Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Sociolinguistics

Construction Grammar and Code-Mixing

Profile image of Philipp WasserscheidtPhilipp Wasserscheidt

Wasserscheidt, Philipp (accepted): Construction Grammar and Code-Mixing. To appear in: Robinson, Justyna; Reif, Monika (Hrsg.): Cognition, culture and codes: Current perspectives on multilingualism. Berlin.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514190-006
visibility

…

description

26 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper explores the applicability of construction grammar to the phenomenon of code-mixing, arguing for its potential to provide a more coherent theoretical framework compared to traditional models. It highlights the need to address underlying assumptions about language and grammar that have been overlooked in previous research. The discussion emphasizes that code-mixing should not simply be viewed as a transition between languages, but rather as a selection of linguistic units, thus challenging conventional perspectives on bilingual speech.

Related papers

Construction Grammar
Laura A Michaelis

In Construction Grammar, grammatical patterns are conventional pairings of form and meaning that are analogous to words. This article contrasts Construction Grammar with competing syntactic theories that are based on universal constraints and the projection properties of words. It reviews arguments for construction-based syntax derived from the following linguistic phenomena: semantic and syntactic variability of verbs, coercion, idiomatic patterns and ‘family resemblances’ among idioms, paradigm-based constraints on form and meaning, exceptions to cross-constructional generalizations, and the inadequacy of derivational rules. Verbal and nominal syntax are used to exemplify the formal mechanism that combines constructions and words, unification grammar. A concluding section outlines connections between Construction Grammar and use-based models of grammar, acquisition and sentence processing.

View PDFchevron_right
Review of "The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar" ed. by Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale.
Ben Lyngfelt

Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36(3): 381-387., 2013

View PDFchevron_right
REVIEW of Martin Hilpert. 2014. Construction Grammar and its application to English
Daria Bębeniec

Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 2015

View PDFchevron_right
Constructions and Language Change . Edited by Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald
Gabriele Diewald

Diachronica, 2010

View PDFchevron_right
Data in Construction Grammar
Stefan Th. Gries

2012

View PDFchevron_right
Past and future in Construction Grammar(s) and the limits of constructions
Pedro Ivorra Ordines, Maricel Esteban-Fonollosa

Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics. New Approaches to Construction Grammar(s), 2024

The term Construction Grammar alludes to a diverse set of linguistic theories that have emerged over the past forty years as alternatives to the then-dominant generative approach to the study of language and grammar, especially in dealing with idiosyncratic patterns and idiomatic expressions. Rather than Qf Lingüístics * This research was carried out within the framework of: (i) the research project Construction Grammar and Phraseology. German and Spanish Constructional Idioms through Corpora (PID2019-108783RB-100), and (ii) the European COST-Action CA22115/Building a Multilingual Repository of Phraseme Constructions.

View PDFchevron_right
Construction Grammar and First Language Acquisition
Holger Diessel

Graeme Trousdale and Thomas Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 347-364. Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2012

View PDFchevron_right
Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective
Alexander Ziem

2018

Over the last decade or so, Construction Grammar (CxG) has evolved into an influential paradigm in linguistic research. CxG subsumes a family of related constructional approaches to language including Cognitive Construction Grammar (Lakoff 1987, Goldberg 1995, Boas 2013), Berkeley Construction Grammar (Fillmore et al. 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Fillmore 2013), Sign-based Construction Grammar (SBCG; Sag 2011, Boas and Sag 2012, Michaelis 2013), Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001, 2013), and Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, 2008; Broccias 2013), among others (for an overview see Hoffmann/Trousdale 2013, Ziem and Lasch 2013, and Lasch and Ziem 2014). Although such approaches differ not only in methodological terms but also with respect to the types of linguistic phenomena addressed, they all embrace the view that both lexicon and grammar essentially consist of constructions, i.e. non-compositional (and compositional) formmeaning pairings of varying abstractness and syntagmati...

View PDFchevron_right
Construction Grammar: Introduction
Thomas Hoffmann

This is the introductory chapter to the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. As the present volume will show, Constructionist Grammar approaches provide a uniform analysis of more idiosyncratic ‘peripheral’ as well as ‘core’ linguistic features. They achieve this without recourse to transformations/derivations or the employment of empty elements. Instead, the mental grammar of speakers is claimed to consist of a network of schematic and substantive constructions (‘constructicon’) and it is the parallel activation of constructions that underlies a set of particular utterances (‘constructs’). This view of grammar as a mental network of constructions has recently received great empirical support by independent research on first and second language acquisition (see Diessel, this volume and Ellis, this volume, respectively), psycho- (see Bencini, this volume) as well neurolinguistics (see Pulvermüller, Shtyrov, Cappelle, this volume). Moreover, constructional approaches have also provided important new insight into the diachronic evolution of languages (see Fried, this volume; Barðdal, this volume; Hilpert, this volume) as well as sociolinguistic (see Hollmann, this volume) and dialectal and discourse variation (see Östman and Trousdale, this volume). Since Constructionist Grammar offers a psychologically-plausible, generative theory of human language, it has spawned a large body of constructionist research. The present handbook now provides the first authoritative overview of the theory, its applications as well as the various constructionist approaches. Each chapter is written by one of the leading researchers in the field and the book therefore offers the reader the most exhaustive overview of Construction Grammar presently available. Please find below a pre-publication draft of the chapter. Please find below a pre-publication draft of the paper.

View PDFchevron_right
<i>Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions</i> (review)
Mirjam Fried

Language, 2008

View PDFchevron_right

References (41)

  1. Auer, Peter 2006 'Bilinguales Sprechen: (immer noch) eine Herausforderung für die Linguistik'. In: Sociolinguisticab 20, pp. 1-21.
  2. Backus, Ad 2010 'The role of codeswitching, loan translation and interference in the emergence of an immigrant variety of Turkish'. In: Working Papers in Corpus-based Linguistics and Language Education 5, pp. 225- 241. Backus, Ad; Doğruöz, Seza A.; Heine, Bernd 2011 'Salient Stages in Contact-Induced Grammatical Change: Evidence from Synchronic vs. Diachronic Contact Situations'. In: Language Sciences 33 (5), pp. 738-752.
  3. Backus, Ad; Dorleijn, Margreet 2010 'Loan translations versus code-switching'. In: Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.): The Cambridge handbook of lin- guistic code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 75- 93. Boas, Hans Christian 2010 'Comparing constructions across languages'. In: Hans Christian Boas (ed.): Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-20.
  4. Broersma, Mirjam; Isurin, Ludmila; Bultena, Sybrine; de Bot, Kees 2009 'Triggered code switching. Evidence from Dutch -English and Rus- sian -English bilinguals'. In: Ludmila Isurin (ed.): Multidisciplinary approaches to code switching. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 104-128.
  5. Chan, Brian Hok-Shing 2010 'Code-switching between typologically distinct languages'. In: Bar- bara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.): The Cam- bridge handbook of linguistic code-switching. Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univ. Press, pp. 182-198.
  6. Croft, William 2001 Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological per- spective. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  7. Croft, William 2007 'Construction Grammar'. In: Dirk Geeraerts (ed.): The Oxford hand- book of cognitive linguistics. Oxford, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 463-508.
  8. de Bot, Kees 1992 'A bilingual production model: Levelt`s 'speaking' model adapted.'. In: Applied Linguistics 13, pp. 1-24.
  9. de Bot, Kees; Broersma, Mirjam; Isurin, Ludmila 2009 'Sources of triggering in code switching'. In: Ludmila Isurin (ed.): Multidisciplinary approaches to code switching. Amsterdam: Ben- jamins, pp. 85-102.
  10. Di Sciullo, Anne-Marie; Muysken, Pieter; Singh, Rajendra 'Government and Code-Mixing'. In: Journal of Linguistics 22 (1), pp. 1-24.
  11. Dijkstra, Ton;
  12. van Heuven, W. J. B. 1998 'The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition'. In: Jonathan Grainger and Arthur M. Jacobs (eds.): Localist connectionist ap- proaches to human cognition. Hove: Erlbaum, pp. 55-89.
  13. Fillmore, Charles J.; Kay, Paul; O'Connor, Catherine 1988 'Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone'. In: Language 64, pp. 501-538.
  14. Gardner-Chloros, Penelope; Edwards, M. 2004 'Assumptions behind grammatical approaches to code-switching: When the blueprint is a red herring'. In: Transactions of the Philol- ogical Society 102 (1), pp. 103-129.
  15. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995 Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument struc- ture. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
  16. Goldberg, Adele E. 2006 Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
  17. Green, David W. 1998 'Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system'. In: Bilin- gualism: Language and Cognition 1, pp. 67-81.
  18. Gries, Stefan Th.; Stefanowitsch, Anatol 2004 'Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on 'alternations''. In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1), pp. 97-129.
  19. Kallmeyer, Werner; Keim, Inken 2003 'Linguistic variation and the construction of social identity in a Ger- man-Turkish setting. A case study of an immigrant youth group in Mannheim, Germany'. In: Jannis K. Androutsopoulos and Alexandra Georgakopoulou (eds.): Discourse constructions of youth identities. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, pp. 29-46.
  20. Kecskes, Istvan 2006 'The dual language model to explain code-switching: A cognitive- pragmatic approach'. In: Intercultural Pragmatics 3 (3), pp. 257- 283. Kecskes, Istvan 2009 'Dual and multilanguage systems'. In: International Journal of Multi- lingualism, pp. 1-19.
  21. Langacker, Ronald W. 2005 'Construction Grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so'. In: Fran- cisco José de Ruiz Mendoza Ibáñez and M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.): Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101-159.
  22. Langacker, Ronald W. 2009 'A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition'. In: Cognitive Linguistics 20 (3), pp. 627-640.
  23. Li, Ping 1998 'Mental control, language tags, and language nodes in bilingual lexi- cal processing'. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition (1), pp. Li, Ping; Farkas, Igor 2002 'A self-organizing connectionist model of bilingual processing. Aus Li Wei'. In: R. Heredia and Jeanette Altarriba (eds.): Bilingual Sen- tence Processing. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 59-85.
  24. MacSwan, Jeff 2001 'The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: evidence from intrasentential code switching'. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3 (1), pp. 37-54.
  25. Meijer, Paul J. A.; Fox Tree, Jean E. 2003 'Building Syntactic Structures in Speaking: A Bilingual Exploration'. In: Experimental Psychology 50 (3), pp. 184-195.
  26. Muhamedowa, Raihan 2006 Untersuchung zum kasachisch-russischen Code-mixing. (mit Ausbli- cken auf den uigurisch-russischen Sprachkontakt). München: LINCOM EUROPA.
  27. Muysken, Pieter 2005 Bilingual speech. A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge u.a.: Cam- bridge Univ. Press.
  28. Myers-Scotton, Carol 1997 Duelling languages. Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Ox- ford: Clarendon.
  29. Myers-Scotton, Carol 2007 Multiple voices. An introduction to bilingualism. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
  30. Myers-Scotton, Carol; Jake, Janice L. 2010 'A universal model of code-switching and bilingual language process- ing and production'. In: Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.): The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code- switching. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  31. Paradis, Michel 1997 'The cognitive neuropsychology of bilingualism'. In: Annette M. B. de Groot and Judith F. Kroll (eds.): Tutorials in Bilingualism. Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 331-354.
  32. Paradis, Michel A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pfaff, Carol W. 1991 'Mixing and linguistic convergence in migrant speech communities: linguistic constraints, social conditions and models of acquisition'. In: Papers for the Symposium on Code-Switching and Bilingual Studies: Theory, Significance and Perspective. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation, pp. 120-153.
  33. Poplack, Shana 1980 'Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN EN- SPANOL: Toward a typology of code-switching'. In: Linguistics 18 (7/8), pp. 581-618.
  34. Savić, Jelena 1995 'Structural convergence and language change: Evidence from Ser- bian/English code-switching'. In: Language in Society 24, pp. 475- 492. Sebba, Mark 2010 'On the notions of congruence and convergence in code-switching'. In: Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.): The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 40-57.
  35. Sickinger, Pawel 2012 Mental Models and Linguistic Cues: Investigating the Interface Be- tween Language and Mental Representation Across Cultures. In: LAUD Essen (ed.): Cognitive Psycholinguistics: Bilingualism, Cog- nition and Communication. Essen, LAUD Linguistic Agency, pp.125-146.
  36. Stefanowitsch, Anatol 2011 'Konstruktionsgrammatik und Grammatiktheorie'. In: Kerstin Fischer and Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.). Konstruktionsgrammatik und Grammatiktheorie. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze. Tübingen, pp. 11-25.
  37. Tomasello, Michael 2003 Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisi- tion. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  38. Treffers-Daller, Jeanine 2010 'Code-switching and transfer: an exploration of similarities and dif- ferences'. In: Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds.): The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching. Cam- bridge, pp. 58-74.
  39. Verhagen, Arie 2009 'The conception of constructions as complex sings. Emergence of structure and reduction to usage'. In: Constructions and Frames 1 (1), pp. 119-152.
  40. Vieru, Bianca; Boula de Mareüil, Philippe; Adda-Decker, Martine 2011 'Characterisation and identification of non-native French accents'. In: Speech Communication 53, pp. 292-310.
  41. Wasserscheidt, Philipp 2010 'Mehrsprachigkeit und Sprachwandel bei Ungarischsprechern im serbischen Banat'. In: Christian Voß (ed.): Ottoman and Habsburg legacies in the Balkans. Language and religion to the North and to the South of the Danube River. München, Berlin: Sagner, pp. 197- 246. Wiese, Heike 2006 'Ich mach dich Messer -Grammatische Produktivität in Kiez- Sprache ("Kanak Sprak")'. In: Linguistische Berichte 207, pp. 245- 273.

Related papers

Construction Grammars
Thomas Hoffmann

To appear in: Barbara Dancygier, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 2017

To appear in: Barbara Dancygier, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The previous chapter gave an overview of the renaissance of constructions in grammatical theory and the rise of Construction Grammar approaches. Yet, while all constructionist approaches share many important tenets concerning the nature of human language, the various individual approaches nevertheless differ from each other in non-trivial ways. In this chapter, I will first provide the common theoretical assumptions shared by all constructionist approaches. After that, I will outline the major differences between non-usage-based (such as Berkley Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar) and usage-based approaches (Cognitive Construction Grammar, Embodied Construction Grammar, Fluid Construction Grammar and Radical Construction Grammar). Moreover, I will discuss the controversial issue of what counts as a construction (from Kay's conservative competence-based notion to the usage-based interpretation of constructions as exemplar-based clouds) and the ontological status of meaningless constructions. In addition to that, I will also touch upon the nature of the structured inventory of constructions, the constructicon, and explore the advantage and limits of constructional inheritance in taxonomic networks. Finally, the chapter will also address the question as to how the meaning pole of constructions is analysed in the various approaches (which ranges from semantic paraphrases (Cognitive Construction Grammar) over first-order predicate logic (Fluid Construction Grammar) to Frame-based approaches (Sign-based Construction Grammar)).

View PDFchevron_right
The Renaissance of constructions: From constructions to Construction Grammars
Thomas Hoffmann

to appear in: Barbara Dancygier, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 2017

Draft chapter to appear in: Barbara Dancygier, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. For a long time, constructions played an important role in traditional grammar. During the 20 th century, however, focus in Mainstream Generative Grammar shifted to a universal mentalistic view of language that relegated constructions to the status of mere epiphenomena. The present chapter outlines the historical renaissance of constructions in cognitive linguistics. It discusses various major linguistic phenomena that led some researchers to claim that form-meaning pairings, i.e. constructions, are, in fact, the fundamental units of the human language capacity – a view of language that is now known as Construction Grammar. The various Construction Grammar approaches, their shared assumptions as well as differences are then the topic of the next chapter.

View PDFchevron_right
Making the Case for Construction Grammar
Laura A Michaelis

Sign Based Construction Grammar, 2012

Few published articles in Construction Grammar (CxG) actually talk about the theory, and fewer still about its formal and logical foundations. This information vacuum has allowed misconceptions about CxG to thrive, including the claim that it is designed only to model minor idiomatic phenomena. In this chapter, I try to remedy this situation by laying out the case for CxG, or, more specifically, the formal version of CxG known as Sign- Based Construction Grammar (SBCG; Sag this volume, 2010). In doing so, I will touch on four major topics: foundations, functionality, facts and falsehoods. In describing the foundations of CxG, I will explain what it means to adopt a licensing-based view of syntax rather than one based on negative constraints (Zwicky 1994, Malouf 2003). The focus on functionality arises from the recognition that working syntacticians need a robust and elegant formalism. I will argue that SBCG provides such a formalism, by describing three benefits that it offers to practitioners of construction-based syntax: it is localist, it allows for variable-grain description and it captures shared properties of constructions without requiring stipulations about constructional inheritance relations. The facts include three major lines of evidence for construction- based syntax: the constructional basis of meaning composition, the role of constructions in the licensing of complements and the interleaving of core and periphery during production. Finally, I will attempt to counter six entrenched falsehoods about CxG: that it is nonrigorous, that it does not offer generalizations, that it is a theory of linguistic marginalia, that it is opposed to compositional semantics, that it is not constrained and that it does not provide a universal framework for syntax.

View PDFchevron_right
Current Schools of Construction Grammar: Theoretical and Methodological Architecture
Viktoriia Zhukovska (Вікторія Жуковська)

СУЧАСНА ФІЛОЛОГІЧНА НАУКА: АКТУАЛЬНІ ПИТАННЯ ТА ВЕКТОРИ РОЗВИТКУ, 2021

The review presents the most prominent issues of convergence and divergence within each model, focusing, inter alia, on a universal status of linguistic constructions, their quantity and types, issues of constructional compositionality and semantics, reliance on language use data, and specificity of notation systems. The presented study has demonstrated that construction grammar is a thriving field of grammatical theorizing. Over the past two decades, the framework has become part of the mainstream linguistics, a sophisticated linguistic theory based on a solid cognitive and functional basis, with welldeveloped theoretical and methodological principles. By filling in the gaps in both traditional and formalist descriptions of language, construction grammar blurs the boundaries between vocabulary and grammar, semantics and pragmatics, meaning and use and represents language as a holistic organism. The holistic approach to language units aptly reflects the reality of mental activity, based on uniform cognitive mechanisms and carried out on a single language substrate. All of linguistic knowledge is a network of form-meaning pairsconstructions and nothing else in addition M. Hilpert (2021, p. 6) Сучасна філологічна наука: актуальні питання та вектори розвитку

View PDFchevron_right
Construction Grammar and its application to English
Martin Hilpert
View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Code-Switching
  • Construction Grammar
  • Language Production
  • Linguistic interference
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved