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. 357–370

Making good on a promise

Multidimensional constructions

| Sony Computer Science Laboratories Paris
Construction Grammar was founded on the promise of maximal empirical coverage without compromising on formal precision. Its main claim is that all linguistic knowledge can be represented as constructions, similar to the notion of constructions from traditional grammars. As such, Construction Grammar may finally reconcile the needs of descriptive and theoretical linguistics by establishing a common ground between them. Unfortunately, while the construction grammar community has developed a sophisticated understanding of what a construction is supposed to be, many critics still believe that a construction is simply a new jacket for traditional linguistic analyses and therefore inherits all of the problems of those analyses. The goal of this article is to refute such criticisms by showing how constructions can be formalized as open-ended and multidimensional linguistic representations that make no prior assumptions about the structure of a language. While this article’s proposal can be simply written down in a pen-and-paper style, it verifies the validity of its approach through a computational implementation of German field topology in Fluid Construction Grammar.
Keywords: syntactic analysis, representations, construction grammar, descriptive adequacy
Article outline
  • 1.The promise of construction grammar
  • 2.A new jacket for mainstream analyses?
  • 3.Open-Ended and multidimensional constructions
  • 4.How does it work? An example from German field topology
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 28 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00059.tri
References (34)
References
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2009. “The Development of Case in Germanic.” In The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, and Shobhana L. Chelliah, 123–159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1983. “Structure and Word Order in Kalkatungu: The Anatomy of a Flat Language.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 3(2): 143–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2009. “Constructions at Work or at Rest?” Cognitive Linguistics 20(1): 129–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Lexical Rules vs Constructions: A False Dichotomy.” In Motivation in Language Studies: Studies in Honour of Günter Radden, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, 49–68. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Ten Unwarranted Assumptions in Syntactic Argumentation.” In Language Usage and Language Structure, ed. by Kasper Boye, and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, 313–350. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Drach, Erich. 1937. Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. “The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and Its Importance for Cognitive Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 321: 429–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone .” Language 64(3): 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam, and Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch.” In Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, ed. by Mirjam Fried, and Jan-Ola Östman, 11–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil, David. 2013. “Riau Indonesian: A Language Without Nouns and Verbs.” In Flexible Word Classes. Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, ed. by Jan Rijkhoff, and Eva van Lier, 89–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. “Argument Structure Constructions Versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates.” Mind & Language 28(4): 435–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1983. “Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-Configurational Languages.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 5–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. “Framework-Free Grammatical Theory.” The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine, and Heiko Narrog, 341–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichte, Timm, and Laura Kallmeyer. 2017. “Tree-Adjoining Grammar: A Tree-Based Constructionist Grammar Framework for Natural Language Understanding.” In: The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding: Technical Report SS-17-02, 205–212. Stanford: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Micelli, Vanessa. 2012. “Field Topology and Information Structure: A Case Study for German Constituent Order.” Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar, ed. by Luc Steels, 178–211. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2009. “Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine, and Heiko Narrog, 155–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan, and Stephen Wechsler. 2014. “Lexical Approaches to Argument Structure.” Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2):1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Constituency and Grammatical Relations in Australian Languages.” In The Languages of Australia: A Comprehensive Guide, ed. by Harold Koch, and Rachel Nordlinger, 215–261. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy, and Thomas Gross. 2012. “Constructions are Catenae: Construction Grammar Meets Dependency Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 231: 165–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago/Stanford: University of Chicago Press/CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Kaplan, Ronals, Karttunen, Lauri, Kay, Martin, Pollard, Carl, Shieber, Stuart, and Annie Zaenen. 1986. “Unification and Grammatical Theory.” Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 51: 238–254.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2004. “Constructivist Development of Grounded Construction Grammars.” In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), 9–16. Barcelona: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (ed.). 2011. Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “The Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames 9(2): 178–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2009. De Nominale Constituent: Structuur en Geschiedenis [The noun phrase: Structure and diachrony]. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
van Trijp, Remi. 2014. “Long-Distance Dependencies Without Filler-Gaps: A Cognitive-Functional Alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar.” Language and Cognition 6(2): 242–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wells, Rulon S. 1947. “Immediate Constituents.” Language 23(2):81–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2022. Extending structural priming to test constructional relations: Some comments and suggestions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10:1 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35], DOI logo

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