Article In:
Constructions and Frames: Online-First ArticlesNostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar
Construction Grammar is a nomadic family of theoretical approaches whose members are constantly moving in various directions. The diversity in construction-based approaches is a clear sign of a thriving and tolerant research community, but it also risks muddying the waters, leading to potential confusion. In this paper, I argue that the main source of confusion about Construction Grammar stems from the community gradual evolution from the traditional view of languages as static, idealized entities (the “aggregate” perspective) to the view of language as a complex adaptive system (the “population” perspective). While the aggregate perspective abstracts away as much as possible from variation and language usage, the population perspective greatly emphasizes the dynamics of language and situated communicative interactions. This paper illustrates what it means to perform constructional analyses from the population perspective; and argues that Construction Grammar is particularly well-positioned to lead the way in this new kind of linguistics, indicating that our community has a bright future ahead.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Making sense of Construction Grammar(s)
- 2.1Variety is the spice of science
- 2.2Caught in a riptide
- 3.What’s in a construction?
- 3.1L’Arbitraire de la construction linguistique
- 3.2How to do things with constructions
- 3.3To formalize or not to formalize
- 4.Constructions at work
- 4.1Frame-evoking constructions and argument linking
- 4.2Event construals and surface generalizations
- 4.3A final appetizer
- 5.Nostalgic for the future
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (86)
Baerman, M. (2009). Case Syncretism. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 219–230). Oxford University Press.
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Cronin, B. (2003). The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography,
16
(3), 281–296.
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. COLING-ACL ’98: Proceedings of the Conference, 86–90.
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position Paper. Language Learning,
59
(1), 1–26.
Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulated-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). John Benjamins.
Beuls, K., Van Eecke, P., & Cangalovic, V. S. (2021). A computational construction grammar approach to semantic frame extraction. Linguistics Vanguard,
7
(1), 20180015.
Boas, H. C. (2008). Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,
57
1, 17–47.
(2021). Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. In X. Wen & R. J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 43–77). Routledge.
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica,
35
1(2019), 41–85.
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In L. Borin, B. Lyngfelt, K. Hirose Ohara, & T. Timponi Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 183–228). John Benjamins.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.
(2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language studies: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). John Benjamins.
(2010). Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation. In K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. 313–350). Mouton De Gruyter.
Dowty, D. R. (1996). Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In H. Bunt & A. Horck (Eds.), Discontinous constituency (pp. 11–62). Mouton De Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-Frames Semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing (pp. 55–81). North-Holland.
(1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistics Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–138). Hanshin Publishing Company.
(1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55.
(2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In J. D. Elisenda Bernal (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th EURALEX International Congress (pp. 49–68). Institut Universitari de Linguistica Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
(2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 110–132). Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2009). A Frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1995). Construction Grammar. University of California, Berkeley. [URL]
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone
. Language,
64
(3), 501–538.
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhodes, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics,
13
(4), 327–356.
(2013). Argument Structure Constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language,
28
(4), 435–465.
(2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
Goldberg, A. E., & Giudice, A. D. (2005). Subject-auxiliary inversion: A natural category. The Linguistic Review,
22
(2–4), 411–428.
Haspelmath, M. (2019). Against traditional grammar – And for normal science in linguistics. Diversity Linguistics Comment. [URL]
Herbst, T., & Hoffmann, T. (2018). Construction Grammar for students: A Constructionist Approach to Syntactic Analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association,
6
(1), 197–218.
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Construction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 1–12). Oxford University Press.
Hoorens, S., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P. (2017). Constructions at work! Visualising linguistic pathways for computational Construction Grammar. In B. Verheij & M. Wiering (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 224–237). University of Groningen.
Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Tyers, F. M. (2018). A Constructicon for Russian: Filling in the gaps. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development Across languages (pp. 165–181). John Benjamins.
Kay, A. (2018). What did Alan Kay mean by, “Lisp is the greatest single programming language ever designed”? [Online forum post]. Quora. [URL]
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language,
75
(1), 1–33.
Laviola, A., Lage, L., Marção, N., Tavares, T., Almeida, V., Matos, E., & Torrent, T. T. (2017). The Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon: Modeling constructional inheritance, frame evocation and constraints in FrameNet Brasil. The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report SS-17-02, 193–196.
Loetzsch, M., Wellens, P., De Beule, J., Bleys, J., & Trijp, R. (2008). The Babel2 Manual (AI-Memo 01–08). AI-Lab VUB.
Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R. (2018). Constructicography at work: Theory meets practice in the Swedish Constructicon. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 41–106). John Benjamins.
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (Eds.). (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. John Benjamins.
Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Making the case for Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 31–69). CSLI.
(2019). Constructions are Patterns and So Are Fixed Expressions. In B. Busse & R. Moehlig-Falke (Eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics (pp. 193–220). Mouton de Gruyter.
Nevens, J., Doumen, J., Van Eecke, P., & Beuls, K. (2022). Language acquisition through intention reading and pattern finding. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 15–25. [URL]
Ohara, K. (2018). Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet Constructicon. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 141–163). John Benjamins.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
104
1, 192–233.
Spranger, M., Pauw, S., Loetzsch, M., & Steels, L. (2012). Open-ended procedural semantics. In L. Steels & M. Hild (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp. 153–172). Springer. [URL].
Steels, L. (2000a). Language as a complex adaptive system. In M. Schoenauer, K. Deb, G. Rudolph, X. Yao, E. Lutton, J. J. Merelo, & H.-P. Schwefel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (pp. 17–26). Springer-Verlag.
(2000b). The emergence of grammar in communicating autonomous robotic agents. In W. Horn (Ed.), ECAI 2000: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 764–769). IOS Press.
(2004). Constructivist development of grounded construction grammars. In W. Daelemans & M. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 9–19). Association for Computational Linguistic Conference.
(Ed.). (2011). Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. John Benjamins.
(2017). Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames,
9
(2), 178–225.
Steels, L., & Belpaeme, T. (2005). Coordinating perceptually grounded categories through language: A case study for colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
28
(4), 469–489.
Steels, L., De Beule, J., & Neubauer, N. (2005). Linking in Fluid Construction Grammars. Proceedings of BNAIC, 11–18.
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press.
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaert, T. Colleman, & R. Gijsbert (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–180). Mouton de Gruyter.
Van Eecke, P. (2018). Generalisation and specialisation operators for computational construction grammar and their application in evolutionary ringuistics Research [Doctoral thesis]. Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
van Trijp, R. (2011). Feature matrices and agreement: A case study for German Case. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 205–236). John Benjamins. [URL].
(2013). Linguistic assessment criteria for explaining language change: A case study on syncretism in German definite articles. Language Dynamics and Change,
3
(1), 105–132.
(2014). Long-distance dependencies without filler-gaps: A cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar. Language and Cognition,
6
(02), 242–270.
(2015). Cognitive Vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The case of coercion and argument structure. Cognitive Linguistics,
26
(4), 613–632.
(2016). Chopping down the syntax tree: What constructions can do instead. Belgian Journal of Linguistics,
30
(1), 15–38.
(2017). How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary controversy. Constructions and Frames,
9
(2), 251–277.
(2020). Making good on a promise: Multidimensional Constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics,
34
1, 357–370.
(in press). Different constructional approaches in practice: A comparative guide. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P. (2022). The FCG Editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLOS ONE,
17
(6), e0269708.
Verhagen, A. (2007). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford University Press.