Cover not available
Article published In:
Construction Grammar across Borders
Edited by Tiago Timponi Torrent, Ely Edison da Silva Matos and Natália Sathler Sigiliano
[Constructions and Frames 12:1] 2020
► pp. 56–95

Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language

Moving towards colloconstruction grammar

| Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Attempts at predicting syntactic behavior from semantic or other generalizations are often unsatisfactory. It is argued that the notion of competition as used by Goldberg (2019) can serve as an explanation for unpredictability in language because established formulations that are preferred over others automatically distort the collocational profiles of verbs in argument structure constructions. As a consequence of this, an approach of seeing items as items-in-constructions (and not as elements attracted to them) is argued for. It is then shown how this items-in-constructions view can be applied to designing models of reference constructicons and mental constructicons.
Keywords: construction grammar, ditransitive, generalization, item-relatedness/item-specificity, pre-emption, unpredictability
Article outline
  • 1.Usage-based constructionist linguistics
  • 2.A note on the nature of item-specificity and generalization
  • 3.Factors determining the occurrence of items in constructions
    • 3.1The need to make sense
    • 3.2Semantics
    • 3.3Further criteria: phonology and etymology
    • 3.4Interim conclusion
  • 4.Pre-emption
    • 4.1Competition
    • 4.2Negative entrenchment
  • 5.Items in constructions
    • 5.1Collostructions
    • 5.2Items in the ditransitive construction
    • 5.3Two adjective constructions
      • 5.3.1The it is possible to do construction
      • 5.3.2The clear that construction
      • 5.3.3The possible to do construction and the clear that construction: semantics
      • 5.3.4Unpredictability
  • 6.Constructicographic applications
    • 6.1Constructicons
    • 6.2Representing constructions in a constructicon
    • 6.3Indication of frequency
  • 7.The representation of constructions in the brain
    • 7.1The mental constructicon
    • 7.2Slot fillers
  • 8.The role of competition and the unpredictability paradox
  • 9.The undemocratic nature of language: lack of choice
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00035.her
References (93)
References
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenmann, T. (2009). Language is a complex-adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 55 (Supplement 1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2011). Grammatik und Lexikon im Spracherwerb: Konstruktionsprozesse. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 375–396). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2011). Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 37–69). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 351, 15–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 183–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 861, 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cordes, A. (2014). The role of frequency in children’s learning of morphological constructions. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1973). Probleme der strukturellen Semantik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2000). From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics, 111, 83–102.Google Scholar
(2004). Language, mind, and brain. Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2009). Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.) New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 201–223). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 617–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(3), 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). COCA-The Corpus of Contemporary American English. Available at <[URL]>
Diessel, H. (2016). Frequency and lexical specificity in grammar: A critical review. In H. Behrens & S. Pfänder (Eds.). Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 209–237). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of CognitiveLinguistics, 71, 187–220.Google Scholar
Evert, S. (2005). The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Dissertation, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart, URN [URL]
Evert, St. (2008). Corpora and collocations. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 1212–1248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Ein Überblick. In K. Fischer & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.). Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (pp. 3–17). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1996). Collins Cobuild grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13–41, 327–356.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Devin, M., & Sethuranam, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 141, 289–316.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Herbst, T. (forthc). The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2013). 50-something years of work on collocations. What is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 505–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004a). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004b). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.). Language, culture, and mind (pp. 225–236). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2006). Syntactic leaps or lexical variation? – More on ‘creative syntax’. In S. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 127–157). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugen, T. A. (2012). Polyvalent adjectives in Norwegian: Aspects of their semantics and complementation patterns. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Hausmann, F-J. (1984). Wortschatzlernen ist Kollokationslernen. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 311, 395–406.Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (1983). Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2009). Valency: Item-specificity and idiom principle. In U. Römer & R. Schulze (Eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011a). The status of generalisations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschriftfür Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 347–367.Google Scholar
(2011b). Choosing sandy beaches– collocations, probabemes, and the idiom principle. In T. Herbst, S. Faulhaber, & P. Uhrig (Ed.), The phraseological view of language. A tribute to John Sinclair (pp. 27–57). Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns (pp. 159–207). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2014b). Idiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles, and the valency realization principle. In M. Hilpert & S. Flach (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Jahrbuchder Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kognitive Linguistik, Vol. II1. (pp. 253–289). Berlin, München, & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2015). Why construction grammar catches the worm and corpus data can drive you crazy: Accounting for idiomatic and non-idiomatic idiomaticity. Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (3), 91–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Wörterbuch wargestern: Programm für ein unifiziertes Konstruktikon. In S. Schierholz et al. (Eds.), Wörterbuchforschung und Lexikographie (pp. 169–206). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2018a). Die menschliche Sprache – ein Netzwerk von Konstruktionen? In R. Freiburg (Ed.), Sprachwelten (pp. 105–147). Erlangen: FAU University Press.Google Scholar
(2018b). Is language a collostructicon? – A proposal for looking at collocations, valency, argument structure and other constructions. In P. Cantos-Gómez & M. Almela-Sánchez (Eds.), Lexical collocation analysis: Advances and applications (pp. 1–22). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthc.). Die Digitalisierung von Wortschatz und Grammatik – ein Konstruktikon für die Schule. In Ch. Bürgel, P. Gévaudan, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Fremdsprachendidaktik: Konstruktionen und Konstruktionslernen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.
Herbst, T., & Uhrig, P. (2019). Towards a valency and argument structure constructicon of English: Turning the valency patternbank into a constructicon. Lexicographica, 351, 171–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Constructionist approaches. In B. Aarts, J. Bowie, & G. Popova (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of English grammar (pp. 106–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.) (2013). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgariff, A. (2005). Language is never, ever, ever, random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1–21, 263–276.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R., & Petruck, M. (2018). The FrameNet constructicon in action. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 19–39). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. (2018). Introduction. Constructicons and constructicography. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2014). Item-based patterns in early syntactic development. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns (pp. 25–61). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Madlener, K. (2016). Input optimization. In H. Behrens & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 133–173). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. (2005). Anglistische Korpuslinguistik. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
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. 142–163). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patten, A., & Perek, F. (2019). Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 241, 356–386.Google Scholar
(forthc.). Pedagogic applications of the English constructicon. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Pedagogic construction grammar: Data, methods, and applications. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native like selection and native like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pecina, P. (2010). Lexical association measures and collocation extraction. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44(1), 137–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 841, 108–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proisl, T. (2018). The cooccurrence of linguistic structures. Erlangen: FAU University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proisl, T., & Uhrig, P. (2012). Efficient dependency graph matching with the IMS Open Corpus Workbench. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Uğur Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC ’12) (pp. 2750–2756). Istanbul: European Language Resources Association. ELRA.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale, C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (Eds.). Lausanne & Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H., & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems, and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, U. (2018). ΔP as a measure of collocation strength. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 61–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 513–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Matos, E., Lage, L., Laviola, A., Tavares, T., Almeida, V. G., & Sigiliano, N. (2018). Towards continuity between the lexicon and the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 107–140). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2015). Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschriftfür Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 323–337.Google Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Harlow: Pearson-Longman.Google Scholar
Zeschel, A., & Proost, K. (forthc.). Grain size issues in constructicon building – and how to address them. In T. Herbst (Ed.), From constructicography to lexicography. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logo
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2024. Capturing meaningful generalizations at varying degrees of resolution. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Gedik, Tan Arda & Fatıma Uslu
2023. L1-L2 Transfer in Ditransitive Construction: A Usage-based Replication Study with Turkish Speakers of English. In Advances in Second/Foreign Language Acquisition, ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Klotz, Michael, Brigitta Mittmann, Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer & Peter Uhrig
2023. Editorial: Constructions under construction: Items, patterns, grammar. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ziem, Alexander & Tim Feldmüller
2023. Dimensions of constructional meanings in the German Constructicon: Why collo-profiles matter. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11:1 ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Herbst, Thomas & Judith Huber
2022. Diachronic Construction Grammar – Introductory Remarks to This Special Issue. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Gedik, Tan Arda
2021. An analysis of lexicogrammatical development in English textbooks in Turkey: A usage-based construction grammar approach. ExELL 9:1 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo
Gedik, Tan Arda
2024. Collostructional transfer effects in Turkish learners of English. Pedagogical Linguistics 5:2 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
GEDİK, Tan Arda
2022. A Usage-Based Constructionist Approach to Evidentiality in Turkish: The Unevidentiality Construction. Cankaya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 16:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Goldberg, Adele E. & Thomas Herbst
2021. Thenice-of-youconstruction and its fragments. Linguistics 59:1 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
Herbst, Thomas & Peter Uhrig
2020. The issue of specifying slots in argument structure constructions in terms of form and meaning. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo

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