Constraints on subsumption and amalgamation processes in the Lexical Constructional Modelthe case of phone and email

  1. Alicia Galera Masegosa 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja, España
Revista:
Atlantis: Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos

ISSN: 0210-6124

Año de publicación: 2012

Volumen: 34

Número: 2

Páginas: 167-184

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Atlantis: Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos

Repositorio institucional: lock_openAcceso abierto Editor

Resumen

Este artículo trata el estudio de los procesos de integración léxico-construccional o subsunción de los verbos ingleses phone y email (representativos de la subclase de verbos de instrumento de comunicación) en las construcciones dativa y ditransitiva. El análisis de las irregularidades halladas en dichos procesos nos lleva a postular la existencia y explorar la actividad de dos construcciones, a saber, las construcciones frasales X About Y y X With Y. Estas construcciones frasales pueden combinarse sobre la base de procesos de amalgamación construccional con la construcción transitiva en aquellos casos en que la naturaleza semántica del objeto directo lo requiera, dando lugar a una nueva construcción en la que ambos verbos pueden subsumirse. El Modelo Léxico Construccional (mlc) nos proporciona las herramientas analíticas que necesitamos para el desarrollo de este estudio, especialmente las restricciones internas y externas que regulan los procesos de subsunción y amalgama.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Boas, Hans 2010: ‘The Syntax-lexicon Continuum in Construction Grammar: the Case of Communication Verbs’. Belgium Journal of Linguistics 24: 54-82.
  • Bybee, Joan 2010: Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge up.
  • Bybee, Joan forthcoming: ‘Exemplars and Constructions’. Thomas Hoffmann and Graham Trousdale, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford up.
  • Colleman, Timothy and Bernard De Clerck 2009: ‘“Caused Motion?” The Semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative’. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 5-42.
  • Croft, William 2008: ‘On Iconicity of Distance’. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 49-58.
  • Del Campo Martínez, Nuria 2011: ‘Cognitive Modeling in Illocutionary Meaning’. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9.2: 392-412.
  • Dik, Simon 1997: The Theory of Functional Grammar: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Goldberg, Adele 1995: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: u of Chicago p.
  • Goldberg, Adele 2006: Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford up.
  • Goldberg, Adele and Giulia Bencini 2005: ‘Support from Processing for a Constructional Approach to Grammar’. Andrea E. Tyler, Mari Takada, Yiyoung Kim and Diana Marinova, eds. Language in Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language and Language Learning. Washington: Georgetown up. 3-18.
  • Grady, Joseph 1998: ‘The “Conduit Metaphor” Revisited: A Reassessment of Metaphors for Communication’. Jean-Pierre Koenig, ed. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language II. Buffalo: csli. 205-18.
  • Gregory, Michelle and Laura Michaelis 2001: ‘Topicalization and Left-dislocation: A Functional Opposition Revisited’. Journal of Pragmatics 33.11: 1665-706.
  • Haiman, John 1980: ‘The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation’. Language 56.3: 515-40.
  • Haiman, John 1985: Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge up.
  • Haiman, John 2008: ‘In Defence of Iconicity’. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 59-66.
  • Halliday, Michael 1976 (1967): Halliday: System and Function in Language. Selected Papers. Gunther Kress, ed. Oxford up. 174-88.
  • Iwata, Seizi 2005: ‘The Role of Verb Meaning in Locative Alternations’. Mirjam Fried and Hans Boas, eds. Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 101-18.
  • Kay, Paul forthcoming: ‘The Limits of Construction Grammar’. Thomas Hoffmann and Graham Trousdale, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford up.
  • Kay, Paul and Charles Fillmore 1999: ‘Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The “What’s X doing Y” Construction’. Language 75: 1-33.
  • Lakoff, George 1987: Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and London: u of Chicago p.
  • Langacker, Ronald 1987: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar – Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford up.
  • Langacker, Ronald 1991: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar – Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford up.
  • Levin, Beth 1993: English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago and London: u of Chicago p.
  • Mairal-Usón, Ricardo and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza 2009: ‘Levels of Description and Explanation in Meaning Construction’. Christopher Butler and Javier Martín Arista, eds. Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 153-98.
  • Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik 1985: A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe 1997: ‘Dative Alternation from a Cognitive Perspective’. Birgit Smieja and Meike Tasch, eds. Human Contact through Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang. 107-26.
  • Pérez, Lorena and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza 2002: ‘Grounding, Semantic Motivation, and Conceptual Interaction in Indirect Directive Speech Acts’. Journal of Pragmatics 34.3: 259-84.
  • Radden, Günter and René Dirven 2007: Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin 2008: ‘The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity’. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129-67.
  • Reddy, Michael J. 1979: ‘The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in our Language about Language’. Andrew Ortony, ed. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge up. 284-310.
  • Rosca, Andrea forthcoming: ‘How Conceptual Structure Impinges on Constructional Behavior. The Case of Give Verbs’. Revista de Filología Inglesa 33.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco 2000: ‘The Role of Mappings and Domains in Understanding Metonymy’. Antonio Barcelona, ed. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 109-32.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco 2007: ‘High-level Cognitive Models: in Search of a Unified Framework for Inferential and Grammatical Behavior’. Krzysztof Kosecki, ed. Perspectives on Metonymy. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 11-30.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco 2011: ‘Metonymy and Cognitive Operations’. Reka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza, eds. Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 103-23.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco forthcoming: ‘Meaning Construction, Meaning Interpretation and Formal Expression in the Lexical Constructional Model’. Brian Nolan and Elke Diedrichsen, eds. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in RRG Grammars. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Annalisa Baicchi 2007: ‘Illocutionary Constructions. Cognitive Motivation and Linguistic Realization’. Istvan Kecskes and L. Horn, eds. Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 95-128.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Francisco Gonzálvez 2011: ‘Constructional Integration in the Lexical Constructional Model’. British and American Studies 17: 75-95.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Ricardo Mairal-Usón 2007: ‘High-level Metaphor and Metonymy in Meaning Construction’. Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg and Peter Siemund, eds. Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 33-51.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Ricardo Mairal-Usón 2008: ‘Levels of Description and Constraining Factors in Meaning Construction: An Introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model’. Folia Lingüística 42.2: 355-400.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Ricardo Mairal-Usón 2011: ‘Constraints on Syntactic Alternation: Lexical-Constructional Subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model’. Pilar Guerrero, ed. Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London and Oakville: Equinox. 62-82.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Lorena Pérez 2001: ‘Metonymy and the Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and Interaction’. Language and Communication 21: 321-57.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Lorena Pérez 2011: ‘The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Myths, Developments and Challenges’. Metaphor and Symbol 26: 161-85.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet