Volume 34, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



One of the hallmarks of scientific theories is their falsifiability, i.e. the fact that they make predictions that can objectively be proven wrong. Thus, it is paramount that researchers, including linguists, are able to state what kind of evidence would lead them to abandon their scientific theory. Yet, researchers just like all other human beings are susceptible to confirmation bias, i.e. the fact that they only seek evidence that supports their existing views. In this squib, I will raise the question whether Construction Grammar can become a falsifiable theory.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Audring, Jenny
    2019 “Mothers or Sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge.” Word Structure12 (3): 274–296. 10.3366/word.2019.0150
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0150 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bencini, Giulia M. L.
    2013 “Psycholinguistics.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 379–396. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0021 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergen, Benjamin K. , and Nancy Chang
    2013 “Embodied Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 168–190. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0010 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, Hans C.
    2013 “Cognitive Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 233–252. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0013 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas, Hans C. , and Ivan A. Sag
    (eds.) 2012Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolhuis, Johan J.
    2019 “Review of Language in our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity by Angela D. Friederici.” Language95 (3): 568–572. 10.1353/lan.2019.0058
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0058 [Google Scholar]
  7. Booij, Geert
    2013 “Morphology in Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 255–273. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0014 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boye, Kasper , and Roelien Bastiaanse
    2018 “Grammatical versus Lexical Words in Theory and Aphasia: Integrating Linguistics and Neurolinguistics.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics3 (1): 29. 10.5334/gjgl.436
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.436 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, Joan L.
    2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2013 “Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 49–69. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cappelle, Bert
    2006 “Particle Placement and the Case for ‘Allostructions’.” Constructions1: 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coulson, Seana
    2017 “Language and the Brain.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier , 515–532. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.033
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.033 [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, William
    2012Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2013 “Radical Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 211–232. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0012 [Google Scholar]
  15. Croft, William , and Alan D. Cruse
    2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  16. Delogu, Francesca , Harm Brouwer , and Matthew W. Crocker
    2019 “Event-related Potentials Index Lexical Retrieval (N400) and Integration (P600) during Language Comprehension.” Brain and Cognition135: 103569. 10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dunbar, Kevin Niall and David Klahr
    2012 “Scientific Thinking and Reasoning.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, ed. by Keith J. Holyoak , and Robert G. Morrison , 701–718. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Eddington, David
    2008 “Linguistics and the Scientific Method.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics27: 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Eysenck, Michael W. , and Mark T. Keane
    2015Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook. 17th edn.London and New York: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9781315778006
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315778006 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fedorenko, Evelina , Idan Asher Blank , Matthew Siegelman , and Zachary Mineroff
    2020 “Lack of Selectivity for Syntax Relative to Word Meanings throughout the Language Network.” Cognition203: 104348. 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1985 “Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of Grammatical Construction.” Berkeley Linguistic Society11: 73–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1988 “The Mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’.” Berkeley Linguistic Society14, 35–55. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.179410.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, Charles J. , Paul Kay , and Mary C. O’Connor
    1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone.” Language64 (3): 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  24. Friederici, Angelka D.
    2017Language in our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262036924.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262036924.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2003 “Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences7 (5): 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013 “Constructionist Approaches.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 15–31. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2019Explain Me this: Creativity, Competition and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hatchard, Rachel
    2015 A Construction-based Approach to Spoken Language in Aphasia. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Herbst, Thomas , and Susen Schüller
    2008Introduction to Syntactic Analysis: A Valency Approach. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hilpert, Martin
    2018 “Three Open Questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” InGrammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, ed. by Evie Coussé , Peter Andersson , and Joel Olofsson , 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c2 O
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2019Construction Grammar and its Application to English. 2nd edn.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2013 “Abstract Phrasal and Clausal Constructions.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale , eds., 307–328. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0017 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2017 “Construction Grammars.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier , 310–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.020 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoffmann, Thomas , and Graeme Trousdale
    (eds.) 2013The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jackendoff, Ray
    2013 “Constructions in the Parallel Architecture.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 70–92. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0005 [Google Scholar]
  38. Johnson, Matt A. & Adele E. Goldberg
    2013 “Evidence for Automatic Accessing of Constructional Meaning: Jabberwocky Sentences Prime Associated Verbs.” Language and Cognitive Processes28 (10): 1439–1452. 10.1080/01690965.2012.717632
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.717632 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Michaelis, Laura A.
    2013 “Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 133–152. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0008 [Google Scholar]
  41. Müller, Stefan
    2018Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-based Approaches. 3rd edn.Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Perek, Florent
    2012 “Alternation-based Generalizations are Stored in the Mental Grammar: Evidence form a Sorting Task Experiment.” Cognitive Linguistics23 (3): 601–635. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2015Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  44. Petruck, Miriam R. L.
    1996 “Frame Semantics.” InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren , Jan-Ola Östman , Jan Blommaert , and Chris Bulcaen , 1–11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.2.fra1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.2.fra1 [Google Scholar]
  45. Popper, Karl
    1963Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Pulvermüller, Friedemann , Bert Cappelle , and Yury Shtyrov
    2013 “Brain Basis of Meaning, Words, Constructions, and Grammar.” In Hoffmann & Trousdale (eds.), 396–416. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0022
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0022 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sag, Ivan A. & Thomas Wasow
    2011 “Performance-compatible Competence Grammar.” InNon-transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar: A Guide to Current Models, ed. by Robert D. Borsley , and Kersti Börjars , 359–377. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 10.1002/9781444395037.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395037.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  48. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2020The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sharwood Smith, Michael
    2017Introducing Language and Cognition: A Map of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316591505
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316591505 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sommerer, Lotte , and Elena Smirnova
    (eds) 2020Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  51. Steels, Luc
    2013 “Fluid Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 152–167. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0009 [Google Scholar]
  52. Steels, Luc , and Joachim De Beule
    2006 “Unify and Merge in Fluid Construction Grammar.” InSymbol Grounding and Beyond: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on the Emergence and Evolution of Linguistic Communication, LNAI 4211, ed. by Paul Vogt , Yuuga Sugita , Elio Tuci , and Chrystopher Nehaniv , 197–223. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/11880172_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/11880172_16 [Google Scholar]
  53. Van Trijp, Remi
    2014 “Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The Case of Coercion and Argument Structure.” Cognitive Linguistics26 (4): 613–632. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0074 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2016 “Chopping Down the Syntax Tree: What Constructions Can Do Instead.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics30: 15–38. 10.1075/bjl.30.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.02van [Google Scholar]
  55. Ziegler, Jayden , Giulia Bencini , Adele Goldberg , and Jesse Snedeker
    2019 “How Abstract is Syntax? Evidence from Structural Priming.” Cognition193: 104045. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104045
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104045 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error