1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.02van
2016-12-19
2018-09-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.02van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.02van
Loading

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