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



Construction Grammar was founded on the promise of maximal empirical coverage without compromising on formal precision. Its main claim is that all linguistic knowledge can be represented as constructions, similar to the notion of constructions from traditional grammars. As such, Construction Grammar may finally reconcile the needs of descriptive and theoretical linguistics by establishing a common ground between them. Unfortunately, while the construction grammar community has developed a sophisticated understanding of what a construction is supposed to be, many critics still believe that a construction is simply a new jacket for traditional linguistic analyses and therefore inherits all of the problems of those analyses. The goal of this article is to refute such criticisms by showing how constructions can be formalized as open-ended and multidimensional linguistic representations that make no prior assumptions about the structure of a language. While this article’s proposal can be simply written down in a pen-and-paper style, it verifies the validity of its approach through a computational implementation of German field topology in Fluid Construction Grammar.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    2009 “The Development of Case in Germanic.” InThe Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal , and Shobhana L. Chelliah , 123–159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.108.09bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.108.09bar [Google Scholar]
  2. Blake, Barry J.
    1983 “Structure and Word Order in Kalkatungu: The Anatomy of a Flat Language.” Australian Journal of Linguistics3(2): 143–175. 10.1080/07268608308599307
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608308599307 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bod, Rens
    2009 “Constructions at Work or at Rest?” Cognitive Linguistics20(1): 129–134. 10.1515/COGL.2009.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.006 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, Noam
    1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  5. 1981Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2003 “Lexical Rules vs Constructions: A False Dichotomy.” InMotivation in Language Studies: Studies in Honour of Günter Radden, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens , Thomas Berg , René Dirven , and Klaus-Uwe Panther , 49–68. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  8. 2010 “Ten Unwarranted Assumptions in Syntactic Argumentation.” InLanguage Usage and Language Structure, ed. by Kasper Boye , and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen , 313–350. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dik, Simon
    1997The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Drach, Erich
    1937Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, Nicholas , and Stephen C. Levinson
    2009 “The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and Its Importance for Cognitive Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences32: 429–492. 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, Charles J. , Kay, Paul , and Mary Catherine 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]
  13. Fried, Mirjam , and Jan-Ola Östman
    2004 “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch.” InConstruction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, ed. by Mirjam Fried , and Jan-Ola Östman , 11–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  14. Gil, David
    2013 “Riau Indonesian: A Language Without Nouns and Verbs.” InFlexible Word Classes. Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, ed. by Jan Rijkhoff , and Eva van Lier , 89–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668441.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668441.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldberg, Adele E.
    2013 “Argument Structure Constructions Versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates.” Mind & Language28(4): 435–465. 10.1111/mila.12026
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12026 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hale, Kenneth
    1983 “Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-Configurational Languages.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory1(1): 5–74. 10.1007/BF00210374
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00210374 [Google Scholar]
  17. Haspelmath, Martin
    2009 “Framework-Free Grammatical Theory.” The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine , and Heiko Narrog , 341–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0014 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lichte, Timm , and Laura Kallmeyer
    2017 “Tree-Adjoining Grammar: A Tree-Based Constructionist Grammar Framework for Natural Language Understanding.” In: The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding: Technical Report SS-17-02, 205–212. Stanford: AAAI Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Micelli, Vanessa
    2012 “Field Topology and Information Structure: A Case Study for German Constituent Order.” Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar, ed. by Luc Steels , 178–211. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑34120‑5_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34120-5_8 [Google Scholar]
  20. Michaelis, Laura A.
    2009 “Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine , and Heiko Narrog , 155–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Müller, Stefan , and Stephen Wechsler
    2014 “Lexical Approaches to Argument Structure.” Theoretical Linguistics40(1–2):1–76. 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nordlinger, Rachel
    1998A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014 “Constituency and Grammatical Relations in Australian Languages.” InThe Languages of Australia: A Comprehensive Guide, ed. by Harold Koch , and Rachel Nordlinger , 215–261. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110279771.215
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110279771.215 [Google Scholar]
  24. Osborne, Timothy , and Thomas Gross
    2012 “Constructions are Catenae: Construction Grammar Meets Dependency Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics23: 165–216. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0006 [Google Scholar]
  25. Pollard, Carl , and Ivan A. Sag
    1994Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago/Stanford: University of Chicago Press/CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sag, Ivan A. , Kaplan, Ronals , Karttunen, Lauri , Kay, Martin , Pollard, Carl , Shieber, Stuart , and Annie Zaenen
    1986 “Unification and Grammatical Theory.” Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 5: 238–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Steels, Luc
    2004 “Constructivist Development of Grounded Construction Grammars.” InProceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), 9–16. Barcelona: ACL. 10.3115/1218955.1218957
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1218955.1218957 [Google Scholar]
  28. (ed.) 2011Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017 “The Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames9(2): 178–225. 10.1075/cf.00002.ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00002.ste [Google Scholar]
  30. Tesnière, Lucien
    1959Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Van de Velde, Freek
    2009De Nominale Constituent: Structuur en Geschiedenis [The noun phrase: Structure and diachrony]. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. van Trijp, Remi
    2014 “Long-Distance Dependencies Without Filler-Gaps: A Cognitive-Functional Alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar.” Language and Cognition6(2): 242–270. 10.1017/langcog.2014.8
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Van Valin Jr., Robert D.
    1993Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.82
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.82 [Google Scholar]
  34. Wells, Rulon S.
    1947 “Immediate Constituents.” Language23(2):81–117. 10.2307/410382
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410382 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construction grammar; descriptive adequacy; representations; syntactic analysis
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