Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical Studies in Language For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs Editors Werner Abraham University of Vienna / University of Munich Elly van Gelderen Arizona State University Editorial Board Bernard Comrie Max Planck Institute, Leipzig and University of California, Santa Barbara William Croft University of New Mexico Östen Dahl University of Stockholm Gerrit J Dimmendaal University of Cologne Ekkehard König Christian Lehmann University of Erfurt Marianne Mithun University of California, Santa Barbara Heiko Narrog Tohuku University Johanna L Wood University of Aarhus Debra Ziegeler Free University of Berlin University of Paris III Volume 145 Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics The role of constructions in grammar Edited by Brian Nolan and Elke Diedrichsen www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics The role of constructions in grammar Edited by Brian Nolan Insitute of Technology Dublin Elke Diedrichsen Google Ireland John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984 CIP data is available from the Library of Congress Studies in Language Companion Series, issn 0165-7763 ; v 145 isbn 978 90 272 0612 (Hb ; alk paper) isbn 978 90 272 7108 (Eb) © 2013 – John Benjamins B.V No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher John Benjamins Publishing Co · P.O Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Table of contents Introduction vii Controller-controllee relations in purposive constructions: A construction-based account Lilián Guerrero Transitivity, constructions, and the projection of argument structure in RRG James K Watters 23 Constructions in RRG: A case study of mimetic verbs in Japanese Kiyoko Toratani A constructional perspective on clefting in Persian: An insight into differentiating between emphatic and deictic in Farhad Moezzipour 41 67 Radical Role and Reference Grammar (RRRG): A sketch for remodelling the Syntax-Semantics-Interface Rolf Kailuweit 103 Constructions as grammatical objects: A case study of the prepositional ditransitive construction in Modern Irish Brian Nolan 143 Constructions in Role and Reference Grammar: The case of the English resultative Rocío Jiménez-Briones & Alba Luzondo-Oyón 179 Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural language understanding Carlos Periñán-Pascual 205 Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 231 Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model Christopher S Butler 271 From idioms to sentence structures and beyond: The theoretical scope of the concept “Construction” Elke Diedrichsen 295 Index 331 www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Introduction There is a pressing need in the linguistics community for a book on syntax at the interfaces between syntax, semantics, lexicon and constructions, within a functional Role and reference Grammar (RRG) perspective where the lexicon has heretofore had a prominent and special role in the grammar It has been recognised in the literature (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2005: 189–193), in respect of multiple argument realisation, that sometimes the projectionist approach of lexicalist theories, such as RRG, appears to run into difficulties with uses of language that suggest an argument structure different from that projected by the verb These instances of seemingly construction-based argument structure pose a challenge to the descriptive adequacy of RRG That is, when the argument structure of the verb, as expressed in the RRG lexicon, does not appear to be predictable by the verb via its lexical entry, as would be the case with the novel and creative uses of verbs that are common and normal in everyday use of language The RRG theoretical machinery includes a theory of the lexicon, a linking system and a syntactic inventory of constructional schemata We ask the question: Is the theoretical apparatus for treating constructions in RRG, in a functional model of grammar with a strong theory of the lexicon, actually under-utilised at present and in fact represents a better-motivated device to characterise “constructions” in the grammar? Can it be that the challenges of constructions are better answered within RRG via the characterisations of constructions, within the constructional schemata, formally articulated with the interfaces to semantics, syntax, morphology and indeed pragmatics and lexicon expressed? In Van Valin and LaPolla (1997) an approach is presented that mediates the relationship between the rules of syntax and the lexicon In that account, the grammatical structures of a language are stored in a syntactic inventory as constructional templates That is, as constructions, more or less analogous to the idea of constructions as found in Construction Grammar Fillmore et al (1988: 36) is cited as justification for the approach taken in RRG: ‘By grammatical construction we mean any syntactic pattern which is assigned one or more conventional functions in a language, together with whatever is linguistically conventionalised about its contribution to the meaning or the use of structures containing it On the level of syntax, we distinguish for any construction in a language its external and its internal properties In speaking of the external syntax of a construction we Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics refer to the properties of the construction as a whole, that is to say, anything speakers know about the construction that is relevant to the larger syntactic contexts in which it is welcome By the internal syntax of a construction we have in mind a description of the construction’s make-up.’ Presently however, RRG views constructions as having two separate but related components: (a) a syntactic inventory of all the syntactic templates (which represents parts of the structure of a sentence) for the particular language, and (b) a lexicon contains the lexical entries, especially for verbs but also for the set of other categories In contrast, the Construction Grammar view of constructions is that they encapsulate all information, including information considered lexical in RRG, in a a theory-specific integrated manner within the construction These then represent two different poles of thinking about constructions, while recognising the contributions of constructions in language use Additionally, in the RRG view of constructions the constructional templates contain relevant morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic components that need to be considered as contributing to the construction (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 432; Van Valin 2005: 131–135) Van Valin (2005: 132) offers the English passive construction as a good example of a construction containing, as it does, the interaction of the general and language specific features, within a characterisation of voice constructions The constructional schema containing this information is presented semiformally in RRG It is especially interesting, then, that Van Valin (2004) foresees the possibility of reconciling constructions within these two polarities of thinking, as represented by the lexical-projectionist accounts, like RRG, and constructionist approaches as represented by, for example, Pustejovsky’s Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky 1995) and indeed, Goldberg’s Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995), within an RRG account Specifically, Van Valin argues that: ‘The first approach […,] which has been dubbed the ‘projectionist approach,’ […], while the second, which has been termed the ‘constructionist approach,’ has been championed by Goldberg (1995), Pustejovsky (1995) and Michaelis & Ruppenhofer (2001), among others The two approaches have often been viewed as conflicting and incompatible with each other, but in this paper it will be argued that they are in fact complementary and therefore not necessarily in conflict with each other.’ An interesting observation by Van Valin (ibid) is that the two approaches represent different perspectives on the construction of sentence meaning That is, the projectionist approach represents the speaker’s perspective, while the constructionist approach represents the hearer’s perspective In RRG terms, then, taking on board the speakers vs hearer perspectives, the former is held to fit naturally with the linking from semantics to syntax, whereas the latter fits naturally with the linking from syntax to semantics www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Introduction This book is a collection of papers, characterising constructions of a diverse and interesting collection of languages by scholars across the world, that place emphasis on constructions via RRG constructional schemata The challenges of the book will be to place constructions (via RRG constructional schemata) into a more prominent perspective in RRG and to integrate current thinking regarding constructions into the functional RRG framework RRG as a functional grammar is strongly lexicalist with a robust linking algorithm mediating the interface between semantics, lexicon and syntax It incorporates constructions into the general theory via constructional schemata stored in the syntactic inventory RRG also makes strong claims regarding descriptive and typological adequacy (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997; Van Valin 2005; Butler 2003a, 2003b; Butler 2009: 24) In these papers, the morphosyntactic coding of the arguments and also verb agreement is determined for a construction As RRG abdicates the concept of a “Subject”, it introduces the “Privileged Syntactic Argument” (PSA), as the unmarked argument that controls verb agreement It is deduced from the Actor and Undergoer assignments via language-specific rules, which are called “PSAselection principles” These involves the selection of the syntactic templates for the syntactic representation and following which, the predicates, arguments and adjuncts from the logical structure are assigned to positions in it This happens according to language-specific rules that have to be described as parts of the RRG linking system RRG faces a variety of challenges to its claims of descriptive, typological and explanatory adequacy (Butler 2009) and these challenges pivot around both the notion and place of a construction within the grammar Constructions seem to be found at the level of the clause to the level of the morphological word, and possibly lower into the phonological level The important questions for RRG are therefore: How does the theory understand a construction? What information does a construction contain? How the constructions relate to other parts of the grammar? How the constructions relate to other constructions? Is (part of) our grammatical knowledge organized in constructions? Do the constructions include information about both form and function/ meaning? Are the constructions organized in a structured network with other constructions? In addition to syntactic information, constructions may also specify lexical, semantic and pragmatic information Constructions may be idiomatic where the semantics and/or pragmatics of the larger structure are not predictable from the set of lexical items in the construction From idioms to sentence structures and beyond Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com a chievement of a communicative effect, which are rooted in the culture of the community of speakers These “cultural factors” are “shared” between individuals in a community of speakers They are acquired as part of the cultural knowledge that is associated with the use of certain linguistic expressions How does the use of linguistic expressions emerge culturally, how can they be “shared”, and how can they be considered to be “useful”? Wittgenstein (1953, 1958, 2001) views the “use” of linguistic expressions in close correlation with a “life-form” (Lebensform) The linguistic expressions not have a reason for being or a function of their own, outside the use and interactional function that interactants give to them “But how many kinds of sentence are there? Say assertion, question, and command? – There are countless kinds: countless different kinds of use of what we call “symbols”, “words”, “sentences” And this multiplicity is not something fixed, given once for all; but new types of language, new language-games, as we may say, come into existence, and others become obsolete and get forgotten (…) Here the term “language-game” is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a life-form.” (Wittgenstein PU 1953, 1958, 2001: 10e, emphasis in original) Also, sharing a convention of use within a community of speakers is not something that speakers invent or actively agree upon It is shared through the life form, which is the cultural setting that speakers find themselves in “’So you are saying that human agreement decides what is true and what is false?’ – It is what human beings say that is true and false; and they agree in the language they use That is not agreement in opinions but in form of life.” (Wittgenstein PU 1953, 1958, 2001: 75e, emphasis in original) The speech acts that I will deal with here not carry any formal indication of their illocutionary force Their use and understanding rely on lexical knowledge, which regulates which components of lexical-semantic content are necessary in order to let the construction “work” in the fashion that is typical for the construction The motivation of the particular combination of lexical-semantic content and the form that the construction assumes in everyday interaction, however, are based on cultural factors I will claim that the constructions analysed here assume their illocutionary force by adhering to the expression or negation of politeness They achieve their effects by the use of linguistically and/or culturally manifested face-saving/facethreatening expressions Many linguistic phenomena are based on the notion of ‘politeness’ Brown and Levinson (1987) have introduced the notion of “face” in order to explain reflexes of politeness in language “Face” refers to the needs of an Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Elke Diedrichsen individual living in a society of humans Individuals want to ‘protect their face’ and have a fear of ‘losing their face’ Each person has both a “positive” and a “negative” face, both of which need to be protected and supported in society, which generally leads to “politeness” in the interaction between individuals The “positive face” is longing for acceptance and appreciation in society Linguistically, it is supported by polite plural pronouns for the addressee, for example, and by other expressions that assign the addressee a high rank in society, like sir, madam etc The negative face concerns the desire for freedom and individual space that each individual strives to keep Politeness in terms of saving the negative face therefore aims at confirming the addressee’s space and refraining from getting in his or her way Indirectness in linguistic expressions is generally viewed as a by-product of the silent contract between individuals to respect the other’s personal space Unpleasant news or requests that may cause the addressee some inconvenience are generally wrapped in indirect utterances (irrealis mode, subjunctive, breaking of conversational maxims) in order to give the addressee the space to react in a way that is convenient for him/her (Nübling 2008; Brown & Levinson 1987) In many speech acts that involve requests or the transfer of unpleasant information, the protection of the negative face is an important cultural factor These speech acts may not exhibit the grammatical form that has been described for their illocutionary force proper, but they can still be understood if some lexical constraints are fulfilled The reason why they are used in the first place and why the form-function mismatch is necessary, however, lies in the cultural factor of politeness Therefore, this cultural factor must have its place in the constructional schema, if the constructional schema is to fully represent a construction as a cultural object This will be exemplified in the following (20) Danke, dass Sie hier nicht rauchen Thx that 2sg(pol)nom here not smoke.3pl Thank you for not smoking here This construction adheres to both the positive (desire for acceptance) and the negative (desire for autonomy) face of the addressees by expressing an actual request in the form of an appreciation of the obedience of the request The constructional schema for this construction is built up like the constructional schemas for the syntactic constructions discussed in the previous sections: The lexicon that contains the knowledge about the construction is activated, together with the constraint that delimits the use of the construction The constraint says that this construction is only to be used if the unsolicited behaviour the construction talks about is controllable and its execution is possible, it is behaviour that could potentially annoy other people, but it is not illegal www.ebook777.com From idioms to sentence structures and beyond Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com If the conditions of the lexical constraint are satisfied, the construction can be used, and it has the features laid out in the constructional schema shown in Figure 10 (cf Diedrichsen 2012 a, 2013 for an extensive discussion of this construction) Note that there is a CULTURAL GUIDELINE added to the constructional schema It explains the cultural background, i.e the “life-form” that makes this construction interactionally functional in the way described here ,,Lexicon“ of cultural knowledge Lexical constraint for the use of the construction: Unsolicited behaviour is [+ controllable] [+ possible] [+ potentially annoying] [– illegal] CONSTRUCTION: Anticipation of adherence-request construction SIGNATURE: POSITIVE_EMBED [(address_to_recipient) (negation of unsolicited behaviour)] CONSTRAINT (for recognition of the construction): Sender is not face-to-face with addressee and does not see their actual behavior Construction is displayed in written from or announced (Otherwise, it would be interpreted as a “real” appreciation of actual behaviour, and the mismatch of sentence type and illocutionary force would not be on hand) CULTURAL GUIDELINE (Why does the construction work?): The culture of face-saving motivates the interpretation of an appreciation as a request IF the “appreciated” behaviour is not clearly fulfilled WORKSPACE: Real-time processing according to the following construction-specific rules: SYNTEX: open proposition (positive evaluation/thank) + embedded clause Sentence type: Declarative clause MORPHOLOGY: Not specified SEMANTICS: The construction expresses a positive evaluation for refraining from an undesired action PRAGMATICS: Illocutionary force: request/demand/order Interlocutors are directly addressed Figure 10. Constructional Schema for the “Anticipation of adherence-request construction” (Diedrichsen 2012a, 2013) (21) I’m afraid major revisions will be necessary before resubmission of the paper The English formula “I’m afraid” formally expresses an apprehension, i.e irrealis mode Functionally, however, the addressee must know that this is actually a s tatement of a Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Elke Diedrichsen bitter truth that is softened in its expression for reasons of face saving for the addressee and self-protection of the producer against accuses and complaints The constructional schema in Figure 11 provides its features and the conditions of its functionality including the cultural guideline that explains the background for its functionality ,,Lexicon” of culture knowledge Lexical constraint for the use of the construction: Proposition is unpleasant for recipient and speaker knows it CONSTRUCTION: I’m afraid + bad news construction SIGNATURE: I’m afraid ± conjunction_EMBED [declarative sentence] CONSTRAINT (for recognition of the construction): Recipient is aware that speaker has the authority to produce the embedded sentence and that the speaker is certain about the truth of the proposition expressed in it (Otherwise the recipient could just assume that the speaker really is not sure about the truth of the proposition) CULTURAL GUIDELINE (Why does the construction work?): The culture of face-saving motivates the interpretation of an utterance expressed in irrealis mode as truth IF the speaker can be trusted to tell the truth and if it is known to the interlocutors that the content is unpleasant for the addressee WORKSPACE: Real-time processing according to the following construction-specific rules: SYNTEX: Open proposition (I’m afraid) + embedded declarative sentence, optional conjuction (that) betweem them Sentence type : Declarative clause MORPHOLOGY: Not specified SEMANTICS: The construction expresses the regret of a speaker about the unpleasant feeling and/or the trouble that the embedded proposition will cause for the addressee PRAGMATICS: llocutionary force: IFID (Illocutionary Force Indicating Device, Specifying the force of apology (Maeshiba, Yoshinaga, Kasper and Ross 1995) + declarative sentence Figure 11. Constructional Schema for the “I’m afraid construction” (22) Deine Mutter! Your mother! In conversations among young people in Germany and Austria, this utterance is used as a swearword or as a reply to a verbal attack.1 While it is not formally . I owe this information to Robert Keller, Stephan Mueller and Juliane Neumann According to Oksana Havryliv (2009), this trend is more widespread in Austria than in Germany www.ebook777.com From idioms to sentence structures and beyond Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com r ecognisable as an insult at all, this particular expression seems to have emerged as a “fashion” out of a long-standing tradition of mother-insults known from youth cultures Along with it, there is also a current trend for jokes with absurd and therefore entertaining insults of the addressee’s mother in Germany The deeper cultural reason for the “success” of this phrase as an insult is that it breaks the taboo of honouring the mother, which provides a serious face threat to the addressee (cf Havryliv 2009, web sources) Ironically, however, the speech acts that degrade and dishonour the mother of the addressee are not meant as serious threats or insults Rather, they are very widespread among young males who use them around very close friends, in order to underline the intimacy and reliability of the friendship These utterances are, therefore, not really meant as insults The mother insults, called The Dozens by sociologists, may have originated from Afro-American youth cultures, but they have been described for peer groups of white middle class youths from the 1940s and 1950s onwards (Ayoub & Barnett 1965) Bronner (1978) considers the mother insults to be independent from Afro-American influence, as he discovers parallels to Anglo-Celtic patterns of insults As of the 1990s, the mother insults have become very popular in German speaking cultures They are treated in movies, TV comedies and pop songs (Wikipedia) The constructional schema for the use of the “Deine Mutter” construction in the complex culturally manifested use outlined above is given in Figure 12 6.3 Conclusion The constructions discussed in this section, while conventionalised and well known to their users, not arise from language use arbitrarily The expression of polite requests as well as the presentation of inconvenient information may take various formal shapes, but it relies on the linguistic expression of politeness (indirectness, irrealis), which can be seen as a “cultural constraint” for the formation of these utterances Similarly, the formulation of verbal attacks is principally unlimited, but its success is based on face-threats whose nature is deeply rooted in culture These are cultural constraints for the formulation of the respective constructions, which have to be taken into account in the discussion of their illocutionary force, and which therefore have to be part of the constructional schemas It has been argued that the pragmatic effect that these constructions have is established as a convention that unfolds its potential when certain constraints are satisfied The knowledge about the construction, its pragmatic function and the constraints for their use are acquired through interaction in a culture of speakers Therefore these constructions are cultural objects, which are to be seen in close correlation with Richard Dawkin’s notion of memes Their emergence, their functionality and their conditions of use arise through cultural evolution and are Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Elke Diedrichsen ,,Lexicon” of cultural knowledge Lexical constraint for the use of the construction: It is not really the mother as a person that is referenced CONSTRUCTION: Deine Mutter! SIGNATURE: Deine Mutter! (Intonation contour of an exclamation) CONSTRAINT (for recognition of the construction): Intonation contour/exclamation mark in written language is very important The mother is absent CULTURAL GUIDELINE (Why does the construction work?): Trend for playful motherinsults, particular among young males; Face-threat against the addressee as his mother is dishonoured This gives way for the expression deine Mutter to be used as a response to another face-threatening insult or a simple swearword Both uses occur among close friends, where the toleration of the face threat is understood as a proof of the exclusiveness of the friendship WORKSPACE: Real-time processing according to the following construction-specific rules: SYNTEX: Verbless exclamation, no variation from the pattern given above MORPHOLOGY: Not specified SEMANTICS: The construction expresses discomfort or a response to an insult PRAGMATICS: llocutionary force: Swearword The reference to the mother is an attack against another participant, which however undermines the friendship due to the trust in the toleration of the face threat May be used playfully and humoristically Figure 12. Constructional Schema for the “Deine Mutter!” construction sustained as a convention, which, however, is not based on humans’ decisions and conscious agreements but rather on the life form that the humans in a cultural community share 7. Summary and conclusion of the paper In this paper, I have introduced an approach to linguistic constructions that covers not only argument structure and syntactic structure constructions, but broadens the scope of the term “construction” by also addressing idioms whose use is closely connected with predictable culturally induced conditions After a short introduction into the assumptions of Role and Reference Grammar as a lexical-semantic theory, I have discussed some extensions of the notion of constructional schemas, which have been part of RRG for a long time, www.ebook777.com From idioms to sentence structures and beyond Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com but their use has heretofore been limited to constructions which cannot be predicted by argument structure or word order considerations I have introduced the Lexical Constructional Model, whose advantage over many Construction Grammar approaches is mainly that it restricts the formation and use of constructions on the basis of the semantics of the verb around which the construction is formed I have extensively discussed three examples of construction types which are frequently used in German These are (1) the bekommen-passive construction, which is essentially an argument structure construction for three-place predicates The constraint for its formation and use is that the verb applied in the construction has to be a verb with a transfer semantics The second construction type I have examined is the bracket structure, which is the typical sentence structure pattern for main declarative clauses in German I have shown that the bracket structure in itself, and not merely the declarative clause in which it appears, should be considered as a construction, for which a constructional schema can be applied The bracket structure serves a number of interactional functions, like facilitating turn taking and marking the part of the sentence where the default information structure pattern Theme>Rheme occurs Attestations of this functionality support the considerations that the bracket structure is a constructional pattern on its own, and a very sustainable one, as it is preferred over other conventionalised patterns The last type of constructions discussed here is sometimes called “idioms”, which entails that these are acquired and processed “as a whole”, and their meaning/function is not decomposable into the parts of the construction This notion of “idiom” does not quite capture the nature of these constructions, however, as with two of these, the composition of the construction allows some variability, as elements in certain positions in the structure may be replaced Also, these constructions are tied very closely to certain cultural conditions I have argued that they have to be interpreted against the background of the cultural notion of “politeness” and face-saving This background can be seen as the life form which is the ground upon which their use and interpretation works The life form is therefore not something that speakers actively agree upon, but something that is there as a mode of cultural life that is reflected in language I have discussed in general terms some of the common linguistic realisations of facesaving, which include indirectness in language and politeness in the choice of the addressee pronoun The form-function mismatch that occurs with the speech act constructions discussed here is not an obstacle in the interpretation of the utterances, as long as the speakers are aware of the cultural background against which they are produced The form-function mismatch, then, is not a mismatch any more, but plays a role in the realisation of indirectness Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Elke Diedrichsen I have argued that such constructions which clearly emerge culturally and reflect cultural conventions can be described in correlation with Dawkin’s notion of meme, which is an item of knowledge that is passed on to the next generation of speakers or to a new peer group in cultural evolution Successful memes “survive” and get passed on Their success is based on their functionality in human interaction The notion that I am using for these constructions for the purposes of this paper is “cultural object”, as I have argued that the cultural objects, like the grammatical objects, fulfil functions in the interaction of individuals in a linguistic community, and they can be represented by a constructional schema Therefore, I am arguing that such cultural objects should be treated analogously to grammatical objects in linguistic theory References Abraham, Werner & Fischer, Annette 1998 Das grammatische Optimalisierungsszenario von tun als Hilfsverb In Deutsche Grammatik Thema in Variationen Festschrift for HansWerner Eroms, Karin Dornhauser & Ludwig M Eichinger (eds.), 35–47 Heidelberg: Winter Auer, Peter 1991 Vom Ende deutscher Sätze Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 19: 139–175 Ayoub, Millicent R & Barnett, Stephen A 1965 Ritualized Verbal Insult in White High School Culture The Journal of American Folklore 78(310): 337–344 Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge: CUP Butler, Christopher S 2009 The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges In Deconstructing Constructions [Studies in Language Companion Series 107], Christopher S Butler & Xavier Martín Arista (eds.), 117–152 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Butler, Christopher S This volume Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model Cook, Philippa (2006): The Datives that aren’t born equal: Beneficiaries and the Dative Passive In: Datives and Similar Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure In Daniel Hole, Andre Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 141–184 Dawkins, Richard 1976[1989] The Selfish Gene Oxford: OUP Diedrichsen, Elke To appear Zur ‘Inventarisierung’ von idiomatischen und ArgumentstrukturKonstruktionen im Deutschen In Grammatik als Inventar von Konstruktionen? Sprachliches Wissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik, Alexander Ziem & Alexander Lasch (eds.) Berlin: De Gruyter Diedrichsen, Elke 2013 Constructions as memes – Interactional function as cultural convention beyond the words In Beyond Words, Frank Liedtke & Cornelia Schulze (eds.), 283–305 Berlin: De Gruyter Diedrichsen, Elke 2012a What you give is what you GET? On reanalysis, semantic extension and functional motivation with the German bekommen-passive construction In The Art of www.ebook777.com From idioms to sentence structures and beyond Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Getting: GET Verbs in European Languages from a Synchronic and Diachronic Point of View, Alexandra N Lenz & Gudrun Rawoens (eds.) Special Issue of Linguistics 50(6): 1163–1204 Diedrichsen, Elke 2012b The theoretical scope of the concept ‘Construction’ Paper presented at the I International Conference on Meaning and Knowledge Representation: LCM and FunGramKB Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain, July Diedrichsen, Elke 2012c The German Bracket Structure as a construction Paper presented at the Societas Linguistica Europeae (SLE) conference in Stockholm, Sweden, August 2012 Diedrichsen, Elke 2011 The theoretical importance of constructional schemas in RRG In New perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, Wataru Nakamura (ed.), 168–198 Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Diedrichsen, Elke 2009 Exploring the role of pragmatics in the interface: On the interrelations between activation status, choice of RP and syntax In Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, Lilián Guerrero, Sergio Ibánez Cerda & Valeria A Belloro (eds.), 143–177 MéxicoCity: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Diedrichsen, Elke 2008a The grammaticalization of the bekommen-passive in a RRG-perspective In New Applications of Role & Reference Grammar: Diachrony, Grammaticalization, Romance Languages, Rolf Kailuweit, Björn Wiemer, Eva Staudinger & Ranko Matasovic (eds.), 87–145 Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Diedrichsen, Elke 2008b Where is the precore slot? Mapping the layered structure of the clause and German sentence topology In Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 105], Robert D Van Valin Jr (ed.), 203–224 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Drach, Erich 1937[41963] Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg Eisenberg, Peter 2006 Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Der Satz Stuttgart: Metzler Goldberg, Adele E 2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language Oxford: OUP Goldberg, Adele E 1995 Constructions A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press Grewendorf, Günther, Hamm, Fritz & Sternefeld, Wolfgang 1994 Sprachliches Wissen Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Haftka, Birgitta 2004 Topic constraints in the German middlefield In Information Structure Theoretical and Empirical Aspects, Anita Steube(ed.), 125–162 Berlin: De Gruyter Havryliv, Oksana 2009 Verbale Aggression Formen und Funktionen am Beispiel des Wienerischen Frankfurt: Peter Lang Hawkins, John 2004 Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars Oxford: OUP Hawkins, John 1994 A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency Cambridge: CUP Hentschel, Elke & Weydt, Harald 2003 Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik Berlin: De Gruyter Kay, Paul and Charles J Fillmore 1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X Doing Y? construction Language 75 1: 1–33 Krause, Olaf 2002 Progressiv im Deutschen: eine empirische Untersuchung im Kontrast mit Niederländisch und Englisch Tübingen: Niemeyer Lenerz, Jürgen 1977 Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen Tübingen: Narr Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka 2005 Argument Realization Cambridge: CUP Maeshiba, Naoko, Yoshinaga, Naoko, Kasper, Gabriele & Ross, Steven 1995 Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologising In Speech Acts across Cultures, Susan M Gass & Joyce Neu (eds.) Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Elke Diedrichsen Mairal Usón, Ricardo & Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco 2009 Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction In Deconstructing Constructions [Studies in Language Companion Series 107] Amsterdam: John Benjamins Michaelis, Laura A 2013 Sign-based construction grammar In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale (eds.) Oxford: OUP Michaelis, Laura A & Ruppenhofer, Josef 2001 Beyond Alternations: A Construction Based Approach to the Applicative Pattern in German Stanford CA: CSLI Nolan, Brian 2012a The structure of Modern Irish A Functional Account Sheffield: Equinox Nolan, Brian 2012b The GET constructions of Modern Irish and Irish-English: GET-passive and GET-recipient variations In The Art of Getting: GET Verbs in European Languages from a Synchronic and Diachronic Point of View, Alexandra N Lenz & Gudrun Rawoens (eds.) Special issue of Linguistics 50(6): 1111–1161 Nübling, Damaris 2008 Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen, 2nd edn Tübingen: Narr Ronneberger-Siebold, Elke 1991 Funktionale Betrachtungen zu Diskontinuität und Klammerbildung im Deutschen In Beiträge zum Bochum-Essener Kolloquium über ‘Sprachwandel und seine Prinzipien’, Norbert Boretzky Werner Enninger, Benedikt Jeßing, Thomas Stolz (eds.) Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr N Brockmeyer Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Mairal, Ricardo 2008 Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model Folia Linguistica 42(2): 355–400 Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáđez, Francisco J & Mairal Usón, Ricardo 2007 Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet Interlingüística 17: 26–47 Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáđez This volume Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model Searle, John R 1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language London: CUP Bronner, Simon J 1978 A Re-Examination of Dozens among White American Adolescents Western Folklore 37(2): 118–128 Uhmann, Susanne 1997 Grammatische Regeln und konversationelle Strategien Fallstudien aus Syntax und Phonologie Tübingen: Niemeyer Van Valin, Robert D., Jr 2005 Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface Cambridge: CUP Van Valin, Robert D., Jr & Diedrichsen, Elke 2006 A Bonsai Grammar for German Ms 〈http:// linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/rrg/BonsaiGrammarGerman.pdf〉 Vendler, Zeno 1967 Verbs and Times In Linguistics in Philosophy, 97–121 Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1953[1958, 2001] Philosophical Investigations Malden MA: Blackwell Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika, Heilmann, Axel, Stepan, Peter & Vikner, Sten 1997 Deutsche Satzstruktur Grundlagen der syntaktischen Analyse Tübingen: Stauffenburg Web sources 〈http://derstandard.at/3174045〉 (25 November 2012) 〈http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/leben/jugendsprache-deine-mudder-ruft-zum-duschendie-feuerwehr-a-781670.html〉 (25 November 2012) 〈http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deine-Mutter-Witz〉 www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index A Acehnese 11–12, 17–19, 184 Activity Hierarchy 103, 105, 117–119, 129–130, 135–137 Actor ix, 2, 5–6, 8–20, 29, 38, 46, 53, 56–57, 59–63, 77, 95–97, 103–104, 117–121, 123–124, 126–130, 136–137, 145, 150, 156, 159–168, 170, 172–173, 182, 184, 186, 191, 194–195, 197, 200, 239–240, 259, 264 Actor-UndergoerHierarchy 103–104, 117–121, 123, 126–127, 130, 137 ad-core subordination 79, 93–94 adequacy vii, ix, xi, 115, 144, 148, 207, 243, 263, 287 Adjunct xii, 1–2, 10, 17, 88, 93, 96, 225 Aktionsart x, 49–51, 59, 104, 107, 187, 211–213, 216–217, 219, 239, 243, 247–248, 257, 275, 282, 298, 309 Aktionsart class 49–51, 59 Aktionsart distinctions 239 Aktionsarten 297 Amalgamation 77, 231, 255, 260, 263, 265–266 animacy hierarchy 149, 153, 155, 171 animate 85, 153, 155–156, 159–161, 164–166, 170–171, 189 anticausative constructions xiv, 103, 105, 118, 123, 130–131, 135–137 applicatives 35 Argument-structure constructions 247, 249, 251, 256, 262 Argumental construction 219 ARTEMIS xv, 205, 220, 222–225, 228, 284 Auer 314 be-at 149 B Blocking factors 257 body part 44, 56–57, 63 Bound pronoun 12, 15, 17 bracket structure 295, 297, 306–318, 327 Bronner 325 Brown and Levinson 321 Bulgarian 208, 281 C Catalan 208, 281 causative 10, 25–26, 30, 42, 44, 46, 49, 53–54, 56, 62, 118–120, 123–131, 134–135, 163, 185, 187, 213, 240, 247–248, 256, 259, 264, 277, 298 caused motion 165–166, 234, 276–277 Chuj 12, 17 clause ix, xii–xiii, 1–7, 9–11, 13–18, 20–21, 23–25, 30, 39, 46, 56–57, 67–82, 85–88, 90–97, 99–100, 109–111, 145, 147, 149–151, 153, 157, 159–173, 181, 183, 190, 194, 207, 219–220, 222, 224, 246, 273, 279–280, 284, 289, 306–309, 311, 318, 327 clause juncture 5, 13–14, 17 cleft construction xiv, 67, 75–76, 78 Clitic 11, 17, 97, 121, 131, 184 CLS (Conceptual logical structure) 217 CLS Constructor 220, 224, 284 co-composition 60–61, 179, 193, 287 coercion 193, 256, 277, 285 Cognicon 209–210, 281, 285 Cognitive Construction Grammar viii, 232, 276 Cognitive operations 199, 201, 233, 255, 265, 285 cognitive semantics 232, 276 common case marking 151 Complementation 3, 12–13, 273 Completion 242, 246, 254, 265 complex predicate 36, 42, 170 complexity xiv, 68, 99, 103, 113, 117, 137, 153–154, 173, 186, 201, 220, 297, 306, 314 Compositionality xiv, xvi, 67–68, 215–216, 220, 235, 238–241, 266, 283–284, 287 conceptual cueing 279 Conceptual Logical Structure (CLS) 218, 281 Conceptual Representational Language (COREL) 282 constituent projection 79–80, 104, 309 constraint xvii, 35, 37, 169, 173, 194, 224–225, 256–260, 277, 280, 296, 300, 303–306, 320, 322–323, 325, 327 Constructicon 209, 216, 283–284 construction vii–xvii, 1–3, 6, 8–9, 13, 16–21, 23–26, 31–33, 35–39, 42–46, 53–60, 62–63, 67–68, 72–73, 75–78, 83–84, 92–93, 95–99, 103–104, 109, 111, 113, 115–117, 119, 123, 128–136, 143–149, 153, 157–158, 160, 162–163, 165, 170–176, 179–201, 213–220, 222–224, 231–235, 237–244, 246, 249–251, 253–266, 271–274, 276–277, 279–284, 286–290, 295–297, 299–307, 309–318, 320–327 Construction body xv, 147, 172, 174–175, 190–191, 193, 197–198, 201, 288 Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index construction constraints xiv, 144 Construction Grammar (CxG) 24, 111, 144, 180 construction repository xi, xiv–xv, 144–146, 148, 174, 190, 195, 199, 201 construction schema xv, 144, 147, 190 construction signature 172, 180, 190, 288 Construction-specific xii, 1, 3, 17, 21, 77, 98, 189 Constructional rule 222, 223, 284 constructional schema viii, xi, xv, 1, 3, 16, 18–20, 53, 56–57, 59, 63, 118, 136, 145, 148, 174, 179–180, 183–186, 190, 193–194, 196, 198, 215–216, 224, 289, 297, 299, 302, 304–307, 310–311, 315–318, 320, 322–328 Constructional signature x, xi, xiv, 144–145, 175, 299 Constructional template 96, 98–99, 180–184, 258, 264–265, 278, 300 Constructional Variable Conditioning 260 constructionist viii, xiii, xvi, 24–25, 41–43, 63, 179, 186, 200–201, 207, 231, 240, 243, 256, 265, 272, 275, 280, 283, 285–287, 289–290 Control 1–21, 47, 127–128, 133, 135 Controllee xii, 1–3, 5, 7–15, 17–21 Controller xii, 1–10, 13–15, 17–21, 57, 59, 82, 96 Coordination 18–19, 180 core 2, 5–8, 13–20, 24, 36, 52–53, 57, 59, 69, 79, 81–83, 93–95, 97, 108–111, 167, 180, 182, 185, 207, 209, 212–213, 216, 218–223, 225, 263, 278, 281, 284, 309–310, 318 Core grammar 207, 212–213, 216, 218, 223, 225, 278, 284 Core juncture 5, 13–14, 17–18 COREL (Conceptual Representation Language) 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 224, 225, 282, 283, 284 Cosubordination 18, 20, 185, 191, 197, 219–220, 263 Cueing 241–242, 253, 279 cultural guideline 323, 324, 326 cultural objects 297, 318–320, 325, 328 D dative construction 33, 259 daughter clausal subordination 93–94 Dawkins 319–320 declarative construction 310–311, 314, 316, 318 definiteness xv, 70, 145, 149, 153, 155, 171 definiteness hierarchy 153, 155, 171 descriptive adequacy vii, 115, 263 Diedrichsen x, xv–xvii, 56, 114–115, 179–180, 183, 186, 189–190, 194, 200–201, 263, 271, 287–290, 295–296, 300–303, 305–311, 320, 323 discourse x–xi, xiv, 16, 21, 26, 67–68, 70–71, 73–75, 87, 90–94, 98–99, 105–108, 114, 154–155, 168, 208, 232, 241, 243–244, 246–247, 252–254, 263–265, 272, 278, 283, 288 Discourse construction 241 dislocation construction 168 dispossession 163 Ditransitive x, xiv–xv, 27–28, 35, 143–145, 148–153, 156–158, 160–161, 164–165, 168, 170–173, 175–176, 213, 234, 259, 276, 288–289, 297, 301–303, 308, 310 ditransitives 149–150, 157, 161, 163, 170 Drach 306–308 Dyirbal 10–11 E Early Immediate Constituent 150, 151, 154, 162 Eisenberg 306–307 end-focus 92, 155 end-weight 92, 153, 155, 159–160 English viii, xi, xv, 1–3, 5–6, 8–11, 13–14, 16–21, 23–26, 28–29, 33, 35, 38–39, 41, 46, 49, 53, 63, 68, 70, 72, 78, 83–84, 87, 95, 108, 119–120, 123, 129, 131, 133, 153, 156–158, 179–187, 189, 191–193, 195–199, 201, 208, 210, 220, 234, 258, 261, 263–264, 279, 281, 288, 302–303, 323 equipollence hypothesis 279 Event Identification Condition 258 exhaustive condition 71, 72, 76 existential condition 81 explanatory adequacy ix, 144 F Fake reflexive 191–194, 197–198 Family resemblance xv, 179–180, 192, 194–195, 198–199, 201 Feature-based grammar 221–222 Focal Compatibility Constraint 259 frame-internal 30, 34 French xi, 46, 53, 107–108, 110, 113–114, 116, 118, 120–122, 125, 132, 136, 180–181, 208, 281 Functional Grammar (Dik) 232, 272 Functional Lexematic Model (FLM) 272 FunGramKB xvi, 206, 208–213, 215–220, 223–225, 228, 271, 273, 280–281, 283–286, 288, 290 G gender 149, 153, 161, 163, 171, 212, 237 gender hierarchy 153, 171 Generative Lexicon viii, 193, 272, 287 German xi, 104, 114, 118, 122–123, 125, 208, 281, 288–289, 295, 297, 301–303, 306–316, 318, 325, 327 givenness hierarchy 70–71 Goldberg viii, x–xi, xvii, 1, 24, 26, 33, 35, 39, 75, 106, 111, 179–180, 183, 185–189, 192, 194–196, 207, 214, 216–217, 232–235, 238, 250–251, 256, 273, 276, 280, 289, 296, 302–303, 305, 315, 320 www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index Grammar Development Environment (GDE) 220, 284 grammatical object xvii, 145, 147–148, 288, 295–296, 299, 301, 315, 318–320 Grammaticon 208–210, 213, 215, 217, 223–224, 281, 283–284 Grewendorf 307 grounding 73, 249 H Haftka 308 have 34, 113, 120, 149, 247 Havryliv 324–325 Hawkins 150, 153–154, 162, 314 hierarchy 6, 16–17, 46, 53, 70–71, 77, 79, 103–105, 117–121, 123, 126–127, 129–130, 134–137, 144–145, 148–150, 153, 155–156, 171–173, 176, 182, 273 hyperonym 58 I iconicity 150 Idealized Cognitive Model 244 idiom 327 Idiomatic constructions xvi, 231, 251–252, 261–263, 266 illocution 232, 241, 265, 283 Illocutionary construction 241, 246 illocutionary force 18–20, 57, 59, 114–115, 182–183, 185, 192, 198, 263–265, 295, 297, 316, 320–322, 325 Illocutionary scenario 241 impersonal passive 170, 172 Implicational construction 253 Implicature 255 in-extraposition construction 92–93, 95 inference 241 Inferencing 244, 246, 252–254, 261, 264–265, 279 Infinitive verb 10 information structure xiii– xiv, 67–68, 72, 75–76, 79, 82, 87–92, 96, 99–100, 125, 129, 144, 153–154, 176, 314, 327 informative-presupposition it-cleft 90 Inherent control 3, 12–15, 17–21 inheritance 143, 173, 258, 315 Input and output sequences 190 intercalation 69–70 Internal Variable Conditioning 260 Intransitive verb 24, 28–29, 31, 97, 185, 235 Irish x–xi, xiv–xv, 143, 145, 148–153, 156–158, 161–165, 167–172, 175–176, 288 Italian 81, 121–122, 125, 128, 208, 281 J Jamsay K Kay and Fillmore 233–234, 262 Knowledge base xvi, 206, 208–209, 224, 271, 273, 281 Krause 313 L Lakhota 10–11, 17 Language-specific ix, xii, xvii, 1, 3, 16, 21, 46, 53, 77, 107–108, 114–115, 117, 121, 179–181, 223, 238, 288–289, 296, 299, 309 Layered Structure of the Clause (LSC) 16, 220 LCM xvi, 180–181, 183, 191, 199–201, 206–209, 214, 217–218, 224, 231–233, 237– 241, 243–247, 249, 252–254, 256, 258, 262–266, 271–276, 278–281, 283, 285–288, 290, 300, 303–304 left brace 308–309 Levin and Rappaport Hovav vii, 132, 156, 297 Lexematics 272 Lexical Blocking Override 259 Lexical Class constraints 258 Lexical classes 249, 256, 258, 274 Lexical Constructional Model (LCM) vi, xv–xvi, 51, 63, 180, 206, 207, 231, 232, 271, 280, 300, 327 Lexical entry vii, x, 49, 107, 150, 165, 211–213, 223, 300 lexical function 248–249, 251, 260 Lexical Grammar Model (LGM) 272, 273, 274, 285 Lexical rule 25, 35, 113 Lexical Template 212–213, 248, 258, 260–261, 273, 275, 278, 300 lexical-constructional subsumption 257, 276–277, 289 lexicalism vs projectionism lexicon vii–x, xii, xiv, xvii, 47, 52–53, 60, 111–113, 143–148, 165, 172–176, 186, 189–190, 193, 208–210, 212–213, 217, 223–224, 261, 273, 281, 284–285, 287–288, 296, 322 life form xvii, 295–297, 321, 326–327 Linked argument 2, 17 linking vii–x, xiii–xiv, xvii, 16–20, 41, 43, 46, 51–52, 57, 59–63, 75, 77, 103–104, 107, 109, 111–114, 117, 137, 144–145, 147–148, 156, 161, 172, 174–176, 182–186, 189, 191–194, 197, 207, 209, 263, 272–273, 281, 285, 287–289, 296, 308, 311 Linking algorithm vii, ix, 16–17, 43, 77, 103, 107, 109, 111–112, 145, 184, 189, 194, 207, 209, 288 linking system x, xiv, 144–145, 156, 174, 176, 191 location 52, 113, 115, 119, 149, 156, 158, 162, 165–166, 194–196, 198–200, 211, 218–219, 251, 257, 265, 282–283 Logical Structure (LS) 24, 49, 107, 247 M macrorole 5, 10, 17–18, 28, 42, 52–53, 60, 97, 112–113, 115, 117, 119–120, 122–124, 126–130, 212, 222–223 macrorole transitivity 28 Mairal Usón 63, 272–277, 279, 281–283, 285, 300 Matrix verb 6, 10, 30 Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index Meaning construction xvi, 199, 231–233, 235, 240–244, 246, 251, 253–254, 262, 264–265, 272, 279, 286, 300 Meaning Postulate (MP) 283 Meaning Text Theory (MTT) 272 Mediated compositionality 238, 240–241 meme xvii, 295, 297, 319–320, 328 Metaconcept 210–211 Metalanguage 106, 232, 249, 272 metaphor xv, 115, 145, 179–180, 198–201, 235, 242, 257, 259, 273, 277, 279, 285, 287, 300 metonymy xv, 179–180, 199–201, 235, 242, 245, 255, 257, 259, 273, 277, 279, 285, 300 Michaelis and Ruppenhofer vii, 303 middle field 307–309 mimetics xiii, 41, 43, 48, 51, 59, 63 Mini-constructions 235 Minor clause 243 Mittelfeld 307, 309 Morphicon 209–210, 215, 281 motion 8, 16, 18, 30, 34, 37, 42, 44–45, 47–48, 165–166, 181, 187–188, 195–201, 211, 234, 239, 250–251, 255–256, 258–261, 276–277 Motion-cum-purpose clauses 18 Motivation xv, 6, 76–77, 89, 91, 108, 124, 150, 179–180, 192, 194, 198–199, 201, 207, 212, 308, 321 Mutual manifestness 263 N Nachfeld 307 Natural Language Processing (NLP) 205, 280 Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) 232, 249, 272 Nolan x, xiv–xv, 56, 114–115, 143, 179–180, 183, 186, 189–190, 194, 201, 263, 271, 287–290, 299, 307, 315, 320 nominal hierarchy 148–150, 153, 171, 176 non-compositionality xiv, 67–68 Non-subcategorized object 189 Nupe O Obligatory missing argument 2, Onomasticon 209–210, 223, 281 ontology 209–211, 215–216, 223, 274, 281–283 operators 20, 104, 219–220, 224–225, 297 Override Principle 33, 37, 256 ownership 152, 158 P Parser 60, 62, 111–112, 206, 221–222, 224–225, 284 parsing 112, 150, 153–154, 223, 284, 287 passive viii, 60, 107, 114, 119, 129–131, 134–135, 156, 170, 172, 180, 182–183, 185, 255, 264, 289, 295, 297, 301–303, 305–306, 313–314, 318, 327 periphrastic tense 307, 314, 316 permissive causation 56–57 person hierarchy 153, 171 Pivot ix, xii, 1–3, 6, 18, 97, 144, 182, 219–220 politeness 321–322, 325, 327 possessive 74, 149, 152, 157 Post-nuclear argument 6–7 postfield 307 pragmatic predicate 79, 87, 100 pragmatic weight 154 pragmatics vii, ix, xvii, 16–20, 57, 59, 94, 100, 104–105, 107–108, 114, 136, 143, 147, 173, 182–183, 185, 190, 192, 198, 232, 263, 287–288, 290, 295–296, 320 precore slot 308–310 predicate frame 273 predicate schema Predicate-Argument Conditioning 260 Predication 47, 76–77, 87, 219, 255 prefield 307–309 prepositional ditransitives 149, 157 prepositional-pronoun 149, 164 Presupposition 71, 79, 90, 92, 241–242 privileged syntactic argument ix, 16, 46, 53, 77, 96, 111, 117, 145, 182 projectionism 217, 279, 286 projectionist vii–viii, xii–xiii, xvi, 23–26, 35, 41–43, 45, 63, 179, 200–201, 207–208, 215, 224, 240, 243, 272, 280, 285–287, 290, 296 Purpose clauses 1–3, 5–6, 8, 11–12, 14–17 Q quale 61, 63, 275 quantificational value 74 R Rationale clauses xii, 1–3, 5–6 real time online computation 148 recipient 6, 14, 16, 18, 24, 145, 149, 151, 153, 156, 158–165, 167–168, 170–173, 259, 300–303 recipient passive 301–302 Referential dependency 2–3, 5, 7, 9, 21 referential hierarchy 144 Referential phrase 15, 192 removal 163 Replicability xvi, 214, 231, 237–238, 265 repository xi, xiv–xv, 144–146, 148, 174, 189–190, 192, 195, 199, 201, 213, 244, 288, 299, 310, 318 Resultative construction 38, 180–181, 184–187, 189, 191–192, 196–198, 213, 216–217, 219, 222, 235, 263, 265, 274, 282, 284 resumptive pronouns 168–169 www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Index right brace 308–309, 312 Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) vii, 23, 103, 206 Ronneberger-Siebold 306, 314 RRG vii–xvii, 1–3, 7, 16, 23–25, 28, 35–36, 39, 41, 43, 46, 49, 53, 56, 63, 67–68, 77–79, 81, 83, 86, 88–90, 94–96, 98–99, 103–104, 107, 109, 112–115, 117–120, 122–124, 126–127, 130, 136–137, 143–147, 173–175, 179–181, 183–184, 186–189, 191, 193, 195–196, 200–201, 206–207, 209, 211–212, 218–225, 232–233, 238–239, 243, 247–248, 263, 271–274, 276, 281–282, 284–290, 296–300, 308–310, 318, 326 Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez xvi, 231, 272, 275–277, 279–280, 283, 285–286, 300 S S-transitivity 28 Saturation 176, 231, 242, 254–255, 261–262, 265–266 semantic decomposition 63, 274 Sensorimotor experience 245 signature x–xi, xiv–xv, xvii, 144–145, 147, 172, 175, 180, 190–192, 194, 196–199, 201, 288, 296, 299–300, 315, 320 simple prepositions 152 South Efate Spanish xi, 3, 7–10, 13–14, 16, 26, 28, 30–33, 81, 117–118, 121–126, 128–129, 132–133, 136, 179, 181, 184, 195, 208, 210, 225, 231, 271, 275, 281 specificational sentence 86–87 speech act xvii, 148, 248, 295, 297, 304, 320, 327 state 18–20, 44, 47, 49–51, 55–56, 58, 80, 120, 122–123, 127, 129–130, 134–135, 146, 154, 158, 165–166, 182, 184–185, 187, 192–194, 196, 198–200, 222–223, 236, 239–240, 243, 247, 250–251, 258, 260–261, 264, 274, 283, 298 Structural control 3, 13–14, 17–20 Subject gap 3, Subordination 18–20, 79, 93–94 Subsentential utterance 243 Subsumption 231, 255–259, 265–266, 276–277, 279, 289 Symbolic units 235 Syntactic rule 222, 223, 284 syntactic weight xv, 144–145, 149–150, 153–154, 161, 170, 176 T Tepehua (Totonacan) xi, xiii, 23, 27 The English property resultative 191–193, 196 The English resultative construction 184, 186, 263 The Lexical Constructional Model xv–xvi, 51, 63, 180, 206, 231–232, 271, 300, 327 Thematic Frame (TF) 283 thematic hierarchy 156 theme 3–6, 9, 14, 18, 24, 30, 48, 145, 149–151, 156, 158–168, 170–173, 210–211, 213, 219, 282–283, 314, 327 three-place argument structure constructions 295 three-place constructions 121, 124, 149 topicalisation 109, 168–169, 171 topicality 129, 150, 155 topology model 308 Toqabaquita 15, 17 Transitive verb xiii, 8–9, 16, 26, 28, 30–31, 38, 53, 58, 62, 97, 239 transitivity xii–xiii, 23–28, 30–33, 35, 37, 39, 53–54, 60, 187, 240 transposition 69 type-specification 73 typological adequacy ix, xi, 207, 287 U Uhmann 314, 318 Undergoer ix, 2, 6, 8–11, 13–17, 19–20, 29, 33–34, 38–39, 46, 53, 62–63, 77, 95–97, 103–104, 113, 115, 117–121, 123–124, 126–127, 130–131, 134–137, 145, 164–166, 172–173, 182–186, 191–192, 194, 197, 223, 239, 264 unification 173, 219, 300 V Van Valin vii–xi, xv, xvii, 1–3, 6–7, 10–11, 16–17, 24, 36, 38–39, 41–44, 46–47, 49, 52–53, 56–57, 59–60, 63, 77, 79, 81, 86–88, 93–95, 103–107, 109–114, 117, 119–120, 122, 130, 137, 145–146, 156, 168, 179–186, 190–194, 197, 200, 206–207, 220, 223, 232–233, 238, 240, 248, 263, 272, 287–288, 296, 298–299, 307–308, 320 Vendler 297 verb-verb compounds 35–36, 38 verbs of emotion xiv, 103–105, 118, 121–123, 126–127, 130, 137 Vorfeld 307 W Wittgenstein xvii, 105–106, 112, 195, 295–297, 319, 321 Wöllstein-Leisten 307 word order 111, 144, 149–151, 153–155, 158–160, 162, 167, 169, 172, 175–176, 307–310, 316–318, 327 workspace x, xiv–xv, 144, 147–148, 172, 174–175, 180, 190–191, 193, 197–198, 201, 288, 295, 299, 315, 320 Y Yaqui xi, 1, 3, 6–7, 9–10, 14, 16–17 ... 145 Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics The role of constructions in grammar Edited by Brian Nolan and Elke Diedrichsen www.ebook777.com Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Linking Constructions... the construction Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics The constructional schemata suggested by RRG are comparable with the popular account of Construction. .. constructions (via RRG constructional schemata) into a more prominent perspective in RRG and to integrate current thinking regarding constructions into the functional RRG framework RRG as a functional