1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 16, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Many issues face construction grammar today. I start with the role of usage in construction grammar, and trace the changes in the usage-based model from mental storage to social interaction to evolution of populations of speakers and utterances. Just as speech communities and linguistic categories can be described as evolving populations, so can the construction grammar community and the theoretical concepts and formalisms that have evolved in it. Meaning remains the most challenging question for the future. Meaning is human experience, incredibly rich, and I suggest that construction grammar move away from mental representations to radical embodiment (existential phenomenology).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23011.cro
2024-08-15
2025-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.23011.cro
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  2. Becker, J.
    (1975) The phrasal lexicon [Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 3081, Artificial Intelligence Report No. 28]. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 10.3115/980190.980212
     https://doi.org/10.3115/980190.980212 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beckner, C., Blythe, R. A., Bybee, J. L., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Jinyun Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 591: 1–26. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergen, B., & Chang, N.
    (2013) Embodied Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.168–90). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolinger, D.
    (1975) Aspects of language (2nd ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (1976) Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 11, 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bratman, M.
    (1992) Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review, 1011, 327–41. 10.2307/2185537
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2185537 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J. L.
    (1985) Morphology: A study into the relation between meaning and form. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chafe, W.
    (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. InC. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.25–56). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (1977) The recall and verbalization of past experience. InP. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp.215–46). Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (Ed.) (1980) The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark, Herbert H.
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  15. (1998) Communal lexicons. InK. Malmkjaer & J. Williams (Eds.), Context in language learning and language understanding (pp.63–87). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Comrie, B.
    (1978) Ergativity. InW. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntactic typology (pp.329–94). University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cowley, S. J.
    (2016) Entrenchment: A view from radical embodied cognitive science. InSchmid, H-J. (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.409–31). Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft, W.
    (1990) A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (or, a taxonomy of propositional acts). Journal of Semantics, 71, 245–79. 10.1093/jos/7.3.245
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/7.3.245 [Google Scholar]
  19. (1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  23. Croft, W.
    (2007) The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics, 181, 339–82. 10.1515/COG.2007.021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.021 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2009a) Toward a social cognitive linguistics. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp.395–420). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.25cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.25cro [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009b) Constructions and generalizations. [Review of the bookConstructions at work: The nature of generalization in language, byA. Goldberg]. Cognitive Linguistics, 201, 157–66. 10.1515/COGL.2009.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.009 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2010a) Relativity, linguistic variation and language universals. CogniTextes, 41, 303. cognitextes.revues.org/303/. 10.4000/cognitextes.303
     https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.303 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2010b) The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 481, 1–48. 10.1515/ling.2010.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2011) Language as a process. InI. Arnon & E. V. Clark (Eds.), Experience, variation and generalization: Learning a first language (pp.242–60). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tilar.7.14cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.7.14cro [Google Scholar]
  29. (2021) Ten lectures on construction grammar and typology. Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (2022a) Morphosyntax: Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316145289
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316145289 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2022b) On two mathematical representations for ‘semantic maps’. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 41(1), 67–87. 10.1515/zfs‑2021‑2040
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2021-2040 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2023) Word classes in Radical Construction Grammar. InE. Van Lier (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of word classes (pp.213–230). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198852889.013.48
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198852889.013.48 [Google Scholar]
  33. Croft, W., & Poole, K. T.
    (2008) Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics, 341, 1–37. 10.1515/THLI.2008.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  35. Dreyfus, H. L.
    (1982) Introduction. InH. L. Dreyfus & H. Hall (Eds.), Husserl, intentionality and cognitive science (pp.1–27). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. (1991) Being-in-the-world: A commentary of Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (1992) What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (1993) Heidegger’s critique of the Husserl/Searle account of intentionality. Social Research, 601, 17–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2000) A Merleau-Pontyian critique of Husserl’s and Searle’s representationalist accounts of action. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1001, 287–302.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (2002) Intelligence without representation – Merleau-Ponty’s critique of mental representation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11, 367–383. 10.1023/A:1021351606209
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021351606209 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2007) Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Artificial Intelligence, 1711, 1137–60. 10.1016/j.artint.2007.10.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame Semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 641, 501–538. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Inversion and constructional inheritance. InG. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig and A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (pp.113–28). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Gross, M.
    (1979) On the failure of generative grammar. Language, 551, 859–885. 10.2307/412748
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412748 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hass, L.
    (2008) Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Heidegger, M.
    (1962) Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Transl.). Harper and Row. (Original work published 1927).
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Höder, S.
    (2018) Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. InH. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp.37–70). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.24.02hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.02hod [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoffman, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hopper, P.
    (1987) Emergent Grammar. InJ. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.139–157). Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hull, D L.
    (1988) Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2006) The essence of scientific theories. Biological Theory, 11, 17–19. 10.1162/biot.2006.1.1.17
     https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2006.1.1.17 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kay, P.
    (2013) The limits of (construction) grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.32–48). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. (1988) A usage-based model. InB. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.127–161). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  58. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol II: Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.1–63). Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. (2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.225–67). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.17lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.17lan [Google Scholar]
  61. Law, J.
    (2019) Diachronic frame analysis: The Purpose frame in French. Constructions and Frames, 111, 43–78. 10.1075/cf.00023.law
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00023.law [Google Scholar]
  62. Levinson, S. C., Meira, S., & the Language and Cognition Group
    (2003) ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 791, 485–516. 10.1353/lan.2003.0174
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0174 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lewis, D.
    (1969) Convention. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Mayr, E.
    (1982) The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, inheritance. Belknap Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Merleau-Ponty, M.
    (2012) Phenomenology of perception (D. Landes, Transl.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945.)
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Neisser, J. U.
    (2001) [Review of the bookPhilosophy in the flesh, byG. Lakoff & M. Johnson]. Language, 771, 166–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Pierrehumbert, J. B.
    (2003) Phonetic diversity, statistical learning and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 461, 115–54. 10.1177/00238309030460020501
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309030460020501 [Google Scholar]
  68. Prince, E. F.
    (1978) A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 541, 883–906. 10.2307/413238
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413238 [Google Scholar]
  69. Regier, T., Khetarpal, N., & Majid, A.
    (2013) Inferring semantic maps. Linguistic Typology, 171, 89–105. 10.1515/lity‑2013‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2013-0003 [Google Scholar]
  70. Tomasello, M.
    (1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527678
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527678 [Google Scholar]
  71. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1982) Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have an eat?Language, 581, 753–799. 10.2307/413956
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413956 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23011.cro
Loading
Philosophical reflections on the future of construction grammar (or, confessions of a Radical Construction Grammarian)
Constructions and Frames 16, 191 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23011.cro
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23011.cro
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23011.cro
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual space; construction grammar; evolutionary model; Frame Semantics; meaning; phenomenology; radical embodiment; scientific community; social interaction; usage-based model

Most Cited

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