Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 18:1 (2026) ► pp.37–63

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Are phonemes constructions?

A plea for distinguishing function and meaning

ORCiD logo with link | Université Paris-Cité
Published online: 11 July 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.24014.mor
Abstract
Construction Grammar proposes an integrative model of linguistic knowledge, but the status of phonology has long been a black box in the framework. In this article, I consider the question of whether phonemes are constructions. I argue that phonemes are entrenched and conventionalised units emergent from usage, that they are clearly form-function pairs, and that their sensitivity to meaning seems less sporadic than previously assumed. This leads me to argue that assessing the constructionhood of phonemes requires a clear distinction between linguistic function and meaning, as well as a careful consideration of the social meaning of constructions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Are phonemes usage-based, entrenched and conventionalised linguistic units?
    • 2.1Cognitive aspects
    • 2.2Conventional aspects
    • 2.3Usage-based aspects
  • 3.The function and meaning of phonemes
    • 3.1Are phonemes form-function pairs?
    • 3.2Are phonemes form-meaning pairs?
  • 4.A plea for distinguishing function and meaning in Construction Grammar
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (98)
References
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex-adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blasi, D., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P., & Christiansen, M. (2016). Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10818–10823. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broccias, C. (2021). A new look at word classes in Cognitive Grammar. Jezikoslovlje, 22(2), 269–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brouwer, C. (2004). Doing pronunciation: A specific type of repair sequence. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations: Studies of communication in everyday settings (pp. 93–113). Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2000). The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 65–86). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2024). Can Construction Grammar be proven wrong? Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cebrian, J., & Carlet, A. (2014). Second-language learners’ identification of target-language phonemes: A short-term phonetic training study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 474–499. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 331, 3–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coats, S. (2024). CoANZSE Audio: Creation of an online corpus for linguistic and phonetic analysis of Australian and New Zealand Englishes. In N. Calzolari, M.-Y. Kan, V. Hoste, A. Lenci, S. Sakriani, & N. Xue (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024) (pp. 3407–3412). ELRA and ICCL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coats, S., & Morin, C. (2024). Double modals beyond the Atlantic: New evidence from computational sociolinguistics. English Today, 40(4), 294–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2021). Sociopragmatics. In M. Haugh, D. Kadar, & M. Terkourafi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuneo, N., & Goldberg, A. (2023). The discourse functions of grammatical constructions explain an enduring syntactic puzzle. Cognition, 2401, 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ćwiek, A., Fuchs, S., Draxler, C., Asu, E. L., Dediu, D., Hiovain, K., Kawahara, S., Koutalidis, S., Krifka, M., Lippus, P., Lupyan, G., Oh, G. E., Paul, J., Petrone, C., Ridouane, R., Reiter, S., Schümchen, N., Szalontai, Á., Ünal-Logacev, Ö., Zeller, J., Perlman, M., & Winter, B. (2021). The bouba/kiki effect is robust across cultures and writing systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3771, 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dautriche, I., Mahoward, K., Gibson, E., & Piantadosi, S. (2016). Wordform similarity increases with semantic similarity: An analysis of 100 languages. Cognitive Science, 41(8), 2149–2169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, systematicity, and iconicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 603–615. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckert, P., & Labov, W. (2017). Phonetics, phonology and social meaning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(4), 467–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–253.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1930). The tongues of men and speech. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1995 [1975]). Trends in phonological theory. Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fort, M., & Schwarz, J.-L. (2022). Resolving the bouba-kiki effect by rooting iconic sound symbolism in physical properties of round and spiky objects. Scientific Reports, 121, 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D. (2015). Use-conditional meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). One man’s [ɕœtː] is another man’s [kʰøð̞]: Sound correspondence constructions in Interscandinavian decoding. In E. Coussé, S. Höder, B. Lyngfelt, & J. Prentice (Eds.), Constructional approaches to Nordic languages (pp. 55–80). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, L., Moore, E., & Podesva, R. (2021). Social meaning and linguistic variation: Theoretical foundations. In L. Hall-Lew, E. Moore, & R. Podesva (Eds.), Social meaning and linguistic variation: Theorizing the third wave (pp. 1–24). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed). Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure, 121, 334–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). The Devil is in the schema: A constructional perspective on Swedish taboo-avoiding strategies. In E. Coussé, S. Höder, B. Lyngfelt, & J. Prentice (Eds.), Constructional approaches to Nordic languages (pp. 81–113). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007). English dialect syntax in Word Grammar. English Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 383–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2013). Constructions in the Parallel Architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). Body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. The Chicago University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V. (2023). Understanding the roles of type and token frequency in usage-based linguistics. In M. Díaz-Campos & S. Balasch (Eds.), The handbook of usage-based linguistics (pp. 91–106). Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G. (2006). Towards a usage-based cognitive phonology. International Journal of English Studies, 6(2), 107–140.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and the inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45(4), 715–762. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P., & Halle, M. (1988). Some major features of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Language, 64(3), 577–582. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Working towards a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 465–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2020). Semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 341, 225–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Linguistic knowledge and language use: Bridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leclercq, B., & Morin, C. (2023). No equivalence: A new principle of no synonymy. Constructions, 151, 1–15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Taxonomy of constructional meanings. OSF. Retrieved November 29, 2024, from [URL],
(2025). The meaning of constructions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leclercq, B., Morin, C., & Pijpops, D. (in press). The principle of no equivalence: An agent-based model Cognitive Linguistics.
Maguire, W. (2012). English and Scots in Scotland. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Areal features of the Anglophone world. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mai, A., Riès, S., Ben-Haim, S., Shih, J., & Gentner, T. (2024). Acoustic and language-specific sources for phonemic abstraction from speech. Nature Communications, 151, 1–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1949). La double articulation linguistique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 51, 30–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milroy, J., Milroy, L., Hartley, S., & Walshaw, D. (1994). Glottal stops and Tyneside glottalization: Competing patterns of variation and change in British English. Language Variation and Change, 61, 327–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mompeán-González, J. (2004). Category overlap and neutralization: The importance of speakers’ classifications in phonology. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(4), 429–469. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mompeán-González, J., Frégier, A., & Valenzuela, J. (2020). Iconicity and systematicity in phonaesthemes: A cross-linguistic study. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(3), 515–548. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morin, C. (2023). Social meaning in Construction Grammar: Double modals in dialects of English [Doctoral dissertation]. Université Paris-Cité.
(2025a). Model of linguistic function. OSF. Retrieved May 7, 2025, from [URL],
(2025b). Construction Grammar and sociolinguistic theory: A case study of social meaning [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morin, C., & Coats, S. (2023). Double modals in Australian and New Zealand English. World Englishes, 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morin, C., Desagulier, G., & Grieve, J. (2024). A social turn for Construction Grammar: Double modals on British Twitter. English Language and Linguistics, 28(2), 275–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nathan, G. (1986). Phonemes as mental categories. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 212–224). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Towards a cognitive phonology. In B. Hurch & R. Rhodes (Eds.), Natural phonology: The state of the art (pp. 305–327). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). What functionalists can learn from formalists in phonology. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Formalism and Functionalism (pp. 305–327). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Is the phoneme usage-based? Some issues. International Journal of English Studies, 6(2), 173–194.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesset, T. (2008). Abstract phonology in a concrete model: Cognitive linguistics and the morphology-phonology interface. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuckolls, J. (1999). The case for sound symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 281, 225–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Neal, G. (2016). Intelligibility and segmental phoneme repair strategies in English-as-a-Lingua-Franca interactions among Chinese and Japanese speakers of English. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 379–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pennington, M. (1996). Phonology in English language teaching. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 71 (pp. 101–139). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Port, R. (2010). Language as a social institution: Why phonemes and words do not live in the brain. Ecological Psychology, 22(4), 304–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2021). Iconicity. In J. Taylor & W. Xu (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 268–296). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1978). Principles of categorization. In D. Levitin (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive psychology: Core readings (pp. 251–70). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silvennoinen, O. (2023). Is Construction Grammar cognitive? Constructions, 151, 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Svantesson, J.-O. (2017). Sound symbolism: The role of word sound in meaning. WIREs Cognitive Science, 81, 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trubetskoy, N. S. (1969). Principles of phonology. University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2023). A gradient notion of constructionhood. Constructions, 151, 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uppstad, P. H., & Tønnessen, F. E. (2010). The status of the concept of ‘phoneme’ in psycholinguistics. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(5), 429–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valenzuela, H. (2020). Phonemes. In H. Valenzuela (Ed.), Linguistics for TESOL: Theory and practice (pp. 43–63). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Välimaa-Blum, R. (2005). Cognitive phonology in Construction Grammar: Analytic tools for students of English. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van-Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P. (2022). The FCG Editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLOS One, 17(6), e0269708. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue