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. 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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00042.hof
References (55)
References
Audring, Jenny. 2019. “Mothers or Sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge.” Word Structure 12 (3): 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M. L. 2013. “Psycholinguistics.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 379–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K., and Nancy Chang. 2013. “Embodied Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 168–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2013. “Cognitive Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 233–252. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2013. “Morphology in Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 255–273. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. “Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 49–69. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Radical Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and Alan D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angelka D. 2017. Language in our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logo 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Construction Grammars.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, 310–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2013. “Constructions in the Parallel Architecture.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 70–92. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2013. “Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 133–152. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, Michael. 2017. Introducing Language and Cognition: A Map of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte, and Elena Smirnova (eds). 2020. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2013. “Fluid Construction Grammar.” In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), 152–167. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Trijp, Remi. 2014. “Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The Case of Coercion and Argument Structure.” Cognitive Linguistics 26 (4): 613–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Chopping Down the Syntax Tree: What Constructions Can Do Instead.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 301: 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, Jayden, Giulia Bencini, Adele Goldberg, and Jesse Snedeker. 2019. “How Abstract is Syntax? Evidence from Structural Priming.” Cognition 1931: 104045. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

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
Cappelle, Bert
2024. Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong?, DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Diessel, Holger
2023. The Constructicon, DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo
Ivanova, Svetlana Viktorovna, Svetlana Nikolaevna Medvedeva, I. Klimova & M. Konurbaev
2021. Applying constructional approach to second language teaching and learning. SHS Web of Conferences 127 ► pp. 01016 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Discourse Structuring Markers in English [Constructional Approaches to Language, 33], 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.