Table Of ContentLinking Constructions into Functional Linguistics
Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS)
This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical
Studies in Language.
For an overview of all books published in this series, please see
http://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs
Editors
Werner Abraham Elly van Gelderen
University of Vienna / Arizona State University
University of Munich
Editorial Board
Bernard Comrie Christian Lehmann
Max Planck Institute, Leipzig University of Erfurt
and University of California, Santa Barbara
Marianne Mithun
William Croft University of California, Santa Barbara
University of New Mexico
Heiko Narrog
Östen Dahl Tohuku University
University of Stockholm
Johanna L. Wood
Gerrit J. Dimmendaal University of Aarhus
University of Cologne
Debra Ziegeler
Ekkehard König University of Paris III
Free University of Berlin
Volume 145
Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics
The role of constructions in grammar
Edited by Brian Nolan and Elke Diedrichsen
Linking Constructions
into Functional Linguistics
The role of constructions in grammar
Edited by
Brian Nolan
Insitute of Technology Dublin
Elke Diedrichsen
Google Ireland
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
CIP data is available from the Library of Congress.
Studies in Language Companion Series, issn 0165-7763 ; v. 145
isbn 978 90 272 0612 1 (Hb ; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 7108 2 (Eb)
© 2013 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
Table of contents
Introduction vii
Controller-controllee relations in purposive constructions:
A construction-based account 1
Lilián Guerrero
Transitivity, constructions, and the projection of argument
structure in RRG 23
James K. Watters
Constructions in RRG: A case study of mimetic verbs in Japanese 41
Kiyoko Toratani
A constructional perspective on clefting in Persian: An insight
into differentiating between emphatic and deictic in 67
Farhad Moezzipour
Radical Role and Reference Grammar (RRRG): A sketch for remodelling
the Syntax-Semantics-Interface 103
Rolf Kailuweit
Constructions as grammatical objects: A case study of the prepositional
ditransitive construction in Modern Irish 143
Brian Nolan
Constructions in Role and Reference Grammar: The case of the English
resultative 179
Rocío Jiménez-Briones & Alba Luzondo-Oyón
Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural
language understanding 205
Carlos Periñán-Pascual
Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression
in the Lexical Constructional Model 231
Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
vi Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics
Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model 271
Christopher S. Butler
From idioms to sentence structures and beyond: The theoretical scope
of the concept “Construction” 295
Elke Diedrichsen
Index 331
Introduction
There is a pressing need in the linguistics community for a book on syntax at
the interfaces between syntax, semantics, lexicon and constructions, within a
functional Role and reference Grammar (RRG) perspective where the lexicon
has heretofore had a prominent and special role in the grammar. It has been rec-
ognised in the literature (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2005: 189–193), in respect of
multiple argument realisation, that sometimes the projectionist approach of lexi-
calist theories, such as RRG, appears to run into difficulties with uses of language
that suggest an argument structure different from that projected by the verb.
These instances of seemingly construction-based argument structure pose a chal-
lenge to the descriptive adequacy of RRG. That is, when the argument structure
of the verb, as expressed in the RRG lexicon, does not appear to be predictable by
the verb via its lexical entry, as would be the case with the novel and creative uses
of verbs that are common and normal in everyday use of language.
The RRG theoretical machinery includes a theory of the lexicon, a linking sys-
tem and a syntactic inventory of constructional schemata. We ask the question: Is
the theoretical apparatus for treating constructions in RRG, in a functional model
of grammar with a strong theory of the lexicon, actually under-utilised at present
and in fact represents a better-motivated device to characterise “constructions” in
the grammar? Can it be that the challenges of constructions are better answered
within RRG via the characterisations of constructions, within the constructional
schemata, formally articulated with the interfaces to semantics, syntax, morphol-
ogy and indeed pragmatics and lexicon expressed?
In Van Valin and LaPolla (1997) an approach is presented that mediates the
relationship between the rules of syntax and the lexicon. In that account, the
grammatical structures of a language are stored in a syntactic inventory as con-
structional templates. That is, as constructions, more or less analogous to the idea
of constructions as found in Construction Grammar. Fillmore et al. (1988: 36) is
cited as justification for the approach taken in RRG:
‘By grammatical construction we mean any syntactic pattern which is assigned
one or more conventional functions in a language, together with whatever is
linguistically conventionalised about its contribution to the meaning or the use of
structures containing it.
On the level of syntax, we distinguish for any construction in a language its external
and its internal properties. In speaking of the external syntax of a construction we
viii Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics
refer to the properties of the construction as a whole, that is to say, anything speakers
know about the construction that is relevant to the larger syntactic contexts in which
it is welcome. By the internal syntax of a construction we have in mind a description
of the construction’s make-up.’
Presently however, RRG views constructions as having two separate but related
components: (a) a syntactic inventory of all the syntactic templates (which
represents parts of the structure of a sentence) for the particular language, and
(b) a lexicon contains the lexical entries, especially for verbs but also for the set
of other categories. In contrast, the Construction Grammar view of construc-
tions is that they encapsulate all information, including information considered
lexical in RRG, in a a theory-specific integrated manner within the construction.
These then represent two different poles of thinking about constructions, while
recognising the contributions of constructions in language use. Additionally, in
the RRG view of constructions the constructional templates contain relevant mor-
phological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic components that need to be consid-
ered as contributing to the construction (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 432; Van Valin
2005: 131–135). Van Valin (2005: 132) offers the English passive construction as
a good example of a construction containing, as it does, the interaction of the
general and language specific features, within a characterisation of voice construc-
tions. The constructional schema containing this information is presented semi-
formally in RRG.
It is especially interesting, then, that Van Valin (2004) foresees the possibility
of reconciling constructions within these two polarities of thinking, as represented
by the lexical-projectionist accounts, like RRG, and constructionist approaches
as represented by, for example, Pustejovsky’s Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky
1995) and indeed, Goldberg’s Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995),
within an RRG account. Specifically, Van Valin argues that:
‘The first approach […,] which has been dubbed the ‘projectionist approach,’ […],
while the second, which has been termed the ‘constructionist approach,’ has been
championed by Goldberg (1995), Pustejovsky (1995) and Michaelis & Ruppenhofer
(2001), among others. The two approaches have often been viewed as conflicting
and incompatible with each other, but in this paper it will be argued that they are in
fact complementary and therefore not necessarily in conflict with each other.’
An interesting observation by Van Valin (ibid) is that the two approaches repre-
sent different perspectives on the construction of sentence meaning. That is, the
projectionist approach represents the speaker’s perspective, while the construc-
tionist approach represents the hearer’s perspective. In RRG terms, then, taking
on board the speakers vs. hearer perspectives, the former is held to fit naturally
with the linking from semantics to syntax, whereas the latter fits naturally with
the linking from syntax to semantics.
Introduction i
This book is a collection of papers, characterising constructions of a diverse
and interesting collection of languages by scholars across the world, that place
emphasis on constructions via RRG constructional schemata. The challenges of
the book will be to place constructions (via RRG constructional schemata) into a
more prominent perspective in RRG and to integrate current thinking regarding
constructions into the functional RRG framework. RRG as a functional gram-
mar is strongly lexicalist with a robust linking algorithm mediating the interface
between semantics, lexicon and syntax. It incorporates constructions into the gen-
eral theory via constructional schemata stored in the syntactic inventory. RRG
also makes strong claims regarding descriptive and typological adequacy (Van
Valin & LaPolla 1997; Van Valin 2005; Butler 2003a, 2003b; Butler 2009: 24).
In these papers, the morphosyntactic coding of the arguments and also
verb agreement is determined for a construction. As RRG abdicates the concept
of a “Subject”, it introduces the “Privileged Syntactic Argument” (PSA), as the
unmarked argument that controls verb agreement. It is deduced from the Actor
and Undergoer assignments via language-specific rules, which are called “PSA-
selection principles”. These involves the selection of the syntactic templates for
the syntactic representation and following which, the predicates, arguments and
adjuncts from the logical structure are assigned to positions in it. This happens
according to language-specific rules that have to be described as parts of the RRG
linking system.
RRG faces a variety of challenges to its claims of descriptive, typological and
explanatory adequacy (Butler 2009) and these challenges pivot around both the
notion and place of a construction within the grammar. Constructions seem to be
found at the level of the clause to the level of the morphological word, and possibly
lower into the phonological level. The important questions for RRG are therefore:
1. How does the theory understand a construction?
2. What information does a construction contain?
3. How do the constructions relate to other parts of the grammar?
4. How do the constructions relate to other constructions?
5. Is (part of) our grammatical knowledge organized in constructions?
6. Do the constructions include information about both form and function/
meaning?
7. Are the constructions organized in a structured network with other con-
structions?
In addition to syntactic information, constructions may also specify lexical,
semantic and pragmatic information. Constructions may be idiomatic where the
semantics and/or pragmatics of the larger structure are not predictable from the
set of lexical items in the construction.
