Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 6:1 (2019) ► pp.58–83

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

Meaning hides in the confusion of the construction

The Characteristic-As-Place Construction

 | University of Silesia | Palacký University
Published online: 12 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00030.szc
Abstract
This study revisits constructionist (CxG) views concerning detailed and often unusual semantics of schematic constructions, especially those located toward the closed-class end of the lexicon-grammar continuum. The discussion is based mainly on a previously unstudied grammatical construction with interesting semantic properties, and it is shown that although clear semantic patterns can be observed in its most common uses, the construction is capable of expressing meanings that go beyond a preliminary characterization suggested by typical attestations. It is hypothesized that two kinds of meanings can be observed in grammatical constructions. One is the typically grammatical, relatively general meaning known to be conveyed by closed-class forms. The other includes highly detailed readings found in clearly productive patterns, which function within a construction; these relatively rich meanings are not necessarily the content of a construction. Based on uses of a number of constructions discussed here, it is suggested that many characterizations of the semantic content of schematic constructions proposed in the literature may be too detailed. The study concludes in proposing a correlation, under which the degree of specificity of a construction’s meaning depends on the amount of fixed lexical material found in it.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Characteristic-As-Place Construction
    • 2.1A form highlighting a salient characteristic
    • 2.2The typical meaning of CAP
    • 2.3Additional meanings
  • 3.Two types of meaning
    • 3.1The most frequent meanings do not come from the construction
    • 3.2Sense patterns are not constructions
    • 3.3Semantic compatibility in the service of creativity
    • 3.4A case in point: Time-away construction
  • 4.Meanings of constructions
    • 4.1Closed-class and open-class forms
    • 4.2Correlation between substantiveness and semantic content
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (41)
References
Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berg, T. (2015). Locating affixes on the lexicon-grammar continuum. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2 (1), 150–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (383–436). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Lexical and grammatical meaning. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphologie / Morphology (257–263). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Damer, T. E. (2005). Attacking faulty reasoning: a practical guide to fallacy-free arguments. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2015). Corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 2010–2015. Available at: [URL]
Foolen, A. (2004). Expressive binominal NPs in Germanic and Romance languages. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 75–100). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1993). Why idioms are not dead metaphors. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure and interpretation (pp. 57–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2017). Ten Lectures on Quantitative Approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-linguistic, experimental, and statistical applications. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (2013). Quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. In L. A. Janda (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn (pp. 1–32). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Meaning and the lexicon: The parallel architecture 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 2 (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kearns, K. (2002/1988). Light verbs in English. Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed November 8, 2017).
Kim, M. (2010). On the Time Away Construction: A corpus-based approach. Linguistic Research, 27(1), 121–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Ch. (2002). Thoughts on grammaticalization: Second, revised edition. Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9. Erfurt: Universität Erfurt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meillet, A. (1912). L’evolution des formes grammaticales. Rivista di Scienza, 12 (XXVI), 130–148.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, M. L. (2010). Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2014). Metaphor and metonymy shaping grammar: The role of animal terms in expressive morphology and syntax. In G. Drożdż & A. Łyda (Eds.), Extension and its limits (pp. 10–38). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2016). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Ahead-of-print. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed November 8, 2017).
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szcześniak, K. (2013). You can’t cry your way to candy: Motion events and paths in the x’s way construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24 (1), 159–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2008). Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wen, X., Yang, K. & Kuang, F. T. (2014). Cognitive linguistics: Retrospect and prospect. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1 (2), 155–179. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue