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

Abstract

Abstract

What does the future hold for Construction Grammar? What are the most promising future avenues for research on constructions? This paper addresses the development of Construction Grammar as a theory of language through the perspective of six recent PhD dissertations that explore constructional meaning, the architecture of the constructional network, and the role of language change in a constructional theory of language. The goal of this paper is to establish connections between these ideas, and to spell out how different questions concerning Frame Semantics, distributional semantic methods, priming, nodes and connections, individual differences, and constructional change all contribute to a picture that is bigger than the sum of its parts.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23014.hil
2024-09-06
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.23014.hil
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Audring, J.
    (2019) Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, (), –. 10.3366/word.2019.0150
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0150 [Google Scholar]
  2. Audring, J., & Booij, G. E.
    (2016) Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0012 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthonissen, L.
    (2020) Special passives across the lifespan. Cognitive and social mechanisms [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Antwerp / LMU Munich.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, H. R.
    (2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. InA. Lüdeling, M. Kytö & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (Vol, pp.–). Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213881.2.899
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.899 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity. Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Gildea, S., & Sommerer, L.
    (Eds.) (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boas, H. C.
    (2011) Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling.2011.036
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.036 [Google Scholar]
  8. Busso, L.
    (2018) Coercing Italian: Psycholinguistic investigations on valency coercion in Italian [Doctoral dissertation]. Pisa University.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J. L.
    (2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  10. del Prado, M., Moscoso, F., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2004) Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, (), –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Diewald, G.
    (2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.08die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die [Google Scholar]
  13. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2013) Berkeley Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.–). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Fillmore, C J. & Baker, C. F.
    (2010) A frames approach to semantic analysis. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp.–). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, C J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhodes, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet Constructicon. InH. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.–). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Garrett, A.
    (1998) On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics, , –. 10.1017/S1360674300000897
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674300000897 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hilpert, M.
    (2019) Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474433624
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474433624 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2021) Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Brill. 10.1163/9789004446793
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446793 [Google Scholar]
  25. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S.
    (1997) A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, , –. 10.1037/0033‑295X.104.2.211
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.
    (2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics(), –. 10.1515/ling.2011.034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.034 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lenci, A.
    (2008) Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Italian journal of linguistics, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2018) Distributional models of word meaning. Annual review of Linguistics, –. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑030514‑125254
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125254 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lester, N.
    (2018) The syntactic bits of nouns: How prior syntactic distributions affect comprehension, production, and acquisition [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California at Santa Barbara.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. Magne, C., Besson, M., & Robert, S.
    (2014) Context influences the processing of verb transitivity in French sentences: More evidence for semantic — syntax interactions. Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/langcog.2014.7
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.7 [Google Scholar]
  32. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2004) Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Michaelis, L. A., & Hsiao, A. M.
    (2021) Verbing and linguistic innovation. Frontiers in Communication, . 10.3389/fcomm.2021.604763
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.604763 [Google Scholar]
  34. Milin, P., Filipović-Đurđević, D., & del Prado Martín, F. M.
    (2009) The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, , –. 10.1016/j.jml.2008.08.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  35. Moretti, L.
    (2021) On multiple constructions and multiple factors in language change: The origin of auxiliary do [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Manchester.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Noël, D.
    (2007) Diachronic Construction Grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, , –. 10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe [Google Scholar]
  37. Perek, F.
    (2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2016) Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?Folia Linguistica, (), –. 10.1515/flin‑2016‑0020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020 [Google Scholar]
  39. Piñango, M. M., & Deo, A.
    (2016) Reanalyzing the complement coercion effect through a generalized lexical semantics for aspectual verbs. Journal of Semantics, (), –. 10.1093/jos/ffv003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L.
    (2010) A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup [Google Scholar]
  41. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. International Computer Science Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Säily, T.
    (2011) Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/cllt.2011.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2011.006 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schmid, H-J.
    (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E.
    (Eds.) (2020) Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sommerer, L., & Baumann, A.
    (2021) Of absent mothers, strong sisters, and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0013 [Google Scholar]
  46. Torrent, T.
    (2015) On the relation between inheritance and change: The constructional convergence and the construction network reconfiguration hypotheses. InJ. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, S. Gildea & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.06tor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.06tor [Google Scholar]
  47. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, (), –. 10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro [Google Scholar]
  49. Turney, P., & Pantel, P.
    (2010) From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, , –. 10.1613/jair.2934
     https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2934 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ungerer, T.
    (2021) Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0016 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2022a) Structural priming in the grammatical network: A study of English argument structure constructions [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Edinburgh.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2022b) Extending structural priming to test constructional relations: Some comments and suggestions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, (), –. 10.1515/gcla‑2022‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2022-0008 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2024) Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin?Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.22011.ung
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22011.ung [Google Scholar]
  54. Willich, A.
    (2022a) Konstruktionssemantik: Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110762341
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762341 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2022b) 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]
  56. Ziegeler, D.
    (2007) A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.014 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.23014.hil
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: individual differences ; constructional meaning ; Frame Semantics ; constructional change ; priming ; constructional networks ; nodes and connections ; distributional methods

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