The constructionalization of body part terms in Arabic Dana Abdulrahim University of Bahrain Terms denoting human/animal body parts have cross-linguistically been noted to have extended functions that go beyond their basic referential uses. For instance, terms such as HEAD, FACE, EYE have grammaticalized in some languages into spatial markers, while terms such as BODY and FACE have developed into reflexive markers (Heine and Kuteva, 2002). Terms referring to HEART, LIVER, BILE are noted to participate in constructions and idiomatic expressions that associate with emotions. In addition, terms denoting EAR, EYE, TONGUE, HAND, FOOT – that refer to body parts responsible for perception, motion, speech and other functions – can emerge in idiomatic collocations or as verbs that refer to dynamic situations in which those body part terms are typically used (Heine, 2011), as in could you hand me that book? Body part terms in Arabic show a similar pattern in that they participate in idiomatic expressions and can also be used to mark spatial relations. More interestingly, however, the majority of body part terms in Arabic are considered morphologically simple lexical items, in that little to zero derivation is involved in the lexicalization of terms such as ʽayn ‘eye’, ra’s ‘head’, baṭn ‘stomach’, etc. As a Semitic language, a large part of the process of lexicalizing verbs (and other lexical categories) relies on fitting bi-/tri-/quadri-consonantal ‘roots’ within particular morpho-phonological ‘grids’. According to many Arabists, the resulting lexical items are “variants [that] have a central, related lexical meaning, but each verb form has a different semantic slant on that meaning.” (Ryding, 2005:434). Arabic body part terms lend themselves to this type of process and serve as roots that can be systematically incorporated into verb ‘forms’ or constructions. For instance, tara’assa ‘headed s.th.’, as in tara’assa al’eǧtimaʿ ‘headed the meeting’, is an instance of a verb construction resulting from combining ra’s ‘head’ with Verb Form V. It has been argued that the 10 verb forms in Arabic vary in their individual (abstracted) meanings, and in the semantic load which they bring into the verb construction. The least complex Verb Form I is argued to be the “unaugmented” form, which is closest to the basic meaning of the root (Holes, 2004), while the “augmented” Forms (II – X) vary in terms of voice, valency, and aspect. That is to say, these verb forms are supposed to add, for instance, a causative, reciprocal, mutual, reflexive, or passive meaning to the root (Holes, 2004; Ryding 2005; among others). Yet, there is still no consensus among Arabists as to what may be considered the most fundamental meaning of each verb form. The question that this paper attempts to answer is what counts as a non-referential, yet integral part of the meaning of a body part term in Arabic that can contribute to the lexicalization of a verb and the construal of an event. I will discuss my preliminary examination of verb constructions hosting body part terms and showing a variety of meaning extensions that build on metaphorical and metonymical associations to particular body parts, as exhibited in Classical Arabic dictionary entries and Modern Standard Arabic corpora. In general, the analysis shows that the meaning extensions of these verbs do not always include a (direct) typical use of the body part, such as SEEING for EYE, or SMELLING for NOSE. For instance, a couple of verbs derived with ‘anf ‘nose’ may involve a temporal reading: ‘i’tanafa and ‘ista’nafa ‘to nose s.th.’ (both meaning ‘to resume’). In addition, a number of body part-related verbs that are derived with the supposedly “unaugmented” Verb Form I indicate the meaning of affliction. For example, naḥara, ‘to upper chest s.o.’, is to cut someone’s throat. Clearly, meaning extensions of such verbs in are not necessarily predictable, neither by the body parts they associate with nor by the semantic information presumably residing in the different morpho-phonological patterns of the Arabic verb. The result is an abstraction of the basic meaning of the body part, as in the ‘nose’ example. In this paper, I will also discuss the fact that while certain verb constructions are no longer in use in Modern Standard Arabic, the ones that persisted may have acquired more specific meanings in current language use and would therefore appear in a more limited set of constructions in MSA than they did in Classical Arabic. References Heine, B. “The Human Body as a Template in the Evolution of Grammar”. Presentation at the Body in Language: Lexicon, Metaphor, Grammar, and Culture; University of Warsaw, Poland, 21-22 October 2011. Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holes, C. (2004). Modern Arabic, revised edition: Modern Arabic: Structures, functions, and varieties. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Ryding, K. C. (2005). A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Two kinds of cognitive pedagogical grammars Michel Achard Rice University Recent publications have illustrated the benefits of adopting the Cognitive Linguistics (CL) model to second language teaching. This presentation further highlights the model’s contributions by presenting two different views of grammatical instruction that both implement the CL’s most basic tenets. These two methods afford second language instructors the flexibility of addressing the pedagogical demands of specific grammatical constructions with the most appropriate tools to introduce them in their classroom. In the usage-based model (Langacker 2000), the form of grammar reflects the users’ expression of their conceptualizations in specific “usage events” (Langacker 2000: 10). Grammatical rules emerge from their multiple instances, and represent the conventionalized ways of construing the conceptualized scenes. In a second language, teaching grammar therefore consists in placing the learner in the best conditions to make the kinds of choices a native speaker would make in similar situations. Consequently, usage-based instruction will be inductive (since rules emerge out of usage), implicit (since syntax has no particular status in acquisition), and will include as few metalinguistic concepts as possible since the rules are merely more abstract than their instances. Cognitive Linguistics also places strong emphasis on the sociocultural dimensions of language learning because the child’s linguistic system is formed largely in relation to other users. For a second language learner, the classroom context provides the locus where instruction and development are drawn together “into an organic unity that arises in concrete practical activity.” (Negueruela and Lantolf 2006: 80). Since second language learners already possess a fully developed conceptual system, “[s]econd language instruction is a matter of not only learning new forms but also internalizing new or reorganizing already existing concepts.” (Negueruela and Lantolf 2006: 81). Consequently, “[c]oncept-based instruction supports explicit instruction in grammar to promote the learner’s awareness and control over specific conceptual categories as they are linked to formal properties of language” (Negueruela and Lantolf 2006: 82). In this view, new concepts are not only explicit, but also “talked through” with the help of didactic models such as charts and diagrams, in order to ensure successful incorporation into the learner’s cognitive system. The adoption of the CL model therefore seems to lead instructors along two seemingly opposite paths. On the one hand, teaching grammar as usage demands inductive, implicit, bottom-up instruction, while teaching grammar as concepts requires deductive, explicit, top-down introduction. This presentation shows that far from being problematic, this situation allows instructors to considerably extend the scope of their grammatical instruction because different constructions lend themselves better to different presentational strategies. Concept-based instruction is particularly efficient with “formal” categories, i.e. categories where a specific form is reliably associated with a specific meaning, while usage-based instruction is preferred to introduce grammatical categories whose meaning is not reflected by a single form. This is in particular the case for “functional” categories composed of different forms held together by common semantic functions and idioms or semi-constructed chunks. This presentation examines examples of both “formal” and “functional” categories to illustrate how usage-based and concept- based instructions combine to provide successful grammatical instruction in the communicative classroom. References Langacker, R. W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp.1-63). Stanford: CSLI. Negueruela, E. & J. Lantolf. 2006. Concept-based instruction and the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In R. Salaberry, & B. Lafford (eds.), The Art of Teaching Spanish (pp. 65-100). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. The Agreement Construction Carlos Acuña-Fariña USC, Spain Construction Grammar has offered insightful accounts of a large set of both regular and idiosyncratic constructions, including idioms and all kinds of ‘prefabs’, as well as of variously productive constructions like the Time Away Construction, the What´s X doing Y Construction, and many others. An outstanding lacuna in this large set of studies