Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) constructional (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: constructional


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : * b. Number of constructional variables: x, y, z ( . ‘he’; ‘the twig and the branch’; ‘apart’)

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : that the construction expresses a challenge, this is level-2 (or illocutionary) meaning. The construction, at level 2, is used to express the speaker’s emotional reaction to the hearer’s inaction. The reaction is one of puzzlement: the speaker cannot understand why the hearer has not taken a course of action that will prove beneficial to someone (generally, the speaker or a third party, but it could be the hearer himself). It is from this level-2 meaning that the default illocutionary value (an entreaty or even a challenge) of the construction is obtained. In turn, the variable X is again, as with other constructions, constrained by constructional meaning: X denotes an action/behavior in which the hearer should be actively involved and the action or behavior should be of benefit to someone else, as in 'It wouldn’t do you harm/kill you to do the laundry/apologize/follow me on Instagram/help me/be nice/show a little more respect' .

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : Similarly, the COREL schema in (10) below captures the cognitive content of the following related constructional realizations: 'It wouldn’t kill you to X', 'It wouldn’t harm you to X', and 'It wouldn’t do you harm to X':

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : FunGramKB is grounded on two robust and complementary linguistic models: (i) the projectionist model of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG)^[39]^2 (^[40]Van Valin & LaPolla, 1997; Van Valin, 2005), which provides the knowledge base with some basic assumptions related to the linking algorithm for the merging of lexical structures into constructional configurations (for example, Aktionsart ascription, macrorole assignment, status of variables, or logical structures, to name but a few); and (ii) the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM) (^[41]Mairal & Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, 2008; ^[42]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez & Mairal, 2008; ^[43]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, 2013; ^[44]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez & Galera, 2014), which contributes to providing a layered structure of meaning construction that has helped to “fully integrate constructional meaning into RRG to deepen semantic processing” (^[45]Periñán-Pascual, 2013: 206 ). The LCM also offers a notion of construction that is more adequate for the computational

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Here we show the CLS that is automatically generated for the predicate ‘spread’, and which includes FunGramKB ontologial concepts, an Aktionsart operator and a constructional operator (CONSTR-L1) that encodes constructional meaning:

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Of the different modules that constitute FunGramKB, it is the Lexicon and the Grammaticon that we will be focusing on in this research study. We will be specifically revising one of the attributes in the core grammar component in the Lexicon which has to do with the inventory of argumental constructions in which verbs can take part: L1- constructions.^[63]^5 The notion of construction, which is directly linked to the Grammaticon module (where constructional schemata are stored in different Constructicon modules), needs to be clearly and unequivocally defined in FunGramKB, as Periñán-Pascual himself highlights: “A key issue in this module [Grammaticon] is the definition of ‘construction’” (Periñán-Pascual, 2013: 213 ).

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : n pounded the nail flat into the wall. Similarly, ^[71]Fumero and Díaz (2017) support this theoretical assumption and claim that the term ‘kernel construct’ should be restricted to those structures listed in the Lexicon, which would allow us to establish the difference with ‘non-kernel constructions’, which are “stored and described in the form of constructional schemata” (^[72]Fumero & Díaz, 2017: 36 ) at the different levels of the Construction within the Grammaticon.

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Bearing in mind the computationally-based notion of construction presented in Section 2 and the inadequacy of Levin’s taxonomy for parsing, alternations have been substituted for constructional schemata, since the former are based on the modification of an input structural pattern and its derivation into a different one. However, the parser only recognizes the input text, in this case, a constructional pattern, so what the parser requires is:

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines517 - : Rojas Nieto, C. (en prensa). Constructional grounding in emerging constructions in Spanish acquisition complexity: Early . En C. C. Z. Estrada & A. Álvarez (Ed.), Diachronic aspects of syntactic complexity: Inter and intra-typological diversity (pp. 1-31). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins . [ [119]Links ]

Evaluando al candidato constructional:


2) hearer: 4 (*)
3) wouldn: 4
4) mendoza-ibáñez: 4
5) ruiz: 4
6) fungramkb: 4 (*)
7) constructions: 4 (*)
8) lexicon: 3 (*)
9) grammaticon: 3 (*)
10) schemata: 3 (*)
12) structures: 3
13) periñán-pascual: 3
14) notion: 3 (*)
15) speaker: 3 (*)

constructional
Lengua: eng
Frec: 41
Docs: 5
Nombre propio: 1 / 41 = 2%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 8
Puntaje: 9.021 = (8 + (1+5.52356195605701) / (1+5.39231742277876)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
constructional
: “the actual description of each of the constructional patterns in which a verb can enter and a pointer in the Lexicon to lead the parser to the description of these constructions in the Grammaticon” (^[78]Fumero & Díaz, 2017: 37).
: Baicchi, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus, English Studies in Italy, 23(3), 543-563.
: Mairal, R. & Periñán-Pascual, C. (2016). Representing constructional schemata in the FunGramKB Grammaticon. In J. Fleischhauer, A. Latrouite & R. Osswald (Eds.), Explorations of the syntax-semantics interface (pp. 77-108). Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.
: Mairal, R. (2015). Constructional meaning representation within a knowledge engineering framework. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 1-27.
: Periñán, C. (2013). Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural language understanding. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 205-230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Illocution and cognition: A constructional approach. Biblioteca de Investigación, 28. Logroño: Universidad de La Rioja.
: Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Mairal-Usón, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355-400.