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. 191–219

Philosophical reflections on the future of construction grammar (or, confessions of a Radical Construction Grammarian)

ORCID logo | University of New Mexico
Many issues face construction grammar today. I start with the role of usage in construction grammar, and trace the changes in the usage-based model from mental storage to social interaction to evolution of populations of speakers and utterances. Just as speech communities and linguistic categories can be described as evolving populations, so can the construction grammar community and the theoretical concepts and formalisms that have evolved in it. Meaning remains the most challenging question for the future. Meaning is human experience, incredibly rich, and I suggest that construction grammar move away from mental representations to radical embodiment (existential phenomenology).
Keywords: construction grammar, usage-based model, social interaction, evolutionary model, scientific community, meaning, conceptual space, Frame Semantics, radical embodiment, phenomenology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.From usage-based to complex adaptive systems to the evolutionary framework
    • 2.1The usage-based model as a model of grammatical knowledge and processing
    • 2.2The usage-based model as a model of grammar vis-à-vis language use
    • 2.3An evolutionary framework: Replication, lineages, and populations
  • 3.Construction grammar: A “framework”, or a scientific community?
    • 3.1Construction grammar as a “framework”
    • 3.2Construction grammar as a historical entity
    • 3.3Formalisms and construction grammar
  • 4.Meaning, function, and phenomenology
    • 4.1Semantic content and information packaging
    • 4.2Semantic maps, multidimensional scaling, and the continuous nature of conceptual space
    • 4.3From Frame Semantics to radical embodiment (existential phenomenology)
  • 5.Conclusion: The future of construction grammar
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23011.cro
References (72)
References
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, J. (1975). The phrasal lexicon [Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 3081, Artificial Intelligence Report No. 28]. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R. A., Bybee, J. L., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Jinyun Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 59 1: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2013). Embodied Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 168–90). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1975). Aspects of language (2nd ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
(1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (1992). Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review, 1011, 327–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1977). The recall and verbalization of past experience. In P. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 215–46). Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Communal lexicons. In K. Malmkjaer & J. Williams (Eds.), Context in language learning and language understanding (pp. 63–87). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1978). Ergativity. In W. Lehmann (Ed.), Syntactic typology (pp. 329–94). University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Cowley, S. J. (2016). Entrenchment: A view from radical embodied cognitive science. In Schmid, H-J. (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 409–31). Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (or, a taxonomy of propositional acts). Journal of Semantics, 7 1, 245–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Longman.Google Scholar
(2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2007). The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics, 18 1, 339–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009a). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 395–420). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b). Constructions and generalizations. [Review of the book Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language, by A. Goldberg]. Cognitive Linguistics, 20 1, 157–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a). Relativity, linguistic variation and language universals. CogniTextes, 4 1, 303. [URL]. DOI logo
(2010b). The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48 1, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Language as a process. In I. Arnon & E. V. Clark (Eds.), Experience, variation and generalization: Learning a first language (pp. 242–60). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Ten lectures on construction grammar and typology. Brill.Google Scholar
(2022a). Morphosyntax: Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022b). On two mathematical representations for ‘semantic maps’. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 41 (1), 67–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Word classes in Radical Construction Grammar. In E. Van Lier (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of word classes (pp. 213–230). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Poole, K. T. (2008). Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics, 34 1, 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (1982). Introduction. In H. L. Dreyfus & H. Hall (Eds.), Husserl, intentionality and cognitive science (pp. 1–27). MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Being-in-the-world: A commentary of Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1992). What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason (3rd ed.). MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1993). Heidegger’s critique of the Husserl/Searle account of intentionality. Social Research, 60 1, 17–38.Google Scholar
(2000). A Merleau-Pontyian critique of Husserl’s and Searle’s representationalist accounts of action. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 100 1, 287–302.Google Scholar
(2002). Intelligence without representation – Merleau-Ponty’s critique of mental representation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1 1, 367–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Artificial Intelligence, 171 1, 1137–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.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
Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig and A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (pp. 113–28). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M. (1979). On the failure of generative grammar. Language, 55 1, 859–885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hass, L. (2008). Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Transl.). Harper and Row. (Original work published 1927).Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent Grammar. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 139–157). Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hull, D L. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). The essence of scientific theories. Biological Theory, 1 1, 17–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (construction) grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 32–48). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 127–161). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol II: Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
(2009). Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 225–67). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Law, J. (2019). Diachronic frame analysis: The Purpose frame in French. Constructions and Frames, 11 1, 43–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., Meira, S., & the Language and Cognition Group. (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79 1, 485–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, inheritance. Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. Landes, Transl.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945.)Google Scholar
Neisser, J. U. (2001). [Review of the book Philosophy in the flesh, by G. Lakoff & M. Johnson]. Language, 77 1, 166–68.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 46 1, 115–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 54 1, 883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier, T., Khetarpal, N., & Majid, A. (2013). Inferring semantic maps. Linguistic Typology, 171, 89–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1982). Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have an eat? Language, 581, 753–799. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Boas, Hans C., Jaakko Leino & Benjamin Lyngfelt
2024. Constructionist views on Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 16:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
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 3 december 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.