Abstract :
[en] In recent years, theoretical work in construction grammar has often focused on links between constructions and the design of the constructional network or constructicon (Wellens 2011; Van de Velde 2014; Diessel 2015). Regarding these networks, one of the issues on which we have managed to reach consensus, is the need for a vertical dimension, ranging from fully abstract to lexically specified constructions (Croft 2001: 25–29; Goldberg 2003; Fried and Östman 2004: 15–18). Still, corpus research only rarely explicitly takes this dimension into account and often restrict itself to one particular horizontal level in the network (e.g. Pijpops & Speelman 2017, for exceptions, see a.o. Boas 2010; Wible & Tsao 2017). While such an approach is certainly justifiable, we will argue that neglecting the multi-level nature of the constructicon has led to three problems of constructional semantics.
At least two of these, which will be called the Problem of Prediction and the Problem of Proliferation, have already been noted in earlier studies. The first pertains to the formulation of specific predictions regarding low-level constructions based on only high-level, abstract semantic notions such as affectedness, involvement or agency (see Lenci 2012: 13–15, and also Broccias 2001; Perek 2015: 90–144). For example, when discussing the influence of affectedness on the argument variation of the Italian verb rimproverare ‘reproach’, Lenci (2012: 14) notes that “this interpretation would require us to stretch the meaning of affectedness well beyond its standard (fairly high) vagueness and polysemy, thereby impairing its reliability as a truly explanatory notion”. The second problem relates to positing ever more concrete constructions, which may draw the critique of non-parsimony (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005; Traugott and Trousdale 2013: 5–11). We will attempt to demonstrate that these problems are caused by a third, more fundamental problem, named the Problem of Precedence. This problem asks at which level in the constructional network speakers primarily employ a construction to communicate meaning, optimize information structure or express lectal distinctions. Next, we will argue that this concern does not constitute a theoretical issue, but rather an empirical question.
Finally, we introduce a methodological approach to deal with this question. To illustrate the approach, we employ as a case study the alternation between the Dutch transitive and prepositional argument constructions, as in (1)-(2). We identify a seemingly motley collection of 102 verbs exhibiting the alternation and map out the relevant region of the constructional network. Fully abstract argument constructions are first put under scrutiny, after which we continue on to more lexically specific constructions. The goal of this procedure is to identify the precedence level at which the alternation is predominantly active, thus solving the Problem of Precedence. It will be demonstrated that doing so will also enable us to tackle both the Problems of Prediction and Proliferation.
(1) Minister Vandenbroucke zoekt (naar) een oplossing.
‘Secretary Vandenbroucke is searching a solution.’
(2) (Met) hete koffie gemorst.
‘Spilled hot coffee.’
