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
Baker, M.
(
2001)
The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bloomfield, L.
(
1933)
Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brooks, P. & Tomasello, M.
(
1999)
Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs.
Developmental Psychology, 351, 29–44.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N.
(
1965)
Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N.
(
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W.
(
2001)
Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crystal, D.
(
1980)
A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. London: Andre Deutsch.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Culicover, P.
(
1999)
Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dąbrowska, E.
(
2000)
From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions.
Cognitive Linguistics, 111, 83–102.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dieseel, H. & Tomasello, M.
(
2001)
The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis.
Cognitive Linguistics, 121, 97–141.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(
1988)
Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone
.
Language, 641, 501–38.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Foley, W.
(
1997)
Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Foolen, A. & van der Leek, F.
Goldberg, A.
(
1995)
Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, R.
(
1997)
The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Joos, M.
(Ed.) (
1957)
Readings in linguistics, I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C.
(
1999)
Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction.
Language, 751, 1–33.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
(
1987)
Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1976)
Semantic representations and the linguistic relativity hypothesis.
Foundations of Language, 141, 307–57.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1987)
Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1991)
Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1999)
A dynamic usage-based model. In
R. W. Langacker,
Grammar and conceptualization (pp. 91–145). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, L. & Lambrecht, K.
(
1996)
Towards a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition.
Language, 721, 215–47.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunberg, G., Sag, I., & Wasow, T.
(
1994)
Idioms.
Language, 701, 491–538.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Robins, R. H.
(
1964)
General linguistics: An introductory survey. London: Longmans.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sapir, E.
(
1963 [1921])
Language: An introduction to the study of speech. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, J. R.
(
2002)
Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, M.
(
2000)
First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition.
Cognitive Linguistics, 111, 61–82.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, M. & Brooks, P.
(
1998)
Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions.
Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 379–95.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Well, R. S.
(
1957)
Immediate constituents. In
Joos (1957) (pp. 186–207).
First published in Language, 231(1947), 81–117.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Macis, Marijana & Norbert Schmitt
2017.
Not just ‘small potatoes’: Knowledge of the idiomatic meanings of collocations.
Language Teaching Research 21:3
► pp. 321 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Vartiainen, Turo
2016.
A Constructionist Approach to Category Change.
Journal of English Linguistics 44:1
► pp. 34 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 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.