Permalink : http://hdl.handle.net/2115/52322

KEYWORDS : Compatibility;construction;non-prototypical;constructions;reveal

This paper aims to develop the theory of Construction Grammar by exploring the issue of compatibility between constructions. Goldberg(2006:10,21-22)maintains that an actual expression is typically analyzable as the amalgam of several distinct constructions,predicting that non-conflicts between constructions will result in actual felicitous expressions but unsolved conflicts judgments of infelicity(ibid:21-22). The present paper discusses the following related issues:(i)the nature of conflicts between constructions;(ii)the mechanisms of“conflict solving”; and(iii)what other consequences(besides felicity/infelicity)do non-conflicts/conflicts between constructions have? The paper identifies four distinct major patterns of compatibility statuses―complete compatibility, partial compatibility,serious incompatibility and absolute incompatibility,respectively. Basing itself on a survey of both constructed and natural data of several different types of mixed imperative constructions,the paper makes the following claims. First,the complete compatibility between constructions results in felicity and may result in high frequency of use as well(e.g. the imperative in the active voice). Second,partial compatibility leads to felicity but with low frequency of use(e.g.the imperative with the progressive verb). Third,serious incompatibility yields either infelicity or felicity with low frequency of use(e.g.the imperative in the passive voice or the imperative in the subordinate clause). Finally,absolute incompatibility results in infelicity( e.g.Topicalization with imperatives with overt subjects). The mechanisms of cross-constructional conflicts within mixed imperative constructions as well as their solutions are demonstrated to involve multiple cognitive conceptions/operations ―included are the core vs.peripheral portions of semantic structure,adherence to(or departure from)prototypes and conflicts between irreconcilable semantic roles as well as those between rhetorical vs.non-rhetorical interpretations,among others.