Review article published In:
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Volume 2Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
[Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2] 2004
► pp. 321–348
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
[Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2] 2004
► pp. 321–348
Review article
Why Construction Grammar is radical
This article reviews some of the foundational assumptions of
Croft'sRadical Construction Grammar. While constructions
have featured prominently in much recent work in cognitive linguistics, Croft
adopts the ‘radical’ view that constructions are the primary objects of
linguistic analysis, with lexical and syntactic categories being defined with
respect to the constructions in which they occur. This approach reverses the
traditional view, according to which complex expressions are compositionally
assembled through syntactic rules operating over items selected from the
lexicon. The ubiquity of idioms, especially so-called constructional idioms,
provides compelling evidence for the essential correctness of the radical
constructional view. The possibility of a radical constructional approach to
phonology is also discussed.
References (32)
Baker, M. (2001). The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Bowerman, M. & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and languagespecific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Brooks, P. & Tomasello, M. (1999). Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, 351, 29–44.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In R. Freidin (Ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar (pp. 417–54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. London: Andre Deutsch.
Culicover, P. (1999). Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dąbrowska, E. (2000). From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics, 111, 83–102.
Dieseel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 121, 97–141.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone
. Language, 641, 501–38.
Foley, W. (1997). Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Foolen, A. & van der Leek, F. (Eds.). (2000). Constructions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Joos, M. (Ed.). (1957). Readings in linguistics, I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 751, 1–33.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1976). Semantic representations and the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Foundations of Language, 141, 307–57.
(1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(1999). A dynamic usage-based model. In R. W. Langacker, Grammar and conceptualization (pp. 91–145). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Michaelis, L. & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Towards a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 721, 215–47.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 701, 491–538.
Pütz, M. & Verspoor, M. (Eds.). (2000). Explorations in linguistic relativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Robins, R. H. (1964). General linguistics: An introductory survey. London: Longmans.
Sapir, E. (1963 [1921]). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 111, 61–82.
Tomasello, M. & Brooks, P. (1998). Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 379–95.
Well, R. S. (1957). Immediate constituents. In Joos (1957) (pp. 186–207). First published in Language, 231(1947), 81–117.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Zhang, Yi
Macis, Marijana & Norbert Schmitt
2017. Not just ‘small potatoes’: Knowledge of the idiomatic meanings of collocations. Language Teaching Research 21:3 ► pp. 321 ff. 
Vartiainen, Turo
2016. A Constructionist Approach to Category Change. Journal of English Linguistics 44:1 ► pp. 34 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.