Cover not available
Article published In:
The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research
Edited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 42–51

Grammatical categories as paradigms in Construction Grammar

| Leibniz Universität Hannover
| Leibniz Universität Hannover
This squib discusses the question whether Construction Grammar can account for the assumption of universal grammatical categories (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994) that are prone to language change, e.g. tense. Most publications in Construction Grammar tackle individual constructions, such as the way-construction (Jackendoff 1990). But it remains unclear how grammatical categories as a universal phenomenon can be described in constructionist terms. We propose that there is a way to (a) describe grammatical categories, which per definition are encoded paradigmatically, as constructions themselves and (b) to thereby strengthen the assumption of a set of universal grammatical categories.
Keywords: constructions, paradigms, grammar, grammatical categories
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammatical functions and grammatical categories
  • 3.What’s (in) a paradigm?
  • 4.Bridging the gap: Paradigms and constructions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00033.die
References (30)
References
Ackerman, Farrell, James P. Blevins, and Robert Malouf. 2009. “Parts and Wholes: Implicative Patterns in Inflectional Paradigms.” In Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, ed. by James P. Blevins, and Juliette Blevins, 54–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2008. “Determining the Structure of Lexical Entries and Grammatical Constructions in Construction Grammar.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 61: 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. “Zur Architektur einer konstruktionsbasierten Grammatik des Deutschen.” In Grammatik als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen. Sprachwissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik, ed. by Alexander Lasch, and Alexander Ziem, 37–63. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1989 [1934]. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: UTB.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 1991. Deixis und Textsorten im Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Konstruktionen und Paradigmen”. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 37 (3): 445–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Paradigms Lost – Paradigms Regained: Paradigms as Hyper-Constructions”. In Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer, and Elena Smirnova, 278–315. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., and Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], last accessed on 2020-08-18.)
Fried, Mirjam, and Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch”. In Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman, and Mirjam Fried, 11–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hippisley, Andrew. 2016. “Network Morphology”. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ed. by Andrew Hippisley, and Gregory Stump, 482–509. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971 [1957]. “Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb”. In Selected Writings: Vol. II: Word and language, ed. by Roman Jakobson, 130–147. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman and Krystyna Pomorska. 1982. Poesie und Grammatik: Dialoge. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. “Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity.” In Iconicity in Syntax. Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24–26, 1983, ed. by John Haiman, 109–150. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. “Deixis and Subjectivity.” In Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, ed. by Frank Brisard, 1–28. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Third edition. Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 1992. Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der sprachlichen Kategorisierung. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Peter Juul. 2016. Functional Structure in Morphology and the Case of Nonfinite Verbs. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Lars Heltoft, and Lene Schøsler. 2011. Connecting Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans (ed.). 1991. Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Politt, Katja. 2019. “Verbale Konstruktionen in grammatischen Paradigmen”. In Varianz in der konstruktionalen Schematizität, ed. by Dániel Czicza, Volodymyr Dekalo, and Gabriele Diewald, 217–236. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. to appear. Parts and wholes – Formen und Funktionen von Paradigmen. PhD Dissertation, Leibniz Universität Hannover.
Plungian, Vladimir A. 1998. Грамматические категории, их аналоги и заместители [Grammatical categories, their analogs and alternatives]. Habilitation dissertation, Lomonosov Moscow State University.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bouso, Tamara, Marianne Hundt & Laetitia Van Driessche
2024. A sisterhood of constructions? A structural priming approach to modelling links in the network of Objoid Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 35:3 ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 august 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.