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. 311–345

Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar

ORCID logo | Sony Computer Science Laboratories, Paris LabParis
Construction Grammar is a nomadic family of theoretical approaches whose members are constantly moving in various directions. The diversity in construction-based approaches is a clear sign of a thriving and tolerant research community, but it also risks muddying the waters, leading to potential confusion. In this paper, I argue that the main source of confusion about Construction Grammar stems from the community’s gradual evolution from the traditional view of languages as static, idealized entities (the “aggregate” perspective) to the view of language as a complex adaptive system (the “population” perspective). While the aggregate perspective abstracts away as much as possible from variation and language usage, the population perspective greatly emphasizes the dynamics of language and situated communicative interactions. This paper illustrates what it means to perform constructional analyses from the population perspective; and argues that Construction Grammar is particularly well-positioned to lead the way in this new kind of linguistics, indicating that our community has a bright future ahead.
Keywords: construction grammar, Fluid Construction Grammar, complex adaptive systems
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Making sense of Construction Grammar(s)
    • 2.1Variety is the spice of science
    • 2.2Caught in a riptide
  • 3.What’s in a construction?
    • 3.1L’Arbitraire de la construction linguistique
    • 3.2How to do things with constructions
    • 3.3To formalize or not to formalize
  • 4.Constructions at work
    • 4.1Frame-evoking constructions and argument linking
    • 4.2Event construals and surface generalizations
    • 4.3A final appetizer
  • 5.Nostalgic for the future
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23013.van
References (86)
References
Ackerman, F., & Webelhuth, G. (1998). A theory of predicates. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baerman, M. (2009). Case syncretism. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 219–230). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Cronin, B. (2003). The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography, 16 (3), 281–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. COLING-ACL ’98: Proceedings of the Conference, 86–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59 (1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulated-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beuls, K., Van Eecke, P., & Cangalovic, V. S. (2021). A computational construction grammar approach to semantic frame extraction. Linguistics Vanguard, 7 (1), 20180015. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bleys, J. (2014). Language strategies for the domain of colour. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. H. Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2008). Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57 1, 17–47.Google Scholar
(2021). Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. In X. Wen & R. J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 43–77). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 35 1(2019), 41–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In L. Borin, B. Lyngfelt, K. Hirose Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 183–228). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002). On nature and language (A. Belletti & L. Rizzi, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language studies: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation. In K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. 313–350). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1996). Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In H. Bunt & A. Horck (Eds.), Discontinous constituency (pp. 11–62). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-Frames Semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55–81). North-Holland.Google Scholar
(1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistics Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In J. D. Elisenda Bernal (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th EURALEX international congress (pp. 49–68). Institut Universitari de Linguistica Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
(2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 110–132). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2009). A Frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1995). Construction Grammar. University of California, Berkeley. [URL]
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. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction (Vol. 11). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (4), 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Argument Structure Constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28 (4), 435–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Giudice, A. D. (2005). Subject-auxiliary inversion: A natural category. The Linguistic Review, 22 (2–4), 411–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2019). Against traditional grammar – And for normal science in linguistics. Diversity Linguistics Comment. [URL]
Herbst, T., & Hoffmann, T. (2018). Construction Grammar for students: A Constructionist Approach to Syntactic Analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6 (1), 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Construction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 1–12). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoorens, S., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P. (2017). Constructions at work! Visualising linguistic pathways for computational Construction Grammar. In B. Verheij & M. Wiering (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Benelux conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 224–237). University of Groningen.Google 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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, A. (2018). What did Alan Kay mean by, “Lisp is the greatest single programming language ever designed”? [Online forum post]. Quora. [URL]
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75 (1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Laviola, A., Lage, L., Marção, N., Tavares, T., Almeida, V., Matos, E., & Torrent, T. T. (2017). The Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon: Modeling constructional inheritance, frame evocation and constraints in FrameNet Brasil. The AAAI 2017 spring symposium on computational construction grammar and natural language understanding. Technical Report SS-17-02, 193–196.Google Scholar
Loetzsch, M., Wellens, P., De Beule, J., Bleys, J., & van Trijp, R. (2008). The Babel2 Manual (AI-Memo 01–08). AI-Lab VUB.Google 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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (Eds.). (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Making the case for Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 31–69). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2019). Constructions are patterns and so are fixed expressions. In B. Busse & R. Moehlig-Falke (Eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics (pp. 193–220). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevens, J., Doumen, J., Van Eecke, P., & Beuls, K. (2022). Language acquisition through intention reading and pattern finding. Proceedings of the 29th international conference on computational linguistics, 15–25. [URL]
Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. Harvest/Harcourt, Brace & World.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. 141–163). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104 1, 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2010). English Filler-Gap Constructions. Language, 86 (3), 486–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale (6th ed.). Payot.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spranger, M., Pauw, S., Loetzsch, M., & Steels, L. (2012). Open-ended procedural semantics. In L. Steels & M. Hild (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp. 153–172). Springer. [URL]. DOI logo
Steels, L. (2000a). Language as a complex adaptive system. In M. Schoenauer, K. Deb, G. Rudolph, X. Yao, E. Lutton, J. J. Merelo, & H.-P. Schwefel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature (pp. 17–26). Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000b). The emergence of grammar in communicating autonomous robotic agents. In W. Horn (Ed.), ECAI 2000: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on artificial life (pp. 764–769). IOS Press.Google Scholar
(2004). Constructivist development of grounded construction grammars. In W. Daelemans & M. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 9–19). Association for Computational Linguistic Conference. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2011). Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 9 (2), 178–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, L., & Belpaeme, T. (2005). Coordinating perceptually grounded categories through language: A case study for colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28 (4), 469–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, L., De Beule, J., & Neubauer, N. (2005). Linking in Fluid Construction Grammars. Proceedings of BNAIC, 11–18.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaert, T. Colleman, & R. Gijsbert (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–180). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eecke, P. (2018). Generalisation and specialisation operators for computational construction grammar and their application in evolutionary linguistics research [Doctoral thesis]. Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
van Trijp, R. (2011). Feature matrices and agreement: A case study for German case. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 205–236). John Benjamins. [URL]. DOI logo
(2013). Linguistic assessment criteria for explaining language change: A case study on syncretism in German definite articles. Language Dynamics and Change, 3 (1), 105–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Long-distance dependencies without filler-gaps: A cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar. Language and Cognition, 6 (02), 242–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The case of coercion and argument structure. Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (4), 613–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Chopping down the syntax tree: What constructions can do instead. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30 (1), 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary controversy. Constructions and Frames, 9 (2), 251–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Making good on a promise: Multidimensional Constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 1, 357–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(in press). Different constructional approaches in practice: A comparative guide. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of construction grammar. Cambridge University Press.
van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P. (2022). The FCG Editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLOS ONE, 17 (6), e0269708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2007). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willich, A. (2022). Introducing Construction Semantics (CxS): A frame-semantic extension of Construction Grammar and constructicography. Linguistics Vanguard, 8 (1), 139–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. (1906). An Old High German primer (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(1916). An Middle High German primer (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.Google 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.