1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Construction Grammar is a nomadic family of theoretical approaches whose members are constantly moving in various directions. The diversity in construction-based approaches is a clear sign of a thriving and tolerant research community, but it also risks muddying the waters, leading to potential confusion. In this paper, I argue that the main source of confusion about Construction Grammar stems from the community’s gradual evolution from the traditional view of languages as static, idealized entities (the “aggregate” perspective) to the view of language as a complex adaptive system (the “population” perspective). While the aggregate perspective abstracts away as much as possible from variation and language usage, the population perspective greatly emphasizes the dynamics of language and situated communicative interactions. This paper illustrates what it means to perform constructional analyses from the population perspective; and argues that Construction Grammar is particularly well-positioned to lead the way in this new kind of linguistics, indicating that our community has a bright future ahead.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23013.van
2024-08-15
2024-09-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.23013.van
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackerman, F., & Webelhuth, G.
    (1998) A theory of predicates. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baerman, M.
    (2009) Case syncretism. InA. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Cronin, B.
    (2003) The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography, (), –. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.281
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.281 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B.
    (1998) The Berkeley FrameNet project. COLING-ACL ’98: Proceedings of the Conference, –. 10.3115/980845.980860
     https://doi.org/10.3115/980845.980860 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N.
    (2005) Embodied Construction Grammar in simulated-based language understanding. InJ.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.08ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber [Google Scholar]
  7. Beuls, K., Van Eecke, P., & Cangalovic, V. S.
    (2021) A computational construction grammar approach to semantic frame extraction. Linguistics Vanguard, (), 20180015. 10.1515/lingvan‑2018‑0015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0015 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bleys, J.
    (2014) Language strategies for the domain of colour. Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bloomfield, L.
    (1933) Language. H. Holt and Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Boas, H. C.
    (2008) Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (2021) Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. InX. Wen & R. J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. –). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑5
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-5 [Google Scholar]
  12. Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T.
    (2019) Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, (2019), –. 10.1515/lex‑2019‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2019-0002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A.
    (Eds.) (2012) Sign-based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A.
    (2018) Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. InL. Borin, B. Lyngfelt, K. Hirose Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.07boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.07boa [Google Scholar]
  15. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2002) On nature and language (A. Belletti & L. Rizzi, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613876
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613876 [Google Scholar]
  17. Clark, H. H.
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft, W.
    (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]
  19. (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language studies: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  20. (2010) Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation. InK. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. –). Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219180.4.313
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219180.4.313 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dowty, D. R.
    (1996) Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. InH. Bunt & A. Horck (Eds.), Discontinous constituency (pp. –). Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110873467.11
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873467.11 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1977) Scenes-and-Frames Semantics. InA. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. –). North-Holland.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (1982) Frame Semantics. InThe Linguistics Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. –). Hanshin Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (1988) The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, –. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2008) Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. InJ. D. Elisenda Bernal (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th EURALEX international congress (pp. –). Institut Universitari de Linguistica Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2013) Berkeley Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C.
    (2009) A Frames approach to semantic analysis. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P.
    (1995) Construction Grammar. University of California, Berkeley. https://zenodo.org/record/4737707
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, (), –. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhodes, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet Constructicon. InH. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. –). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
    (2004) Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. InM. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  33. Gärdenfors, P.
    (2000) Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/2076.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2076.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Givón, T.
    (2001) Syntax: An introduction (Vol.). John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2013) Argument Structure Constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, (), –. 10.1111/mila.12026
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12026 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2019) Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Goldberg, A. E., & Giudice, A. D.
    (2005) Subject-auxiliary inversion: A natural category. The Linguistic Review, (), –. 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.411
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.411 [Google Scholar]
  41. Haspelmath, M.
    (2019) Against traditional grammar – And for normal science in linguistics. Diversity Linguistics Comment. https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1741
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Herbst, T., & Hoffmann, T.
    (2018) Construction Grammar for students: A Constructionist Approach to Syntactic Analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, (), –. 10.1515/gcla‑2018‑0010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hoffmann, T.
    (2022) Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139004213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139004213 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Construction Grammar: Introduction. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hoorens, S., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P.
    (2017) Constructions at work! Visualising linguistic pathways for computational Construction Grammar. InB. Verheij & M. Wiering (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Benelux conference on artificial intelligence (pp. –). University of Groningen.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Tyers, F. M.
    (2018) A Constructicon for Russian: Filling in the gaps. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development Across languages (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.06jan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.06jan [Google Scholar]
  47. Kay, A.
    (2018) What did Alan Kay mean by, “Lisp is the greatest single programming language ever designed”? [Online forum post]. Quora. https://www.quora.com/What-did-Alan-Kay-mean-by-Lisp-is-the-greatest-single-programming-language-ever-designed/answer/Alan-Kay-11
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, (), –. 10.2307/417472
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  49. Langacker, R. W.
    (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Laviola, A., Lage, L., Marção, N., Tavares, T., Almeida, V., Matos, E., & Torrent, T. T.
    (2017) The Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon: Modeling constructional inheritance, frame evocation and constraints in FrameNet Brasil. The AAAI 2017 spring symposium on computational construction grammar and natural language understanding. Technical Report SS-17-02, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Loetzsch, M., Wellens, P., De Beule, J., Bleys, J., & van Trijp, R.
    (2008) The Babel2 Manual (AI-Memo 01–08). AI-Lab VUB.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R.
    (2018) Constructicography at work: Theory meets practice in the Swedish Constructicon. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.03lyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.03lyn [Google Scholar]
  53. Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T.
    (Eds.) (2018) Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22 [Google Scholar]
  54. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2012) Making the case for Construction Grammar. InH. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. –). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (2019) Constructions are patterns and so are fixed expressions. InB. Busse & R. Moehlig-Falke (Eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics (pp. –). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110596656‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596656-008 [Google Scholar]
  56. Nevens, J., Doumen, J., Van Eecke, P., & Beuls, K.
    (2022) Language acquisition through intention reading and pattern finding. Proceedings of the 29th international conference on computational linguistics, –. https://aclanthology.org/2022.coling-1.2
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A.
    (1923) The meaning of meaning. Harvest/Harcourt, Brace & World.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Ohara, K.
    (2018) Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet Constructicon. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.05oha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.05oha [Google Scholar]
  59. Rosch, E.
    (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, , –. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sag, I. A.
    (2010) English Filler-Gap Constructions. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2010.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0002 [Google Scholar]
  61. Saussure, F.
    (1916) Cours de linguistique générale (6th ed.). Payot.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Spranger, M., Pauw, S., Loetzsch, M., & Steels, L.
    (2012) Open-ended procedural semantics. InL. Steels & M. Hild (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp. –). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-3064-3_8. 10.1007/978‑1‑4614‑3064‑3_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3064-3_8 [Google Scholar]
  64. Steels, L.
    (2000a) Language as a complex adaptive system. InM. Schoenauer, K. Deb, G. Rudolph, X. Yao, E. Lutton, J. J. Merelo, & H.-P. Schwefel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature (pp. –). Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/3‑540‑45356‑3_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45356-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2000b) The emergence of grammar in communicating autonomous robotic agents. InW. Horn (Ed.), ECAI 2000: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on artificial life (pp. –). IOS Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. (2004) Constructivist development of grounded construction grammars. InW. Daelemans & M. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistic Conference. 10.3115/1218955.1218957
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1218955.1218957 [Google Scholar]
  67. (Ed.) (2011) Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2017) Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.00002.ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00002.ste [Google Scholar]
  69. Steels, L., & Belpaeme, T.
    (2005) Coordinating perceptually grounded categories through language: A case study for colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (), –. 10.1017/S0140525X05000087
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000087 [Google Scholar]
  70. Steels, L., De Beule, J., & Neubauer, N.
    (2005) Linking in Fluid Construction Grammars. Proceedings of BNAIC, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S.
    (2023) Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009308717
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009308717 [Google Scholar]
  72. Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. InR. Boogaert, T. Colleman, & R. Gijsbert (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110366273.141
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Eecke, P.
    (2018) Generalisation and specialisation operators for computational construction grammar and their application in evolutionary linguistics research [Doctoral thesis]. Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. van Trijp, R.
    (2011) Feature matrices and agreement: A case study for German case. InL. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. –). John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/cal.11.12tri. 10.1075/cal.11.12tri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.12tri [Google Scholar]
  75. (2013) Linguistic assessment criteria for explaining language change: A case study on syncretism in German definite articles. Language Dynamics and Change, (), –. 10.1163/22105832‑13030106
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-13030106 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2014) Long-distance dependencies without filler-gaps: A cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar. Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/langcog.2014.8
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.8 [Google Scholar]
  77. (2015) Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The case of coercion and argument structure. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0074
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0074 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2016) Chopping down the syntax tree: What constructions can do instead. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/bjl.30.02van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.02van [Google Scholar]
  79. (2017) How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary controversy. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.00004.van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00004.van [Google Scholar]
  80. (2020) Making good on a promise: Multidimensional Constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/bjl.00059.tri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00059.tri [Google Scholar]
  81. (in press). Different constructional approaches in practice: A comparative guide. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou Eds. The Cambridge handbook of construction grammar. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P.
    (2022) The FCG Editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLOS ONE, (), e0269708. 10.1371/journal.pone.0269708
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269708 [Google Scholar]
  83. Verhagen, A.
    (2007) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226702.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226702.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  84. Willich, A.
    (2022) Introducing Construction Semantics (CxS): A frame-semantic extension of Construction Grammar and constructicography. Linguistics Vanguard, (), –. 10.1515/lingvan‑2022‑0082
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0082 [Google Scholar]
  85. Wright, J.
    (1906) An Old High German primer (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. (1916) An Middle High German primer (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23013.van
Loading
Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23013.van
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23013.van
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23013.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: construction grammar ; Fluid Construction Grammar ; complex adaptive systems

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