[Рец. на: / Review of:] B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, T. T. Torrent (eds.). Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages. (Constructional Approaches to Language, 22.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2018. viii + 313 pp. ISBN 978-9-02-726386-5. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Бабушкин, А. П. Модели структурной организации артефактных категорий / А. П. Бабушкин, Е. В. Дзюба // Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Серия: Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. – 2019. – № 1. – С. 5-12., 2019
В статье выделяются и описываются разные механизмы формирования и структурирования лингвокогнитивных категорий. На примере двух категорий ОРУДИЯ ТРУДА и АНТРОПОМОРФНЫЕ АРТЕФАКТЫ доказывается существование разных моделей организации лингвокогнитивных феноменов. Совмещение метода прототипического анализа и метода полевой стратификации позволило выделить категории двух видов с точки зрения механизмов их формирования: категории с центрической структурой, включающей как ядерный элемент прототипический образец, и категории с эпицентрической структурой, которой управляет прототип, не являющийся элементом внутренней организации категории. Специфика категорий с центрической организацией прослеживается на примере категории ОРУДИЯ ТРУДА, прототипические образцы которой (ножницы, топор, лопата и др.) являются обязательными элементами внутренней структуры. Другой тип организации обнаруживается у категории АНТРОПОМОРФНЫЕ АРТЕФАКТЫ, объединяющей на основании генерального признака ‘подобиe образу человека’ куклы-игрушки, коллекционные и театральные куклы, куклы-статуэтки, манекены, человекоподобные изваяния, роботы-фигуры и под. В данном случае прототипический образец не становится полноправным членом категории, он находится за ее границами, но является ее организующим центром, так как сама категория создается посредством актуализации специфического признака, присущего именно прототипу. Такие объединения являются категориями с эпицентрической структурой. Механизм формирования категорий эпицентрической структуры назван в статье механизмом “кочующего” признака. Предложенная концепция способствует развитию теории категоризации в современной лингвистике.
In the third part of the article the approach of construction grammar in dealing with the interface between verbs and constructions is taken to a closer scrutiny from the point of view of its psychological plausibility. The main problem such an account is supposed to face is related to the question where to look for a cognitively plausible impementation of the construct of ‘construction’. Here the claim is made that the referent of ‘construction’ in the mind is the way of categorization of events in the real world at the interface between perception and several stores of long-term memory. A model of the way of mind performance that incorporates constructions in the mental lexicon and their episodic and procedural correlates is offered and discussed with appropriate examples. Finally, the main difference between the present model and the one offered in the latest minimalist versions of generative grammar is that the former is about language performance, a model that is dearly needed ...
Voprosy jazykoznanija, 2016
The book under review is dedicated to the questions of Proto-Indo-European syntax reconstruction. The book is based on the materials of the workshop “Proto-Indo-European syntax and its development“, 19–20 April 2011 as a part of 20th International symposium on theoretical and applied linguistics. The workshop put together researchers in Proto-Indo-European studies, typology and syntax, its main problem was to find consensus in what concerns ergative/accusative word order, subject and object marking.
2006
In the third part of the article the approach of construction grammar in dealing with the interface between verbs and constructions is taken to a closer scrutiny from the point of view of its psychological plausibility. The main problem such an account is supposed to face is related to the question where to look for a cognitively plausible impementation of the construct of 'construction'. Here the claim is made that the referent of 'construction' in the mind is the way of categorization of events in the real world at the interface between perception and several stores of long-term memory. A model of the way of mind performance that incorporates constructions in the mental lexicon and their episodic and procedural correlates is offered and discussed with appropriate examples. Finally, the main difference between the present model and the one offered in the latest minimalist versions of generative grammar is that the former is about language performance, a model that is dearly needed in contemporary linguistics. The methodological value of such a model is that it can serve the purpose of language studies according to the criteria of descriptive and explanatory adequacy, as well as of cognitive plausibility (from psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic point of view).
Конструкція як одиниця лінгвістичного аналізу: від традиційної лінгвістики до граматики конструкцій
Науковий журнал «Міжнародний філологічний часопис» № 11(3), 2020
Abstract. The term ‘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 ‘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 ‘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 ‘renaissance’ of ‘constructions’ begins in the 80s of the XX century in Construction grammar. This integrative theory of language revisits the long-established term ‘construction’, claiming it the central unit of language and representation. CONSTRUCTIONS are viewed as two-sided symbolic units, conventional pairs ‘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, ‘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. Keywords: construction, Construction grammar, construct, constructicon