Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming Experiment and pedagogical implications

Abstract

The notion of argument construction is widely accepted in Cognitive Linguistics circles as a highly explanatory theoretical construct. It has recently been incorporated into the Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM; Ruiz de Mairal 2007, 2008), a theoretical approach to meaning construction that integrates argument constructions into a broader model that incorporates meaning dimensions traditionally dealt with in the domain of pragmatics and discourse analysis. The LCM has an argument level of description, in the form of constructional templates, which are in general equivalent to the argument constructions postulated in Goldberg's (1995Goldberg's ( , 2006 Construction Grammar, although there are crucial differences in the descriptive metalanguage and the principles used to explain their linguistic behavior. Since the LCM is geared to have psychological adequacy, like all cognitive (cf. Lakoff 1990) and some functional approaches to language (e.g. Dik 1997), it is essential to find to what extent the notion of argument construction is a real processing mechanism. This paper presents a priming experiment measuring reaction times to sentences that had the same formal configurations but were based on different argument constructions, and to sentences that were formally similar and embodied the same argument construction. Subjects responded significantly faster to target sentences that shared the same construction as the previously viewed sentences. Thus, constructions appear to be psychological entities that play an important role in linguistic processing. If this is correct, then it has potentially important consequences for planning adequate L2 teaching strategies.

Why in Spanish “Nos Ponemos Contentos” But not “Satisfechos”: A Cognitive‐Linguistic Review of The “Change‐of‐State Verb Ponerse + Adjective” Construction*

“…This is in line with constructionist approaches and the LCM, which acknowledge that resultatives are metaphorical extensions of caused-motion constructions, as the former inherit features from these low-level constructions (Goldberg 1995(Goldberg , 2006Ruiz de Mendoza & Luzondo 2016). Furthermore, following a constructionist approach which contends that users draw generalizations in the form of form-function patterns from the input is consistent with the finding that PCOS constructions have psychological plausibility for Spanish learners (Valenzuela & Rojo 2008, Eddington & Ruiz de Mendoza 2010. By highlighting the constraining factors in the representation of this metaphor, we have tackled the versatile semantic nature of this PCOS construction in Spanish.…”

Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English

“…Besides the RC, Goldberg ( 1995 ) devotes space to the following constructions: ditransitive ( John gave Mary a book ), CMC ( Pat sneezed the napkin off the table ), and way ( She elbowed her way into the room ). Other constructions have been recognized in the literature, such as the dative ( John gave a book to Mary ), conative ( He hit at the wall ), benefactive ( Jimmy picked fl owers for his sister ), or instrument subject ( The stone broke the window ) (see also Eddington & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2010 ). A more exhaustive list of constructions can be derived from Levin's ( 1993 ) seminal compilation of syntactic alternations, since each alternate is in fact an argument-structure construction in its own right (cf.…”

“…3 The present proposal also adheres to the constructional view of language according to which a construction is a form-meaning/function pairing that holds an empirically demonstrable psychologically real status (Bencini & Goldberg, 2000 , pp. 649-650;Eddington & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2010 ). 4 In this view, in the oft-quoted sentence The blacksmith hammered the metal fl at , the resultative ingredient ( fl at ) does not arise from the argument-structure characterization of the verb hammer (which has two arguments, one acting as the agent and another as the object) but from a higher-level construct, i.e., the RC, with which the verb hammer is compatible.…”

Figurative Meaning Construction: From Cognitive Operations to Thought and Culture

“…For example, in the sentence The audience laughed the actor off the stage, the verb 'laugh' is simply seen as coerced into the caused-motion construction (see Goldberg, 1995Goldberg, , 2006. However, Eddington and Ruiz de Mendoza (2010) and Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal (2011) noted that a licensing metaphor underlies this case of coercion; namely, AN EXPERIENTIAL ACTION IS AN EFFECTUAL ACTION. According to this metaphor, 'laugh' can be built into the caused-motion construction because it is possible to see psychological or emotional impact in terms of physical impact.…”