Search Results

Grammar consists in patterns for assembling symbolically complex expressions. Such expressions are characterized as assemblies of symbolic structures, also called constructions. In large measure, symbolic assemblies are hierarchically arranged: at a given level of organization, component symbolic structures are integrated to form a composite symbolic structure, which can in turn function as component structure at a higher level, and so on. Component structures are integrated both semantically and phonologically, the phonological integration serving to symbolize the semantic integration. Although linguistic meanings are only partially compositional, compositional patterns are essential to the formation and understanding of novel expressions. These patterns are themselves symbolic assemblies, differing from expressions just by virtue of being schematic rather than specific; they are thus referred to as constructional schemas. Abstracted from occurring expressions, these schemas serve as templates for assembling and assessing new ones. A distinction is made between unipolar and bipolar organization, depending on whether the elements involved are delimited solely on semantic or phonological grounds or whether they are delimited by their participation in symbolic relationships. That is, unipolar organization is a matter of phonological or conceptual structure per se, considered independently of symbolic relationships, whereas bipolar organization pertains to the semantic and phonological structures which function in lexicon and grammar. Unipolar and bipolar organization do not have to match at either the semantic or the phonological pole.

The distinction between coordination and subordination is not clear-cut. The essence of coordination is the mental juxtaposition of structures construed as parallel and co-equal. Subordination has a number of dimensions, including form, the participation of one clause in the relationship profiled by another, and a clause's profile being overridden at the composite structure level. Constituency and profiling are often flexible, depending on factors like the size of clauses and their discourse function. The traditional division into adverbial, relative, and complement clauses is based primarily on how clauses are connected with one another. To the extent that these distinctions hold, they are based on semantic function rather than specific structural configurations. In the case of complements, the classic distinction between control and raising constructions is non-fundamental, the latter being just a special case of the former. Finite and nonfinite complements differ not just in form but in meaning and typical function. Predicates taking finite complements pertain to the epistemic status of propositions; those taking nonfinite complements pertain to the realization of occurrences. Complementation involves multiple conceptualizers and levels of conception. Different conceptualizers apprehend the same proposition each from their own perspective, assessing it with respect to their own conception of reality. Complement-taking predicates refer to different phases of this assessment. Impersonal constructions invoke a conceptualizer and the relevant scope of awareness in generalized fashion, suggesting that anyone would make the assessment under the circumstances.