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. 278–310

Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive

How to make room for the next generation of construction grammarians

ORCID logo | University of Colorado Boulder
When he introduced the framework now known as Construction Grammar, Charles Fillmore said: “Grammatical Construction Theory differs from […] other frameworks […] in its insistence that syntactic patterns are often tightly associated with interpretation instructions” (Fillmore 1989: 17). Construction Grammarians view the patterns, the associations and the interpretive instructionsas a matter of linguistic convention-a fact not generally appreciated within the wider cognitive-functional community that embraces Construction Grammar, In CxG, we do not use general principles to explain the existence of the form-function pairs we encounter in a language, but rather treat those as the product of lexical and constructional licensing (Zwicky 1994). But emergentists and stipulators share one core belief: grammatical structure is inherently symbolic. Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG) makes this insight formally explicit by treating constructions as licensors of signs-signs that are phrases, lexemes or words-and allowing for semantic and usage constraints to be directly associated with constructions. But practitioners of Construction Grammar might reasonably reject the SBCG formalism as incompatible with major foundations of constructional thinking: the top-down nature of constructional meaning, the idiomaticity continuum and the narrow scope of linguistic generalizations. My task in this article is to address this concern, illustrating a variety of applications.
Keywords: Sign-Based Construction Grammar, Social Semiotic Syntax, coercion, usage
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Construction Grammar Coursebook
  • 3.Is Construction Grammar best considered a coherent theoretical framework or rather a flexible toolbox for linguistic analysis?
    • 3.1A format that fits the framework
    • 3.2Insights from words
    • 3.3Frequently asked questions
  • 4.What’s in a construction? What kind(s) of information is, and is not, included in a construction, and in a proper description of a construction?
  • 5.Sentence analysis
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23012.mic
References (79)
References
Baker, M. C. (1996). The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2011). Lexical vs. structural case: A false dichotomy. Morphology, 21 (3–4), 619–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring sense (Vol. 1): In name only. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brenier, J. M., & Michaelis, L. A. (2005). Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 1, 45–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2022). Lexical integrity: A mere construct or more a construction? Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 10 (1), 183–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 10 1, 43–74.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113 1, 121–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37 (3), 201–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, E. (2010). Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25 (1), 38–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (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
Diffenbaugh, N. S., & Barnes, E. A. (2023). Data-driven predictions of the time remaining until critical global warming thresholds are reached. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 (6), e2207183120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffield, C. J., & Michaelis, L. A. (2011). Why subject relatives prevail: Constraints versus constructional licensing. Language and Cognition, 3 1, 171–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 8): Grammatical relations (pp. 59–81). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 1, 222–254Google Scholar
(1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 17–38). Elsevier Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J-P. Koenig, & A. Kathol, (Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (pp. 113–128). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 111–132). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2020). Form and meaning in language. Papers on linguistic theory and constructions (P. Gras, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren, Eds.). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. (2003). Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16 1, 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1995). Construction grammar coursebook. University of California, Berkeley. [Unpublished manuscript].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), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhodes, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. Boas and I. Sag. (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Francis, E. (2022). Gradient acceptability and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, E. J., & Michaelis, L. A. (2016). When relative clause extraposition is the right choice, it’s easier. Language and Cognition, 9 1, 332–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, S., & Barðdal, J. (2023). From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar: A natural evolution of the paradigm. Studies in Language, 47 (4), 743–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, M. L., & Michaelis, L. A. (2001). Topicalization and left dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 1665–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1998). The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working papers in linguistics, 32 1, 73–118.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). The great temptation: What diachronic corpora do and do not reveal about social change. In P. Rautionaho, A. Nurmi & J. Klemola (Eds.), Corpora and the changing society: Studies in the evolution of English (pp. 3–27). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (1992). At least. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 309–331). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1997). Words and the grammar of context. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 2271–2296). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2018). A few words to do with multiword expressions. In C. Condoravdi & T. H. King (Eds.), Tokens of meaning: Papers in honor of Lauri Karttunen (pp. 87–118). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kim, J., & Michaelis, L. A. (2020). Syntactic constructions of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koutsoukos, N., & Michaelis, L. A. (2021). Pleonastic complex words as functional amalgams. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 1, 199–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosse, M. (2022). Ted Cruz cucks again: the insult term cuck as an alt-right masculinist signifier. Gender and Language, 16 (2), 88–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, G., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22 (12), 2685–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000, March 8). Senses of “formal”. The Funknet Archives. [URL]
(2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4 (1), 70–81. 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., & Michaelis, L. A. (1998). Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21 1, 477–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, R. (2021). Ideology, Frame Semantics, and variation: A cognitive sociolinguistic study of the English lexeme racist . In M. Hewett, C. Kasper, S. Kim & N. Kurtz (Eds.), CLS 56, 2021: Proceedings of the Fifty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 269–281). Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Malouf, R. (2003). Cooperating Constructions. In E. Francis & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 403–424). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mansouri, A. (2015). Stative and stativizing constructions in Arabic news reports: A corpus-based study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Colorado Boulder.
Michaelis, L. A. (1994). A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language, 18 1, 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Stative by construction. Linguistics, 49 1, 1359–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Making the case for Construction Grammar. In H. Boas & I. Sag, (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 31–69). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2015). Constructions license verb frames. In J. Rudanko, J. Havu, M. Höglund & P. Rickman (Eds.), Perspectives on complementation (pp. 7–33). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
(2022). Aspectual coercion and lexical semantics Part 1: Using selection to describe the interaction between construction and verb meaning. Cognitive Semantics, 8 (3), 383–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). What is the Event Elaboration Constraint? In A. De Wit, F. Brisard, C. Madden-Lombardi, M. Meeuwis, & A. Patard (Eds.), Beyond aspectual semantics: Explorations in the pragmatic and cognitive realms of aspect (pp. 117–142). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Feng, H. (2015). What is this, sarcastic syntax? Constructions and Frames, 7 1, 148–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Francis, H. S. (2007). Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. In N. Hedberg & R. Zacharski (Eds.), Topics in the grammar-pragmatics interface: Papers in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel (pp. 19–48). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Hsiao, A. M. (2021). Verbing and linguistic innovation. Frontiers in Communication, 61, 604763. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72 1, 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond alternations: A constructional account of the applicative pattern in German. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. Z. (1998). Type-based derivational morphology. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2 (1), 49–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2010). Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 27 (3), 343–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Schwarzer-Petruck, M., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 69–202). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Boas, H. C., & Kay, P. (2012). Introducing Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In H. Boas & I. Sag, (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 1–29). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Chaves, R. P., Abeillé, A., Estigarribia, B., Flickinger, D., Kay, P., Michaelis, L. A., Müller, S., & Pullum, G. K. (2019). Lessons from the English auxiliary system. Journal of Linguistics, 55 1, 87–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shieber, S. M. (2003). An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Microtome Publishing.Google Scholar
Steel, D., DesRoches, C. T., & Mintz-Woo, K. (2022). Climate change and the threat to civilization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119 (42), e2210525119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Supran, G., & Oreskes, N. (2021). Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate change communications. One Earth, 4 (5), 696–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Ellsworth, M., Baker, C., & Matos, E. E. (2018). The Multilingual FrameNet shared annotation task: A preliminary report. In T. T. Torrent, L. Borin & C. F. Bake (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 62–68). ELRA.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wellens, P., van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Steels, L. (2013). Fluid Construction Grammar for historical and evolutionary linguistics. In M. Butt & S. Hussain (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 127–132). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1994). Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of syntactic constructions. Proceedings of the twentieth meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Societys, 20 (1), 611–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three 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
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2023. Grammaire agentielle cognitive de constructions. Signata :14 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. 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.