California Linguistic Notes Volume Xxx No. 2 Fall, 2005

introduced by Ray Jackendoff (1983), also has considerable influence on the work of many construction grammarians (p. 191-192). Construction Grammar is no longer a new theory in linguistics but a tradition with respectable history since the late sixties (p. 123). This review highlights the work of Jan-Michaelis in the volume. This theory claims that the conceptual fundamentals to language are form-meaning configurations beyond morphemes and words (p. 1). The theory presupposes holistic syntactico-semantic prototypes that govern the distribution of language element in sentences. Construction becomes the overarching basis for sentence formation. The pragmatic constraints in the construction determine the combination of different parts in sentence patterns such as transitive and intransitive across languages (p. 32-33). In its formative phase, this theory professes to be generative and integrative in determining language patterns that have universal impact yet consistent with social interaction and cognition (p.1). These features differ across construction grammars, some of which are mentioned below. Interestingly in the fifth chapter Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon, Östman proposes discourse pattern (dp) as a construction. The need to project a metaphysical explanation for the sentences in various discourse patterns becomes a natural development for the theory. Against the generative nature and the descriptive adequacy of the theory (p.1, 12), dp is a higher order construction that either makes or breaks the accountability of Construction