Editor for this issue: <>
Recent postings make it seem, perhaps inadvertently, that the idea of constructions as bearers of meanings is new and a departure from the generative approach. However, the very definition of construction in Bloomfield's immediate constituent work was precisely a pairing of form and meaning, and there are many examples of this in practice in his book Language, in his article on Ilokano syntax, and in his posthumous grammar of Menomini (a bit of this history is discussed in my paper "Ever since Bloomfield" in the proceedings of the last ICL). The dropping of the meaning component, as well as of several parts of Bloomfield's theory of the form of constructions (notably, his treatment of discontinuity, of free word order, of zeroes or ellipses, of crossclassification, and of constructions with an unbounded number of constituents) was just part of what happened when Harris and then Chomsky tried to "formalize" Bloomfield's theory. Re Lakoff's work, I would call attention to his paper in the recently published McCawley festscrift in which he defends the performatiive hypothesis. That surely is not part of lexical semantics.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue