Cover not available
Article published In:
Quo Vadis, Construction Grammar?
Edited by Hans C. Boas, Jaakko Leino and Benjamin Lyngfelt
[Constructions and Frames 16:2] 2024
► pp. 255–277

The road ahead for Construction Grammar

ORCID logo
What does the future hold for Construction Grammar? What are the most promising future avenues for research on constructions? This paper addresses the development of Construction Grammar as a theory of language through the perspective of six recent PhD dissertations that explore constructional meaning, the architecture of the constructional network, and the role of language change in a constructional theory of language. The goal of this paper is to establish connections between these ideas, and to spell out how different questions concerning Frame Semantics, distributional semantic methods, priming, nodes and connections, individual differences, and constructional change all contribute to a picture that is bigger than the sum of its parts.
Keywords: constructional meaning, Frame Semantics, constructional networks, priming, distributional methods, nodes and connections, constructional change, individual differences
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructional meaning
  • 3.The architecture of the constructional network
  • 4.Constructions and language change
  • 5.Addressing the big questions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23014.hil
References (56)
References
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12 (3), 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audring, J., & Booij, G. E. (2016). Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54 (4), 617–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthonissen, L. (2020). Special passives across the lifespan. Cognitive and social mechanisms [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Antwerp / LMU Munich.
Baayen, H. R. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, M. Kytö & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (Vol 21, pp. 899–919). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Gildea, S., & Sommerer, L. (Eds.). (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2011). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49 (6), 1271–1303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Busso, L. (2018). Coercing Italian: Psycholinguistic investigations on valency coercion in Italian [Doctoral dissertation]. Pisa University.
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
del Prado, M., Moscoso, F., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94 (1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (2020). Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 277–315). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 (2), 222–254.Google Scholar
(2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 111–132). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64 (3), 501–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C J. & Baker, C. F. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–339). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhodes, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 283–99). CSLI.Google Scholar
Garrett, A. (1998). On the origin of auxiliary do . English Language and Linguistics, 2 1, 283–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80 (3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104 1, 211–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D. (2011). Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49 (6), 1219–1235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenci, A. (2008). Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Italian journal of linguistics, 20 (1), 1–31.Google Scholar
(2018). Distributional models of word meaning. Annual review of Linguistics 4 1, 151–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lester, N. (2018). The syntactic bits of nouns: How prior syntactic distributions affect comprehension, production, and acquisition [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California at Santa Barbara.
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (Eds.). (2018). Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magne, C., Besson, M., & Robert, S. (2014). Context influences the processing of verb transitivity in French sentences: More evidence for semantic — syntax interactions. Language and Cognition, 6 (2), 181–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Hsiao, A. M. (2021). Verbing and linguistic innovation. Frontiers in Communication, 6 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milin, P., Filipović-Đurđević, D., & del Prado Martín, F. M. (2009). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 1, 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moretti, L. (2021). On multiple constructions and multiple factors in language change: The origin of auxiliary do [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Manchester.
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic Construction Grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14 1, 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54 (1), 149–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50 (2), 543–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piñango, M. M., & Deo, A. (2016). Reanalyzing the complement coercion effect through a generalized lexical semantics for aspectual verbs. Journal of Semantics, 33 (2), 359–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2 (2), 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Säily, T. (2011). Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7 (1), 119–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E. (Eds.). (2020). Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Baumann, A. (2021). Of absent mothers, strong sisters, and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 32 (1), 97–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The constructional convergence and the construction network reconfiguration hypotheses. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, S. Gildea & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 175–214). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37 (3), 491–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turney, P., & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37 1, 141–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32 (3), 389–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022a). Structural priming in the grammatical network: A study of English argument structure constructions [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Edinburgh.
(2022b). Extending structural priming to test constructional relations: Some comments and suggestions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 10 (1), 159–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin? Constructions and Frames, 16 (1), 30–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willich, A. (2022a). Konstruktionssemantik: Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022b). Introducing Construction Semantics (CxS): A frame-semantic extension of Construction Grammar and Constructicography. Linguistics Vanguard. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2007). A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 1, 990–1028. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Goldberg, Adele E.
2024. Usage-based constructionist approaches and large language models. Constructions and Frames 16:2 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 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.