Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Word order, argument structure and unbounded dependencies are among the most important topics in linguistics because they touch upon the core of the syntax-semantics interface. One question is whether “marked” word order patterns, such as vs. require special treatment by the grammar or not. Mainstream linguistics answers this question affirmatively: in the marked order, some mechanism is necessary for “extracting” from its original argument position, and a special placement rule (e.g. topicalization) is needed for putting the constituent in clause-preceding position. This paper takes an opposing view and argues that such formal complexity is only required for analyses that are based on syntactic trees. A tree is a rigid data structure that only allows information to be shared between local nodes, hence it is inadequate for non-local dependencies and can only allow restricted word order variations. A on the other hand, offers a more powerful representation device that allows word order variations – even unbounded dependencies – to be analyzed as the side-effect of how language users combine the same rules in different ways in order to satisfy their communicative needs. This claim is substantiated through a computational implementation of English argument structure constructions in Fluid Construction Grammar that can handle both comprehension and formulation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bod, Rens
    2009 “Constructions at Work or at Rest?.” Cognitive Linguistics20 (1): 129–134. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2009.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.006 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bybee, Joan and Clay Beckner
    2010 “Usage-Based Theory.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog , 827–855. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chafe, Wallace
    1994Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicaco: University of Chicaco Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, Noam
    1956 “Three models for the description of language.” IRE Transactions on Information Theory2: 113–124. doi: 10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813 [Google Scholar]
  5. 1977 “On WH-Movement.” InFormal Syntax, ed. by Peter W. Culicover , Thomas Wasow , and Adrian Akmajian . San Francisco/London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft, William
    1998 “Event Structure in Argument Linking.” InThe Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. by Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder , 21–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [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: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  8. Dabrowska, Ewa
    2008 “Questions With Long-Distance Dependencies: A Usage-Based Perspective.” Cognitive Linguistics19 (3): 391–425. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2008.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.015 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dabrowska, Ewa , Caroline Rowland , and Anna Theakston
    2009 “The Acquisition of Questions with Long-Distance Dependencies.” Cognitive Linguistics20: 571597. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2009.025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.025 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dik, Simon C.
    1997The Theory ofFunctional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure ofthe Clause. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1975 “Against Checklist Theories of Meaning.” InProceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Cathy Cogen , 123–131. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1988 “The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”.” InProceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gazdar, Gerald
    1981 “Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry12: 155–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gibson, Edward
    1998 “Linguistic Complexity: Locality of Syntactic Dependencies.” Cognition68: 1–76. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00034‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2000 “The Dependency Locality Theory: A Distance-Based Theory of Linguistic Complexity.” InImage, Language, Brain, ed. by Yasushi Miyashita , Alec P. Marantz , and Wayne O’Neil , 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, Adele E. and Alex Del Giudice
    2005 “Subject-Auxiliary Inversion: A Natural Category.” The Linguistic Review2: 411–428.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grice, Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan , 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hawkins, J.A.
    2004Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Joshi, Aravind
    1985 “How much context-sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions.” InNatural Language Processing: Theoretical, Computational, and Psychological Perspectives, ed. by David R. Dowty , Lauri Karttunen , and Arnold M. Zwicky , 206–250. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597855.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597855.007 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaplan, Ronald M. and Annie Zaenen
    1995 “Long-Distance Dependencies, Constituent Structure, and Functional Uncertainty.” InFormal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. by Mary Dalrymple , Ronald M. Kaplan , John T. Maxwell III , and Annie Zaenen , 137–165. Stanford: Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kay, Martin
    1979 “Functional Grammar.” InProceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 142–158. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mannning, Christopher D. and Hinrich Schütze
    1999Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Penn, Gerald
    2012 “Computational Linguistics.” InThe Philosophy ofLinguistics, ed. by Tim Fernando Ruth Kempson and Nicholas Asher , 143–174. Amsterdam: North Holland. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑444‑51747‑0.50005‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51747-0.50005-6 [Google Scholar]
  26. Perek, Florent
    2015Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar, Volume 17 of Constructional Approaches to Language. John Benjamins: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag
    1994Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago/Stanford: University of Chicago Press/CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rijkhoff, Jan
    1992The Noun Phrase: A Typological Study of its Form and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sag, Ivan A.
    2010 “English Filler-Gap Constructions.” Language86 (3): 486–545. doi: 10.1353/lan.2010.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sag, Ivan A. and Thomas Wasow
    2011 “Performance-Compatible Competence Grammar.” InNon-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, ed. by Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Börjars , 359–377. Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444395037.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395037.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sag, Ivan A. , Thomas Wasow , and Emily M. Bender
    2003Syntactic Theory. A Formal Introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Steels, Luc
    (ed) 2011Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  33. . To appear. “The Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. van Trijp, Remi
    2011 “A Design Pattern for Argument Structure Constructions.” InDesign Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, ed. by Luc Steels . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.11.07tri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.07tri [Google Scholar]
  35. 2015 “Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The Case of Coercion and Argument Structure.” Cognitive Linguistics26: 613–632. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0074 [Google Scholar]
  36. van Trijp, Remi and Luc Steels
    2012 “Multilevel Alignment Maintains Language Systematicity.” Advances in Complex Systems15 (3–4).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Verhagen, Arie
    2005Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax and Cognition. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wellens, Pieter
    2011 “Organizing Constructions in Networks.” InDesign Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, ed. by Luc Steels , 181–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.11.10wel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.10wel [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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