Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: template type, journal, title. Add: s2cid, issue, isbn, pages, volume, year, series, title, chapter, doi, chapter-url, authors 1-2. Removed or converted URL. Converted bare reference to cite template. Formatted dashes. Upgrade ISBN10 to ISBN13. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Jonesey95 | Category:CS1 errors: invisible characters | via #UCB_Category 468/478 |
m Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot. |
||
Line 20:
== Constructions: Form-meaning pairings<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bybee |first1=Joan L. |title=Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199544004-e-032 |website=Oxford Handbooks Online}}</ref>==
{{Main|Construction grammar}}
Constructions have direct pairing of form to meaning without intermediate structures, making them appropriate for usage-based models. The usage-based model adopts constructions as the basic unit of form-meaning correspondence.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Filmore |first1=Charles J. |title=The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. |journal=Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society |date=1988 |volume=14 |page=35-55|doi=10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Croft |first1=William |title=Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. |journal=Oxford: Oxford University Press. |date=2001}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldberg |first1=Adele E. |title=Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. |journal=Oxford: Oxford University Press. |date=2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldberg |first1=Adele E. |title=Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure |journal=Chicago: University of Chicago Press. |date=1995}}</ref> A construction is commonly regarded to be a conventionalized string of words. A key feature of a grammar based on constructions is that it can reflect the deeply intertwined lexical items and grammar structure.
From a [[grammarian]] perspective, constructions are groupings of words with idiosyncratic behaviour to a certain extent. They mostly take on an unpredictable meaning or pragmatic effect, or are formally special. From a broader perspective, construction can also be seen as processing units or chunks, such as sequences of words (or [[morphemes]]) which have been used often enough to be accessed together. This implicates that common words sequences are sometimes constructions even if they do not have [[idiosyncrasies]] or form.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldberg |first1=Adele E. |last2=Casenhiser |first2=Devin |title="English Constructions," in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds.) |journal=The Handbook of English Linguistics |date=2006 |issue=Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell |page=343-55|doi=10.1002/9780470753002.ch15 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bybee |first1=Joan L. |last2=Eddington |first2=David |title=A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of becoming |journal=Language |date=2006 |volume=82 |issue=2 |page=323-55|doi=10.1353/lan.2006.0081 |s2cid=145635167 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bybee |first1=Joan L. |last2=Hopper |first2=Paul J. |title=Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure |journal=Amsterdam: Benjamins. |date=2001}}</ref> Additionally, chunks or conventionalized sequences can tend to develop special pragmatic implications that can lead to special meaning over time. They can also develop idiosyncrasies of form in a variety of ways.
| |||