Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Minimalism (Chomsky 1995) • X-bar theory replaced by Bare Phrase Structure (BPS) • Elimination of D-structure/S-structure distinction • Elimination of empty categories • No language- or construction-specific syntax • Focus on larger theoretical questions: (a) To what extent is language optimally “designed” according to minimalist design specifications? (b) What are minimal design specifications? What is optimal? 10
Minimalism • Lexicon • Operations (merge, agree, procrastinate, etc.) • Derivations The key is that everything is motivated by basic principles of minimal design: “UG provides a fixed system of principles <strong>and</strong> a finite array of finitely valued parameters. The language-particular rules reduce to choice of values for these parameters. The notion of grammatical construction is eliminated, <strong>and</strong> with it, construction-particular rules.” (Chomsky 1993: 4) 11
Page 1 and 2: Expanding Construction Grammar and
Page 3 and 4: Chomsky’s Principles and Paramete
Page 5 and 6: Chomsky’s Principles and Paramete
Page 7 and 8: Chomsky (1981) (c) Organization of
Page 9: • Movement is “structure preser
Page 13 and 14: Differences between frameworks Chom
Page 15 and 16: Symbolic link between form and func
Page 17 and 18: Another difference Although most of
Page 19 and 20: Uniform representation of all gramm
Page 21 and 22: wanna-contraction (Boas 2004) 21
Page 24 and 25: All levels of grammatical analysis
Page 26 and 27: Organization of constructional know
Page 28 and 29: Taxonomic relations allow us to dis
Page 30 and 31: Combination of different constructi
Page 32 and 33: Interaction between constructions a
Page 34 and 35: Frame Semantics •A “frame” is
Page 36 and 37: Sample Event Frame: Commercial Tran
Page 38 and 39: Different Perspectives Lexical Unit
Page 40 and 41: Frame Description 40
Page 42 and 43: Lexical Entry Report 42
Page 44 and 45: What’s Frame Semantic Information
Page 46 and 47: Polysemy at different levels: argum
Page 48 and 49: Constructional Polysemy of Caused M
Page 50 and 51: Distribution of AHTY (class I verbs
Page 52 and 53: Can we analyze AHTY as a sub- type
Page 54 and 55: Verb classes • But not all of Lev
Page 56 and 57: The AHTY Construction (decoding) 56
Page 58 and 59: Proposal • Conventionalized meani
Page 60 and 61:
Mini-constructions: distribution of
Page 62 and 63:
Mini-constructions capture item-spe
Page 64 and 65:
Joe knocked a hole through the wall
Page 66 and 67:
Partial Productivity - Constraint 1
Page 68 and 69:
Constraint 3 • Physical propertie
Page 70 and 71:
Narrow scope of application / Produ
Page 72 and 73:
Fillmore et al. (1988): [the X-er t
Page 74 and 75:
Construction Grammar(s) • Constru
Page 76 and 77:
Different constructionist approache
Page 78 and 79:
syntax, semantics, phonology 78
Page 80:
Give-construction (Kay & Fillmore 1
show all

Expanding Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?