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) constructions (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: constructions


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines201 - : Adele Goldberg, precursora y pionera de la gramática de las construcciones (Goldberg, 1995) aporta al volumen el innovador trabajo titulado Constructions, lexical semantics, and the correspondence principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments . El artículo introduce la tercera parte del libro denominada Lexical restrictions on syntax. La autora critica las investigaciones que tienden a proporcionar principios generalizadores para dar cuenta de algunas tendencias generales en la realización de los argumentos. En el capítulo, se defiende una revaloración del papel de las construcciones y de factores discursivos en dicha realización, de forma que las generalizaciones propuestas se vuelvan más adecuadas y productivas para predecir no solo el comportamiento de la realización argumental, sino también las distintas excepciones en ella.

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Tudor’s use of first person singular pronoun is a discursive characteristic as The Tribune differentiates between himself and other categories of people, implicit in agentless passive constructions: Eu nu acuz pe nimeni, dar au fost create şi perfecţionate mecanisme ale fraudei absolut scandaloasei – ‘I am not accusing anyone, but absolutely scandalous mechanisms have been created and improved to carry out fraud’ . At the same time, Tudor presents himself as an authority, displaying expertise in a specific area: ca istoric şi scriitor romăn, eu propun ca marcă […] – ‘as a Romanian writer and historian, I suggest’ […]. Membership categories^[27]2 are classifications that may be used to describe persons and their associated activities: worker, brother, mother, friend etc. Tudor’s explicit use of a specific category (historian, writer, nationalist, Christian) is relevant for understanding how the speaker relies on his displaying legitimate power and it may also be discussed as an attempt t

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : Jackendoff, 2004, inter alios), since, in this model, grammatical constructions of varied formal and functional complexity are parsimoniously assigned different places and functions within the same architecture. Such a holistic design is suitable for a computational environment that seeks to include both the propositional and the non-propositional dimensions of meaning. Thus, the LCM distributes heterogeneous constructions across four levels of meaning representation, each of which is computationally implemented in the Grammaticon of FunGramKB: level 1 deals with argument-structure constructions (e .g. He looked for a metal pipe and hammered it flat on one end (GBAC, 2013)), level 2 address implicational constructions (e.g. Don’t you honey me!; GBAC, 2007), level 3 focuses on illocutionary constructions (e.g. Can you open the door?; GBAC, 2001), and level 4 is concerned with discourse structure (e.g. Just because I forgive you doesn’t mean I forget; GBAC, 2014). In this paper we shall

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : * e. Constructions in which rip participates: transitive resultative (e .g. 'Sue ripped the bag open'; GBAC, 2005); ‘apart reciprocal’ construction (e.g. 'It tears open the lid of my trunk, seizes my notebooks, rips them apart'; GBAC, 2003); ‘way’ construction (e.g. 'This opening was no doubt made by the creature in the entryway as it had ripped its way through the exterior of the building to get inside'; GBAC, 2015), etc.

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : In the interface of the L1-Constructicon, all argument-structure constructions, like the ‘apart reciprocal’ in [88]Figure 2, are formalized by means of a set of features, which we spell out in (4) below:

6
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' .

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : This brief discussion should be enough to help the reader become aware of the inherent complexity of illocutionary meaning, which is nonetheless susceptible to a computational treatment. To illustrate this, let us consider how the ‘offering’ scenario has been handled in the L3-construction. This illocutionary scenario, which comprises eleven constructions related through family resemblance (e.g. 'May I Offer You (NP)', 'Is There Anything I Can (VP)?', 'Do You Need Help With NP?', etc.), has been divided into three constructional dimensions, i.e. ‘Offering-type 1’, ‘Offering-type 2’ and ‘Offering-type 3’. Each of these dimensions comprises several constructions that have been grouped on the basis of their semantic affinity, following the analyses made in ^[111]Del Campo (2013). Therefore, all the constructions participating in a given dimension share the same COREL schema, as shown in (12)-(14) below:

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : * b. Constructions participanting in this dimension: Do You Want Me (VP )?, I Offer You (NP), Let me (VP) for you, May I Offer You (NP), Will You Let Me(VP)?, Would You Like Me (VP)?

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : * b. Constructions participanting in this dimension: Can I Offer You (NP )?, Is There Anything I Can (VP)?, There Must Be Something I Can (VP)

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : * b. Constructions participanting in this dimension: Do You Need Help With NP ?, May I Help You (VP)?

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp . 231-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [ [149]Links ]

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : On the computational representation of constructions: The place of locative constructions in a knowledge base

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : This paper explores the notion of constructions in FunGramKB and revises the criteria that have been used in order to determine what factors can modify the internal configuration of the lexical templates of verbal predicates (^[48]Fumero & Díaz, 2017). As such, a new criterion will be suggested and a revised version of the alphabetical catalogue of level 1 (L1) constructions by Fumero and Díaz (2017) will be presented. At a more specific level, the current research will strive to contribute to the analysis of the family of locative constructions in the English language by describing the peculiarities underlying each locative construction and how they can be formalised in the CLS so that the parser will be able to decode the syntactic behaviour of verbal predicates when analysed in terms of the parsing requirements of the syntactic rules of the Grammar Development Environment in ARTEMIS .

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Constructions: Locative construction, Middle construction (type 2 ), Middle construction, Unexpressed third argument construction

15
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).

16
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : ^[64]Periñán-Pascual (2013) points out that Goldberg’s broad conception of construction in Construction Grammar (CxG) makes it difficult to provide an accurate definition of the term since from her point of view any single lexical item (or even a suffix such as -ed) could be conceived as a construction: “all levels of grammatical analysis involve constructions” (Goldberg, 2006: 5 ). This implies that, within this broad definition, constructions are conceived as the building blocks in linguistic realization. Periñán-Pascual’s conception of construction differs from CxG and is closer to the LCM in the sense that constructions are viewed from a holistic perspective in which the meaning of the construction is always larger than the meaning of the building blocks conforming it. What is more, Periñán-Pascual (2013) shares ^[65]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez’s (2013) claim that for any linguistic pattern to be regarded as a construction some essential properties have to be met. Thus, the following criteria

17
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : 3. Argumental constructions in FunGramKB: A computational perspective

18
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : We have maintained the term ‘locative construction’ to exclusively refer to trivalent transitive constructions linked to putting verbs (such as the ‘spray/load class’) and also to some ‘removing’ verbs (such as ‘clear’, ‘clean’, ‘drain’ and ‘empty’), as exemplified in the following kernel constructs (examples (1) and (3)) and L1-constructions (examples (2) and (4)):^[85]^6

19
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, F. J. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp . 231-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins . [ [121]Links ]

20
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : ^1Steels (2017) revises the research programmes that have attempted to provide computational implementations that account for the way constructions are used in the parsing and production of utterances: Embodied Construction Grammar (Bergen & Chang, 2005 ), Fluid Construction Grammar (Steels, 2011), Sign-based Construction Grammar (Boas & Sag, 2012) and Template Construction Grammar (Barres & Lee, 2014).

21
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 ]

22
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines524 - : “(a) the relationship between power and language and the sociopolitical reasons that certain language varieties and practices are frequently constructed as inferior or unacceptable, (b) the ways in which these constructions are propagated, and (c) the consequences for speakers of varieties negatively constructed” (^[93]Leeman, 2005: 42 ).

23
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines562 - : Mihatsch, W. (en prensa). French type-noun constructions based on genre: From the creation of ad hoc categories to ad hoc categorization . En C. Mauri, I. Fiorentini & E. Goria (Eds.), Building categories in interaction: Linguistic resources at work. Nueva York/Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. [ [294]Links ]

Evaluando al candidato constructions:


2) grammar: 9 (*)
4) gbac: 7
5) lexical: 6 (*)
6) constructional: 6 (*)
7) periñán-pascual: 5
8) illocutionary: 5 (*)
9) fungramkb: 5 (*)
10) computational: 5 (*)
12) complexity: 4 (*)
13) goldberg: 4
15) hearer: 4 (*)
16) offer: 4
17) grammaticon: 4 (*)
20) speaker: 4 (*)

constructions
Lengua: eng
Frec: 168
Docs: 51
Nombre propio: 6 / 168 = 3%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 10
Puntaje: 10.856 = (10 + (1+6.18982455888002) / (1+7.40087943628218)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
constructions
: “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).
: Abbot-Smith, K. & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The german passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995-1026 [en línea]. Disponible en: [91]https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61
: Andrews, A. D. (2007). Relative clauses. En T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description . Volume II: Complex Constructions (pp. 206-236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: 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.
: Bybee, J. (2014). Analytic and holistic processing in the development of constructions. Language in Interaction: Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark, 12.
: Corpas Pastor, G. (2015). Register-specific Collocational constructions in English and Spanish: A usage-based approach. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 139-151.
: Dacygier, B. (1998). Conditionals and prediction: Time, knowledge and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (2005). Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Del Campo, N. (2013). Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.
: Delbecque, N. (1997). The Spanish copulas ser and estar. In M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 247-270). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax: Verbal constructions (Longman Linguistics Library). Londres, Nueva York: Longman.
: Dimitriadis, A. (2008). Irreducible symmetry in reciprocal constructions. In E. König & V. Gast (Eds.), Reciprocal and reflexives: Theoretical and typological (pp. 375-409). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Fumero, M. C. & Díaz, A. (2017). The interaction of parsing rules and argument-predicate constructions: Implications for the structure of the Grammaticon in FunGramKB. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 12, 33-44.
: Goldberg, A. & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532-568.
: Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/Londres: The University of Chicago Press.
: Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.
: Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions, a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
: Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Goldberg. A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
: Haspelmath, M. & Buchholz, O. (1998). Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. En J. v. d. Auwera (Ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (pp. 277-334). Berlín: de Gruyter.
: Haspelmath, M. (2004). Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: A usage- based approach. Constructions, 2, 1-71.
: Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2005) Evaluative ‘that’ constructions. Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39-63.
: Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and constructions of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Lingüistic, 20(3), 341-367.
: Kaschak, M. & Glenberg, A. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 43, 508–529.
: Knjazev, J. P. (2007). Lexical reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal situations. In V. P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp. 114-146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In J. Lantolf (Ed.),Sociocultural theory and second language learning(pp. 133-153). New York: Oxford University Press.
: Langacker, R. W. (1995). Possession and possessive constructions. En J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and Cognitive Construal of the World (pp. 51-79). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
: Langacker, R.W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
: Lichtenberk, F. (1985). Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 19-41.
: Linell, P. (2009). Grammatical constructions in dialogue. En A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and Constructions (pp. 97-110). Amterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Luzondo, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2015). Argument structure constructions in a Natural Language Processing environment. Language Sciences, 48(2015), 70-89.
: Mairal, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, F. J. (2008). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Ch. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing Constructions (pp. 153-198). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Mairal, R. (2017). A computational implementation of idiomatic and non-idiomatic constructions. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 50(94), 241-264.
: Mairal-Usón, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. En Ch. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153-198). Ámsterdam-Filadelfia: John Benjamins.
: Mateu, J. (2012). Conflation and incorporation processes in resultative constructions. En V. Demonte & L. McNally (Eds.), Telicity, Change, and State. A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure (pp. 252- 278). Oxford/Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
: McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers production of dative constructions. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(2), 179-207.
: Micheli, R. (2010). Emotions as objects of argumentative constructions. Argumentation, 24, 1-17.
: Moreno, J. (1990). Impersonal constructions in Spanish. En M. Hannay & E. Vesters (Eds.) Working with functional grammar: Descriptive and computational applications (pp. 31-40). Dordrecht: Foris.
: Nedjalkov, V. P. (2007). Overview of the research. In V. P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (p. 3-113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Nolan, B. (2011). Meaning construction and grammatical inflection in the layered structure of the Irish word: An RRG account of morphological constructions. In W. Nakamura (Ed.), New perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 64-101). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
: Nolan, B. (2014). Theoretical and computational considerations of linking constructions in Role and Reference Grammar. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(2), 410-442.
: 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.
: Pietrandrea, P. & Stathi, K. (2010). What counts as an evidential unit? The case of evidential complex constructions in Italian and modern Greek. STUF -Language Typolog y and Universals, 63(4), 345-357.
: Piller, I. (2001). Identity constructions in multilingual advertising. Language in Society, 30, 153-186.
: Querido, A. (1976). The semantics of copulative constructions in Portuguese. In M. Luján & F. Hensey (Eds.), Current studies in Romance linguistics (pp. 343-366). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
: Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95-128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2015). Entrenching inferences in implicational and illocutionary constructions. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 258-274.
: Sacco, V. (1995). Media constructions of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539, 141-154.
: Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science, 6(5), 557-567.
: Silva, 2014). As will be shown, in the FrametNet English Constructicon, which appears to still be work in progress, the treatment of grammatical constructions is inconsistent in some cases.
: Slobin, D. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. En M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195-217). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Torrent, T., Meireles Lage, L., Fernandes Sampaio, T., da Silva Tavares, T. & da Silva Santos, E. (2014). Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 33-50.
: Van Trijp, R. (2011). A design pattern for argument structure constructions. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 115-145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.