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. 220–254

Usage-based constructionist approaches and large language models

ORCID logo | Princeton University
The constructionist framework is more relevant than ever, due to efforts by a broad range of researchers across the globe, a steady increase in the use of corpus and experimental methods among linguists, consistent findings from laboratory phonology, neuroscience, sociolinguistics, and striking progress in transformer-based large language models. These advances promise exciting developments and a great deal more clarity over the next decade. The constructionist approach rests on two interrelated but distinguishable tenets: a recognition that constructions pair form with function at varying levels of specificity and abstraction, and the recognition that our knowledge and use of language are dynamic and based on language use.
Keywords: constructionist approach, ConstructionNet, usage based, large language models
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Constructions all the way down
    • 1.2Definition
  • 2.The usage-based nature of language
    • 2.1Hazard a guess
    • 2.2Skewed input
  • 3.The usage-based nature of language is a challenge for symbolic formalisms
    • 3.1Symbolic, feature-based formalisms
    • 3.2Combining constructions: An example
  • 4.A game changer: Large Language Models
    • 4.1Lossy compression and interpolation
    • 4.2Conform to conventions
    • 4.3Complex dynamic network of constructions at varying levels of abstraction and complexity
    • 4.4Context-dependent interpretation
    • 4.5Semantic relationships among discontinuous elements
    • 4.6NEW: Goal is to be helpful
    • 4.7With great power comes great responsibility
  • 5.GPTs at work
    • 5.1Intention-reading and social inferences
    • 5.2GPT correctly interprets unusual examples
    • 5.3GPT4 on a simple math problem
    • 5.4GPT4 appropriately characterizes conceptual metaphors
    • 5.5Over-reliance on associations can lead GPT models (and humans) astray
  • 6.Looking ahead
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23017.gol
References (160)
References
Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M. (2010). The influence of frequency and semantic similarity on how children learn grammar. First Language, 30 (1), 79–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, F., & Nikolaeva, I. (2014). Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1 L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9 (3), 621–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62 (1), 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & del Prado Martin, F. M. (2005). Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language, 81 (3), 666–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barak, L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2017). Modeling the partial productivity of constructions. In The AAAI 2017 spring symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and natural language understanding, [Technical report SS-17-02] (pp. 131–138). AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A. (2011). West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics, 49 (1), 53–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16 1, 522–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Ellis, N. C., Blythe, R., Holland, J., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Larsen-Freeman, D., Croft, W., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 59 (1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? 🦜. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610–623). ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical dimensions (pp. 147–190). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2008). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6 1, 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H., & Sag, I. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., Ibarretke, I., Kita, S., Lupke, F., & Ameka, F. (2007). Principles of event segmentation in language. Language, 83 (3), 495–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Cues that chimpanzees do and do not use to find hidden objects. Animal Cognition, 3 (1), 23–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G. (2011). Ad hoc cognition. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 826). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Chater, N. (2018). Mind is flat: The remarkable shallowness of the improvising brain. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chiang, T. (2023, February 9). ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web. The New Yorker.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Roberts, I., & Watumull, J. (2023, March 8). Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT. The New York Times.Google Scholar
Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems, 30 (NIPS 2017). Curran Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2022). The language game: How improvisation created language and changed the world. Hachette UK.Google Scholar
Christianson, K. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69 (5), 817–828. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christianson, K., & Ferreira, F. (2005). Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition, 98 (2), 105–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citron, F. M. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26 (11), 2585–2595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Yanti. (2014). The grammar of binding in the languages of the world: Innate or learned? Cognition, 141 1, 138–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Congdon, E. L., Novack, M. A., Brooks, N., Hemani-Lopez, N., O’Keefe, L., & Goldin Meadow, S. (2018). Better together: Simultaneous presentation of speech and gesture in math instruction supports generalization and retention. Learning and Instruction, 50 1, 65–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Morphosyntax: Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Philosophical reflections on the future of construction grammar (or, Confessions of a Radical Construction Grammarian). Constructions and Frames, 16 (2).Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 10 (3), 251–261.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuneo, N., & Goldberg, A. E. (2023). The discourse functions of grammatical constructions explain an enduring syntactic puzzle. Cognition, 240 1, 105563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuneo, N., Floyd, S., & Goldberg, A. E. (2024). Word meaning is complex: Language-related generalization differences in autistic adults. Cognition, 244 1, 105691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, I., Lampinen, A. K., Chan, S. C. Y., Creswell, A., Kumaran, D., McClelland, J. L., & Hill, F. (2022). Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. arXiv. [URL]
Desagulier, G. (2016). A lesson from associative learning: Asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12 (2), 173–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One Billion Words, 1990–2019.Google Scholar
Diessel, H., Dabrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (2019). Usage-based construction grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 2 1, 50–80.Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Hilpert, M. (2016). Frequency effects in grammar. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Docherty, G. J., & Foulkes, P. (2014). An evaluation of usage-based approaches to the modelling of sociophonetic variability. Lingua, 142 1, 42–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Domanchin, M., & Guo, Y. (2017). New frontiers in interactive multimodal communication. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 377–380). Routledge.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive linguistics, 25 (3), 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L. E., & Ashby, W. J. (2003). Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. (2019). Frequency vs. association for constraint selection in usage-based Construction Grammar. In E. Chersoni, C. Jacobs, A. Lenci, T. Linzen, L. Prévot & E. Santus (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on cognitive modeling and computational linguistics (pp. 117–128). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Natural language processing for corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14 (2), 179–211.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Mineroff, Z., Siegelman, M., & Blank, I. (2018). Word meanings and sentence structure recruit the same set of fronto-temporal regions. Language, 62 , 1, 67–82.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 (1), 11–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. The Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1 1, 123–131.Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni Di Semantica, 6 (2), 222–253.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 1, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A. (2012). The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics. In A. Foolen, U. M. Lüdtke, T. P. Racine & J. Zlatev (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language (pp. 349–369). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, E., & Michaelis, L. (2017). When relative clause extraposition is the right choice, it’s easier. Language and Cognition, 9 1, 332–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
French, R. M. (2000). The Turing test: The first 50 years. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (3), 115–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (1994). Grammatical functions in case languages: Subjecthood in Czech. The Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20 (1), 184–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. C. N. (2006). Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415 (6873), 755–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (2014). The functional approach to grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 38–62). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). Compositionality. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Semantics (pp. 419–433). Routledge.Google Scholar
(2016). Subtle implicit language facts emerge from the functions of constructions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 1, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Abbot-Smith, K. (2021). The constructionist approach offers a useful lens on language learning in autistic individuals: Response to Kissine. Language, 97 (3), e169–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. & van der Auwera, J. (2012). This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica, 46 (1), 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 14 (3), 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Ferreira, F. (2022). Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26 (4), 300–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Herbst, T. (2021). The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics, 59 (1), 285–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80 (3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Lee, C. (2021). Accessibility and historical change: An emergent cluster led uncles and aunts to become aunts and uncles. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Michaelis, L. A. (2017). One among many: Anaphoric one and its relationship with numeral one. Cognitive Science, 41 1, 233–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2009). The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31 (5), 663–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C. S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4 1, 39–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grand, G., Blank, I. A., Pereira, F., & Fedorenko, E. (2022). Semantic projection recovers rich human knowledge of multiple object features from word embeddings. Nature Human Behaviour, 6 (7), 975–987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graves, A., Mohamed, A., & Hinton, G. (2013). Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. arXiv. [URL]. DOI logo
Gries, S. T. (2011). Phonological similarity in multi-word units. Cognitive Linguistics, 22 1, 491–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Overhauling collostructional analysis: Towards more descriptive simplicity and more explanatory adequacy. Cognitive Semantics, 9 (3), 351–386.Google Scholar
Gries, S., & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbour clustering. Corpora, 3 1, 59–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Hilpert, M. (2010). Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics, 14 (3), 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harmon, Z., & Kapatsinski, V. (2017). Putting old tools to novel uses: The role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology, 98 1, 22–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86 (3), 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. D., Yamakoshi, T., Griffiths, T. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2020). Investigating representations of verb bias in neural language models. arXiv. [URL]. DOI logo
Herbst, T. (2011). The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. ZAA, 4 (4), 347–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Apes’ and children’s understanding of cooperative and competitive motives in a communicative situation. Developmental Science, 9 (5), 518–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (1), 113–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). The road ahead for Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 16 (2).Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 (2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8 1, 164–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2005). Introduction to English grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 53 (2), 195–197.Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar. A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibbotson, P. (2022). Language acquisition: The basics. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, M. (2001). Minimizers, maximizers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning. Journal of Semantics, 18 (4), 297–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In N. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-Particle explorations (pp. 67–94). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V., & Vakareliyska, C. (2013). [N[N]] compounds in Russian: A growing family of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 5 (1), 69–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (2011). The cross-linguistic prevalence of SOV and SVO word orders reflects the sequential and hierarchical representation of action in Broca’s area. Language and Linguistic Compass, 6 (1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Khasbage, Y., Carrión, D. A., Hinnell, J., Robertson, F., Singla, K., Uhrig, P., & Turner, M. (2022). The red hen anonymizer and the red hen protocol for de-identifying audiovisual recordings. Linguistics Vanguard. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition: Evidence from sentential complements. Language Sciences, 32 (1), 132–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. B., & Michaelis, L. A. (2020). Syntactic constructions in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, J. B., & Sells, P. (2013). The Korean sluicing: A family of constructions. Studies in Generative Grammar, 23 (1), 103–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. (2023, March 12). This changes everything. The New York Times.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62 1, 621–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The all new don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1997). Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 1, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. (1993). Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 63 1, 759–813.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 1, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahowald, K. (2023). A discerning several thousand judgments: GPT-3 rates the article + adjective + numeral + noun construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Evans, N., Gaby, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages. In N. Evans, A. Gaby, S. C. Levinson & A. Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (pp. 29–60). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Botvinick, M. M., Noelle, D. C., Plaut, D. C., Rogers, T. T., Seidenberg, M. S., & Smith, L. B. (2010). Letting structure emerge: Connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (8), 348–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group (1986). Parallel distributed processing (Vol. 11). MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (1987). Parallel distributed processing, volume 2: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Psychological and biological models (Vol. 21). MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCoy, R. T., Smolensky, P., Linzen, T., Gao, J., & Celikyilmaz, A. (2021). How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN. arXiv. [URL]
Michaelis, L., & Francis, H. (2007). Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. In N. Hedberg & R. Zacharski (Eds.), The grammar pragmatics interface: Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel (pp. 19–48). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2024). Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive: How to make room for the next generation of Construction Grammarians. Constructions and Frames, 16 (2).Google Scholar
Misra, K., & Mahowald, K. (2024). Language models learn rare phenomena from less rare phenomena: The case of the missing AANNs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19827.Google Scholar
Namboodiripad, S., Cuneo, N., Kramer, M. A., Sedarous, Y., Sugimoto, Y., Bisnath, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2022). Backgroundedness predicts island status of non-finite adjuncts in English. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28 1, 347–355.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18 (7), 1098–1111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ostrovsky, Y., Meyers, E., Ganesh, S., Mathur, U., & Sinha, P. (2009). Visual parsing after recovery from blindness. Psychological Science, 20 (12), 1484–1491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv. [URL]
Perek, F. (2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54 (1), 149–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. Choosing the best available option: Productivity is context dependent [Manuscript in preparation].
Piantadosi, S. T. (2014). Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21 1, 1112–1130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language. Lingbuzz, 7180 1.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122 (3), 280–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rambelli, G., Chersoni, E., Blache, P., & Lenci, A. (2022). Compositionality as an analogical process: Introducing ANNE. In M. Zock, E. Chersoni, Y. Hsu & E. Santus (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on cognitive aspects of the lexicon (pp. 78–96). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roose, K. (2023, February 17). A conversation with Bing’s chatbot left me deeply unsettled. The New York Times.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1973). A fake NP squish. In C-J. N. Bailey & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp. 96–140). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274 (5294), 1926–1928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3), 417–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shcherbakova, O., Blasi, D. E., Gast, V., Skirgård, H., Gray, R. D., & Greenhill, S. J. (2024). The evolutionary dynamics of how languages signal who does what to whom. Scientific Reports, 14 (1), 7259.Google Scholar
Shirtz, S., & Goldberg, A. E. (Forthcoming). The English Phrase-As-Lemma Construction: When a phrase masquerades as a word, people play along [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Steels, L., & de Beule, J. (2006). A (very) brief introduction to fluid construction grammar. In J. Allen, J. Alexandersson, J. Feldman & R. Porzel (Eds.), Proceedings of the third workshop on scalable natural language understanding (pp. 73–80). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, F. F., & Turner, M. (2013). Multimodal Construction Grammar. In M. Borkent, B. Dancygier & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp. 255–274). CSLI Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J., & Hasson, U. (2010). Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (32), 14425–14430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49 (6), 1237–1269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard university press.Google Scholar
(2009). Why we cooperate. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2016). A natural history of human morality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Origins of human communication. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2014). Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1 (1), 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes (Vol. 61). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trips, C., & Kornfilt, J. (Eds.) (2017). Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding. Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2022). 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
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. PsyArXiv. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614 (7947), 224–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2014). Long-distance dependencies without filler−gaps: A cognitive-functional alternative in fluid construction grammar. Language and Cognition, 6 (2), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Towards bidirectional processing models of sign language: A constructional approach in fluid construction grammar. In G. Airenti, B. G. Bara & G. Sandini (Eds.), Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific joint conference on cognitive science (pp. 668–673). CEUR Workshop Proceedings.Google Scholar
(2024). Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 16 (2).Google Scholar
Vig, J. (2019). A multiscale visualization of attention in the transformer model. arXiv. [URL]. DOI logo
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Helping and cooperation at 14 months of age. Infancy, 11 (3), 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weissweiler, L., Böbel, N., Guiller, K., Herrera, S., Scivetti, W., Lorenzi, A., Melnik, N., Bhatia, A., Schütze, H., Levin, L., Zeldes, A., Nivre, J., Croft, W., & Schneider, N. (2024). UCxn: Typologically Informed Annotation of Constructions Atop Universal Dependencies. arXiv. [URL]
Weissweiler, L., He, T., Otani, N., Mortensen, D. R., Levin, L., & Schütze, H. (2023). Construction Grammar provides unique insight into neural language models. arXiv. arXiv:2302.02178Google Scholar
Willems, R. M., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture, and action: A review. Brain and Language, 101 (3), 278–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2013). Formulaic language. Language Teaching, 46 (3), 316–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar