mau","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00032.mau","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The aim of this paper is to analyze how speakers refer to non-exhaustive sets in spoken discourse, by means of open lists. We will propose an analysis of non-exhaustivity in terms of indexicality and we will therefore consider open lists as having an inherently pragmatic component. Based on corpus data of spoken Italian, we will identify three main types of non-exhaustive lists, showing different structural properties and non-compositional semantics. In order to account for the observed variation, we will take a construction grammatical perspective, arguing that what may appear as a heterogeneous set of strategies is instead an inheritance-based network of constructions sharing a schematic core (cf. Goldberg 1995). We will elaborate on the most recent approaches to list constructions, along the lines proposed by Masini, Mauri, & Pietrandrea (2018), and will identify three types of non-exhaustive list constructions, which inherit the core properties from the upper-level list construction, but at the same time show more specific features and constraints.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49116435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar","authors":"Rita Finkbeiner","doi":"10.1075/cf.00027.fin","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00027.fin","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41676862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper discusses semantic and pragmatic aspects of possessive interpretation (PI), the process whereby semantically underspecified possessive noun phrases (NPs) such as John Smith’s house and the house of John Smith receive concrete referential interpretations (e.g. ‘the house owned by John Smith’) in context. By observing what is common to the interpretation of both constructions, I lay out the ingredients for a uniform pragmatic account of PI whilst rehashing the contextualist notion of saturation. As defined by Recanati (2004, 2010) and many others, saturation is a linguistically mandated and obligatory pragmatic process, operating to enrich the incomplete logical forms of referring expressions, including possessive NPs. I argue that present proposals which assume that saturating the possessive relation is crucial to determining the possessive referent fail to do justice to the many ways in which possessive NPs may be understood in concrete communicative situations. Supporting similar claims by Korta and Perry (2017), this suggests that saturation is more adequately defined as a communicatively optional pragmatic process. The discussion simultaneously contributes to the growing literature on pragmatic aspects of constructions as form-meaning pairings, by outlining some of the theoretical issues that arise from the division of labour between semantic and pragmatic meaning in PI.
{"title":"Possessive interpretation at the semantics-pragmatics interface","authors":"J. Kolkmann","doi":"10.1075/cf.00030.kol","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00030.kol","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper discusses semantic and pragmatic aspects of possessive interpretation (PI), the process whereby semantically underspecified possessive noun phrases (NPs) such as John Smith’s house and the house of John Smith receive concrete referential interpretations (e.g. ‘the house owned by John Smith’) in context. By observing what is common to the interpretation of both constructions, I lay out the ingredients for a uniform pragmatic account of PI whilst rehashing the contextualist notion of saturation. As defined by Recanati (2004, 2010) and many others, saturation is a linguistically mandated and obligatory pragmatic process, operating to enrich the incomplete logical forms of referring expressions, including possessive NPs. I argue that present proposals which assume that saturating the possessive relation is crucial to determining the possessive referent fail to do justice to the many ways in which possessive NPs may be understood in concrete communicative situations. Supporting similar claims by Korta and Perry (2017), this suggests that saturation is more adequately defined as a communicatively optional pragmatic process. The discussion simultaneously contributes to the growing literature on pragmatic aspects of constructions as form-meaning pairings, by outlining some of the theoretical issues that arise from the division of labour between semantic and pragmatic meaning in PI.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47207210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar","authors":"","doi":"10.1075/cf.11.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.11.2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47949466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Utterance interpretation involves semantically specified codes and context-based pragmatic inferences, which complement each other. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the very complex relation between a subset of codes, Goldbergian constructions, specifically ones centering around ‘alternativity’, and pragmatic inferences. I analyze a variety of or constructions and sub-constructions, emphasizing not only the role of coded constructions on the one hand, and of inferences, on the other hand, but also of cues, namely, linguistic forms that bias towards a specific interpretation, although they do not encode that interpretation. The synchronic variability with respect to the relative contribution of code, inference and cue reflects a grammaticization cycle whereby codes (here constructions) are routinely enriched by inferences, often supported by cues, which in turn may evolve into new codes (here sub-constructions).
{"title":"Or constructions","authors":"Mira Ariel","doi":"10.1075/cf.00028.ari","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00028.ari","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Utterance interpretation involves semantically specified codes and context-based pragmatic inferences, which\u0000 complement each other. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the very complex relation between a subset of codes, Goldbergian\u0000 constructions, specifically ones centering around ‘alternativity’, and pragmatic inferences. I analyze a variety of\u0000 or constructions and sub-constructions, emphasizing not only the role of coded constructions on the one hand,\u0000 and of inferences, on the other hand, but also of cues, namely, linguistic forms that bias towards a specific interpretation,\u0000 although they do not encode that interpretation. The synchronic variability with respect to the relative contribution of code,\u0000 inference and cue reflects a grammaticization cycle whereby codes (here constructions) are routinely enriched by inferences, often\u0000 supported by cues, which in turn may evolve into new codes (here sub-constructions).","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42089647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When an ambiguous lexical item appears within a familiar string of words, it can instantly receive an appropriate interpretation from this context, thus being saturated by it. Such a context may also short-circuit illocutionary and other pragmatic aspects of interpretation. We here extract from the British National Corpus over 500 internally highly collocating and high-frequency lexical n-grams up to 5 words containing have to, must, need to, and/or should. These contexts-as-constructions go some way toward allowing us to group these four necessity modals into clusters with similar semantic and pragmatic properties and to determine which of them is semantico-pragmatically most unlike the others. It appears that have to and need to cluster most closely together thanks to their shared environments (e.g., you may have/need to…, expressing contingent, mitigated necessity), while should has the largest share of unique n-grams (e.g., rhetorical Why shouldn’t I…?, used as a defiant self-exhortation).
{"title":"The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should","authors":"B. Cappelle, I. Depraetere, Mégane Lesuisse","doi":"10.1075/cf.00029.cap","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00029.cap","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 When an ambiguous lexical item appears within a familiar string of words, it can instantly receive an appropriate\u0000 interpretation from this context, thus being saturated by it. Such a context may also short-circuit illocutionary and other\u0000 pragmatic aspects of interpretation. We here extract from the British National Corpus over 500 internally highly collocating and\u0000 high-frequency lexical n-grams up to 5 words containing have to, must, need to, and/or should.\u0000 These contexts-as-constructions go some way toward allowing us to group these four necessity modals into clusters with similar\u0000 semantic and pragmatic properties and to determine which of them is semantico-pragmatically most unlike the others. It appears\u0000 that have to and need to cluster most closely together thanks to their shared environments\u0000 (e.g., you may have/need to…, expressing contingent, mitigated necessity), while should has the\u0000 largest share of unique n-grams (e.g., rhetorical Why shouldn’t I…?, used as a defiant self-exhortation).","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44798632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Frame Semantics offers a valuable perspective on mechanisms of semantic change, particularly metonymy. However, corpus-based frame analysis has rarely been applied to diachronic data. The potential of this approach is illustrated with a diachronic description of the Purpose frame in French, based on 1,429 tokens of 17 frame-evoking words. Metonymic mappings in the frame allow Means and Medium to replace Agent. A multinomial logistic regression model shows that usage of these mappings has increased since 1600 and is conditioned by genre and the frequency and grammatical category of the frame-evoking word. The approach may inform how metonymy leads to lexicalized semantic change.
{"title":"Diachronic frame analysis","authors":"James Law","doi":"10.1075/CF.00023.LAW","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00023.LAW","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Frame Semantics offers a valuable perspective on mechanisms of semantic change, particularly metonymy. However, corpus-based frame analysis has rarely been applied to diachronic data. The potential of this approach is illustrated with a diachronic description of the Purpose frame in French, based on 1,429 tokens of 17 frame-evoking words. Metonymic mappings in the frame allow Means and Medium to replace Agent. A multinomial logistic regression model shows that usage of these mappings has increased since 1600 and is conditioned by genre and the frequency and grammatical category of the frame-evoking word. The approach may inform how metonymy leads to lexicalized semantic change.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48736601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jóhanna Barðdal, T. Eythórsson, Tonya Kim Dewey-Findell
A long-standing divide between Icelandic and German in the literature takes for granted that there are non-nominative subjects in Icelandic, while corresponding arguments in German have been analyzed as objects (Zaenen et al. 1985; Sigurðsson 1989). This is based on two differences between these languages: (a) differences with regard to control and conjunction reduction and (b) apparent subject behavior of the nominative in dat-nom constructions in German. This article focuses on the latter, introducing into the discussion the concept of alternating predicates, that is, dat-nom predicates that systematically alternate between two diametrically-opposed argument structure constructions, dat-nom and nom-dat. A comparison between Icelandic and German shows that Icelandic dat-nom predicates are of two types, a non-alternating líka type and an alternating falla í geð type, whereas German seems to exhibit only the alternating type. On this assumption, the apparent subject behavior of the nominative in German is easily explained, since such occurrences in fact involve the nom-dat construction and not the dat-nom construction. Therefore, the subject behavior of the nominative in nom-dat constructions does not invalidate a subject analysis of the dative in dat-nom constructions in German. The analysis is couched in the framework of construction grammar.
{"title":"The alternating predicate puzzle","authors":"Jóhanna Barðdal, T. Eythórsson, Tonya Kim Dewey-Findell","doi":"10.1075/CF.00025.BAR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CF.00025.BAR","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A long-standing divide between Icelandic and German in the literature takes for granted that there are\u0000 non-nominative subjects in Icelandic, while corresponding arguments in German have been analyzed as objects (Zaenen et al. 1985; Sigurðsson 1989). This is based on two\u0000 differences between these languages: (a) differences with regard to control and conjunction reduction and (b) apparent subject\u0000 behavior of the nominative in dat-nom constructions in German. This article focuses on the latter, introducing into the discussion\u0000 the concept of alternating predicates, that is, dat-nom predicates that systematically alternate between two diametrically-opposed\u0000 argument structure constructions, dat-nom and nom-dat. A comparison between Icelandic and German shows that Icelandic dat-nom\u0000 predicates are of two types, a non-alternating líka type and an alternating falla í geð type,\u0000 whereas German seems to exhibit only the alternating type. On this assumption, the apparent subject behavior of the nominative in\u0000 German is easily explained, since such occurrences in fact involve the nom-dat construction and not the dat-nom construction.\u0000 Therefore, the subject behavior of the nominative in nom-dat constructions does not invalidate a subject analysis of the dative in\u0000 dat-nom constructions in German. The analysis is couched in the framework of construction grammar.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43990592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：