Grammatical Construction as the Object of Linguistic Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog2020.03.005Abstract
Abstract. The term И?construction’ is actively employed by linguists of various schools and trends. Currently, this grammatical term has gained such exceeding popularity that its meaning has become vague and unclear. This state of affairs in modern linguistics may be explained by the simultaneous functioning of the established understanding of construction as a combination of words (units of language) formed by grammatical rules and a recent interpretation of CONSTRUCTION as a conventional combination of form with (semantic/disсourse) function.
This paper overviews interpretations of the term И?construction’ from medieval to present-day linguistics. Recently, grammarians have become increasingly interested in the synchronic and diachronic study of language, taking into account the achievements of the innovative theories of language. The main focus of this study is the grammatical construction from the perspective of Construction grammar.
Roman grammarian Priscian of Caesarea was the first to employ the word И?construction’ as a grammatical term. Medieval grammarians investigated the nature of construction and outlined its distinctive features as an ordered sequence of two words that grammatically agree and has sense. In the linguistics of the XX – XXI centuries, the definition of the term depends on the theoretical and methodological principles of a particular linguistic theory: from considering various linguistic phenomena as constructions, then complete exclusion of constructions from linguistic analysis and finally recognition of constructions as basic units of language.
Linguistic И?renaissance’ of И?constructions’ begins in the 80s of the XXcentury in Construction grammar. This integrative theory of language revisits the long-established term И?construction’, claiming it the central unit of language and representation. CONSTRUCTIONS are viewed as two-sided symbolic units, conventional pairs И?form – semantic/discourse function’. The form of CONSTRUCTION embraces syntactic, morphological and prosodic features, and the meaning covers semantic, pragmatic and discourse characteristics. Information about linguistic properties of CONSTRUCTIONS is formalized in a system of notations. CONSTRUCTIONS are characterized by such parameters as schematicity, complexity and productivity. CONSTRUCTIONS are organized into taxonomic networks based on inheritance relations.
Construction grammar rejects the strict boundary between vocabulary and syntax and between semantics and pragmatics and states that all constructions are part of the lexicon-syntax continuum (CONSTRUCTICON). Regardless of their structural complexity, all language units are considered CONSTRUCTIONS: morphemes, words, idioms, collocations, argument structures, as well as texts and genres. The comprehensive list of CONSTRUCTIONS that make up the mental grammar of the speaker is stored in the CONSTRUCTICON, a structured inventory of taxonomic structural networks. CONSTRUCTIONS as conventional patterns, units of grammar are opposed by CONSTRUCTS. CONSTRUCTIONS are seen as more abstract blueprints licensing grammatically correct linguistic units, while CONSTRUCTS are concrete realizations of constructions, i.e. actually used linguistic units, like sentences or phrases. Linguistic CONSTRUCTIONS are characterized by such parameters as syntagmatic complexity, schematicity, and productivity.
To conclude, the definition of structural, semantic, and functional properties of constructions as linguistic units depends on the principles and tenets of the specific linguistic approach. In the constructionist approaches CONSTRUCTIONS are understood as unpredictable; (completely) productive; cognitively entrenched (automated) and complex combinations, И?form – meaning’ pairings. All symbolic units of language, from words and morphemes to texts and genres, including non-idiomatic and compositional structures are CONSTRUCTIONS.
Given the advantages and undeniable potential of Construction grammar, the next stage of our research will utilize the procedural apparatus of this theory of language to shed new light on the English Detached-Subject-PredicateVERBAL/NONVERBAL constructions in the entirety of their linguistic properties within a unified formalism.
References
Blumfyl'd L. (1968). Yazyik [Language]. Moscow : Prohress, 606 [in Russian].
Zherebilo T. V. (2005). Slovar lingvisticheskih terminov [Dictionary of Linguistc Terms]. Nazran : OOO «Piligrim», 376 [in Russian].
Bergs A., Diewald G. (2008). Introduction: Constructions and Language Change. Constructions and language change. Berlin : Walter de Gruyter, 1-22.
Boas H. C., Fried M. (2005). Introduction. Grammatical constructions. Back to roots. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia : John Benjamins, 253.
Croft W., Cruse A. D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 374.
Diessel H. (2004). A dynamic network model of grammatical constructions. Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 13-40.
Fillmore Ch., Kay P., O’Connor C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of И?Let alone’. Language. №64. 501–538.
Goldberg A. (2013). Constructionists approaches. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 15-31.
Goldberg A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 265.
Goldberg A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 280.
Goldberg A.E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption Cognitive Linguistics. № 22(1). 131-153.
Goldberg A.E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton/ Oxford
: Princeton University Press. 195.
Goldberg A.E., Casenhiser D. (2006). English Constructions. The Handbook of English Linguistics. Malden, MA, Oxford : Blackwell Publishing. 343 – 355.
Goldberg A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. № 7. 219–224.
Hoffmann Th. (2017). Construction Grammars. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 310-329.
Kay P., Fillmore C. J. (1999). Gram- matical constructions and linguistic generali- zations: The What’s x doing y? Construction. Language. № 75(1). 1-33.
Lakoff G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago : Chicago University Press. 614.
Lambrecht K. (1988). There Was a Farmer Had a Dog: Syntactic Amalgams Revisited. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 319-339.
Langacker R. W. (2005). Construction Grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so. Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter. 101–159.
Michaelis L.A. (2017) Meanings of Constructions. Oxford Research Encyclo- pedia of Linguistics. URL: https://oxfordre.com/li nguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019938465 5.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-309
Östman J.-O., Fried M. (2004). Historical and intellectual background of Construction Grammar. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing. 1-10.
Schönefeld D. (2006). Constructions.
Constructions. №1. 1-39. URL : www.constructions-online.de
Stefanowitsch A. (2013). Collostructional analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford : Oxford University Press. P. 290-307.
Stowell T., Wehrli E. (1992). Introduction. Syntax and Semantics (Book 26): Syntax and the Lexicon. San Diego : Academic Press. 298.
Traugott E.C., Trousdale Gr. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford : Oxford University Press. 278.
Vineis E., Maierù A. (2014). Medieval Linguistics. History of Linguistics. Volume II: Classical and Medieval Linguistics. London, New York: Routledge. 134-196.
Wasserscheidt Ph. (2019). Construction Grammar: Basic Principles and concepts. Ukrayins`ke movoznavstvo [Ukrainian Linguistics] Vol. 49. 94-116
Downloads
Issue
Section
License
Relationship between right holders and users shall be governed by the terms of the license Creative Commons Attribution – non-commercial – Distribution On Same Conditions 4.0 international (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0):https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.uk
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
