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. 148–160

What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar?

Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the constructionist enterprise

| Hunan Normal University | KU Eichstätt-Ingolstadt

One of the hallmarks of scientific theories is their falsifiability, i.e. the fact that they make predictions that can objectively be proven wrong. Thus, it is paramount that researchers, including linguists, are able to state what kind of evidence would lead them to abandon their scientific theory. Yet, researchers just like all other human beings are susceptible to confirmation bias, i.e. the fact that they only seek evidence that supports their existing views. In this squib, I will raise the question whether Construction Grammar can become a falsifiable theory.

Keywords: construction grammar, confirmation bias, falsifiability, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructions all the way?
  • 3.The constructional theory of complexity
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 28 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00042.hof
References
Audring, Jenny
2019 “Mothers or Sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge.” Word Structure 12 (3): 274–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M. L.
2013 “Psycholinguistics.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 379–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K., and Nancy Chang
2013 “Embodied Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 168–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
2013 “Cognitive Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 233–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C., and Ivan A. Sag
(eds.) 2012 Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, Johan J.
2019 “Review of Language in our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity by Angela D. Friederici.” Language 95 (3): 568–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2013 “Morphology in Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 255–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper, and Roelien Bastiaanse
2018 “Grammatical versus Lexical Words in Theory and Aphasia: Integrating Linguistics and Neurolinguistics.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1): 29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 49–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2006 “Particle Placement and the Case for ‘Allostructions’.” Constructions 11: 1–28.Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana
2017 “Language and the Brain.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, 515–532. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2012 Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Radical Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 211–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and Alan D. Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delogu, Francesca, Harm Brouwer, and Matthew W. Crocker
2019 “Event-related Potentials Index Lexical Retrieval (N400) and Integration (P600) during Language Comprehension.” Brain and Cognition 1351: 103569. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Kevin Niall and David Klahr
2012 “Scientific Thinking and Reasoning.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, ed. by Keith J. Holyoak, and Robert G. Morrison, 701–718. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eddington, David
2008 “Linguistics and the Scientific Method.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 271: 1–16.Google Scholar
Eysenck, Michael W., and Mark T. Keane
2015 Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook. 17th edn. London and New York: Psychology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fedorenko, Evelina, Idan Asher Blank, Matthew Siegelman, and Zachary Mineroff
2020 “Lack of Selectivity for Syntax Relative to Word Meanings throughout the Language Network.” Cognition 2031: 104348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1985 “Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of Grammatical Construction.” Berkeley Linguistic Society 111: 73–86.Google Scholar
1988 “The Mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’.” Berkeley Linguistic Society 141, 35–55. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary C. O’Connor
1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone .” Language 64 (3): 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angelka D.
2017 Language in our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003 “Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (5): 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 “Constructionist Approaches.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 15–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 Explain Me this: Creativity, Competition and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hatchard, Rachel
2015 A Construction-based Approach to Spoken Language in Aphasia. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, and Susen Schüller
2008 Introduction to Syntactic Analysis: A Valency Approach. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2018 “Three Open Questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, ed. by Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson, and Joel Olofsson, 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref O Google Scholar
2019 Construction Grammar and its Application to English. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2013 “Abstract Phrasal and Clausal Constructions.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 307–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 “Construction Grammars.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, 310–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale
(eds.) 2013 The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
2013 “Constructions in the Parallel Architecture.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 70–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Matt A. & Adele E. Goldberg
2013 “Evidence for Automatic Accessing of Constructional Meaning: Jabberwocky Sentences Prime Associated Verbs.” Language and Cognitive Processes 28 (10): 1439–1452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A.
2013 “Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 133–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan
2018 Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-based Approaches. 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent
2012 “Alternation-based Generalizations are Stored in the Mental Grammar: Evidence form a Sorting Task Experiment.” Cognitive Linguistics 23 (3): 601–635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petruck, Miriam R. L.
1996 “Frame Semantics.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 1–11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl
1963 Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Bert Cappelle, and Yury Shtyrov
2013 “Brain Basis of Meaning, Words, Constructions, and Grammar.” In Hoffmann & Trousdale (eds.), 396–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Thomas Wasow
2011 “Performance-compatible Competence Grammar.” In Non-transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar: A Guide to Current Models, ed. by Robert D. Borsley, and Kersti Börjars, 359–377. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2020 The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, Michael
2017 Introducing Language and Cognition: A Map of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte, and Elena Smirnova
(eds) 2020 Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc
2013 “Fluid Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 152–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc, and Joachim De Beule
2006 “Unify and Merge in Fluid Construction Grammar.” In Symbol Grounding and Beyond: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on the Emergence and Evolution of Linguistic Communication, LNAI 4211, ed. by Paul Vogt, Yuuga Sugita, Elio Tuci, and Chrystopher Nehaniv, 197–223. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Trijp, Remi
2014 “Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The Case of Coercion and Argument Structure.” Cognitive Linguistics 26 (4): 613–632. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “Chopping Down the Syntax Tree: What Constructions Can Do Instead.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 301: 15–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, Jayden, Giulia Bencini, Adele Goldberg, and Jesse Snedeker
2019 “How Abstract is Syntax? Evidence from Structural Priming.” Cognition 1931: 104045. CrossrefGoogle Scholar