Construction Grammar: Disciples and Followers

Firuza Sobirova

doi:10.1997/a2rhzz57

Authors

Firuza Sobirova Teacher of the Department of English Philology, Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages, Uzbekistan Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1997/a2rhzz57

Keywords:

construction, collostruction, argument structure

Abstract

The present study is related to the linguistic description of special units in language: constructions or collostructions. They are characterized as not simple, since they consist of several simpler units, but function as a single whole. Achievements in this field can no longer be ignored – they have to be included in all linguistic theories, regardless of the initial postulates, accepting that the facts require recognition of the closest connection between form and meaning. For this reason, I think it is necessary to mention about Construction Grammar. On the other hand, the philosophy of corpus-based approach envisages well in the framework of the Construction Grammar. The concern will be about different concepts, descriptions, and theories of language in Construction Grammar. The theory of the Construction Grammar (abbreviated CxG or CG) was suggested at the end of 80s – it was from the time when this term began to appear in the lectures and public speeches. The founder of CG is a linguist Charles Fillmore, who generally writes a little and has practically no books.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Biber, D., Conrad, S & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D., Johansson, S, Leech, G, Conrad, S & Finegan, E. (2006). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Erteschik-Shir, N. (1979). Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement. T. Givón (ed.) Discourse and Syntax: Syntax and Semantics. New York, San Diego & London: Academic Press, 441—487.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (1986). Varieties of conditional sentences. Proceedings of the Third Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics, 163—182.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (1988). The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14, 35—55.

Fried, M & Boas, H.S. (2005). Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fried, M & Östman, J. (eds.). (2004). Construction Grammar in a Cross Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gries, S. Th & Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 8(2), 209-243. John Benjamins Publishing.

Gries, S. Th & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspective on 'alternations'. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1), 97—129.

Gropen, J., Pinker, S, Hollander, M, Goldberg, R & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English Language, 65(2), 203—257.

Leech, G., Hundt, M, Mair, Ch & Smith, N. (2010). Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S, Leech, G, Svartvik, J & Crystal, D. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in Language Teaching. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sobirova, F.U. (2022) A Corpus-Based Study of Near Synonyms: Should and Have To. European Journal of Business Startups and Open Society.