Cover not available
Article published In:
Computational Construction Grammar and Constructional Change
Edited by Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30] 2016
► pp. 15–38

Chopping down the syntax tree

What constructions can do instead

| Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris, France
Word order, argument structure and unbounded dependencies are among the most important topics in linguistics because they touch upon the core of the syntax-semantics interface. One question is whether “marked” word order patterns, such as The man I talked to vs. I talked to the man, require special treatment by the grammar or not. Mainstream linguistics answers this question affirmatively: in the marked order, some mechanism is necessary for “extracting” the man from its original argument position, and a special placement rule (e.g. topicalization) is needed for putting the constituent in clause-preceding position. This paper takes an opposing view and argues that such formal complexity is only required for analyses that are based on syntactic trees. A tree is a rigid data structure that only allows information to be shared between local nodes, hence it is inadequate for non-local dependencies and can only allow restricted word order variations. A construction, on the other hand, offers a more powerful representation device that allows word order variations – even unbounded dependencies – to be analyzed as the side-effect of how language users combine the same rules in different ways in order to satisfy their communicative needs. This claim is substantiated through a computational implementation of English argument structure constructions in Fluid Construction Grammar that can handle both comprehension and formulation.
Published online: 10 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.02van
References
Bod, Rens
2009 “Constructions at Work or at Rest?.” Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1): 129–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Clay Beckner
2010 “Usage-Based Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, 827–855. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicaco: University of Chicaco Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1956 “Three models for the description of language.” IRE Transactions on Information Theory 21: 113–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977 “On WH-Movement.” In Formal Syntax, ed. by Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian. San Francisco/London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1998 “Event Structure in Argument Linking.” In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. by Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 21–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google 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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa
2008 “Questions With Long-Distance Dependencies: A Usage-Based Perspective.” Cognitive Linguistics 19 (3): 391–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa, Caroline Rowland, and Anna Theakston
2009 “The Acquisition of Questions with Long-Distance Dependencies.” Cognitive Linguistics 201: 571597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C.
1997 The Theory ofFunctional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure ofthe Clause. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1975 “Against Checklist Theories of Meaning.” In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Cathy Cogen, 123–131. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1988 “The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”.” In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald
1981 “Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 121: 155–184.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward
1998 “Linguistic Complexity: Locality of Syntactic Dependencies.” Cognition 681: 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “The Dependency Locality Theory: A Distance-Based Theory of Linguistic Complexity.” In Image, Language, Brain, ed. by Yasushi Miyashita, Alec P. Marantz, and Wayne O’Neil, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. and Alex Del Giudice
2005 “Subject-Auxiliary Inversion: A Natural Category.” The Linguistic Review 21: 411–428.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.A.
2004 Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joshi, Aravind
1985 “How much context-sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions.” In Natural Language Processing: Theoretical, Computational, and Psychological Perspectives, ed. by David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold M. Zwicky, 206–250. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. and Annie Zaenen
1995 “Long-Distance Dependencies, Constituent Structure, and Functional Uncertainty.” In Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. by Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell III, and Annie Zaenen, 137–165. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kay, Martin
1979 “Functional Grammar.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 142–158. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mannning, Christopher D. and Hinrich Schütze
1999 Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Penn, Gerald
2012 “Computational Linguistics.” In The Philosophy ofLinguistics, ed. by Tim Fernando Ruth Kempson and Nicholas Asher, 143–174. Amsterdam: North Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent
2015 Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar, Volume 17 of Constructional Approaches to Language. John Benjamins: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag
1994 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago/Stanford: University of Chicago Press/CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan
1992 The Noun Phrase: A Typological Study of its Form and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A.
2010 “English Filler-Gap Constructions.” Language 86 (3): 486–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. and Thomas Wasow
2011 “Performance-Compatible Competence Grammar.” In Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, ed. by Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Börjars, 359–377. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow, and Emily M. Bender
2003 Syntactic Theory. A Formal Introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc
(ed) 2011 Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
To appear. “The Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames.
van Trijp, Remi
2011 “A Design Pattern for Argument Structure Constructions.” In Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, ed. by Luc Steels. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The Case of Coercion and Argument Structure.” Cognitive Linguistics 261: 613–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, Remi and Luc Steels
2012 “Multilevel Alignment Maintains Language Systematicity.” Advances in Complex Systems 15 (3–4).Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2005 Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax and Cognition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wellens, Pieter
2011 “Organizing Constructions in Networks.” In Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, ed. by Luc Steels, 181–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Hoffmann, Thomas
2020. What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar?. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Van Gysel, Jens E. L.
2019. Hierarchical Alignment and Comparative Linguistics in the Guaykuruan Languages: An Exhaustive Alignment Approach. International Journal of American Linguistics 85:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
van Trijp, Remi
2017. How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary controversy. Constructions and Frames 9:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
van Trijp, Remi
2019. How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary controversy. In Case Studies in Fluid Construction Grammar [Benjamins Current Topics, 106], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
van Trijp, Remi, Katrien Beuls, Paul Van Eecke & Andrew Kehler
2022. The FCG Editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLOS ONE 17:6 ► pp. e0269708 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2023. 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.