Cover not available

Review article published In: Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Volume 2
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
[Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2] 2004
► pp. 321–348

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Review article

Why Construction Grammar is radical

 | University of Otago
Published online: 11 January 2005
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.2.12tay
This article reviews some of the foundational assumptions of Croft'sRadical Construction Grammar. While constructions have featured prominently in much recent work in cognitive linguistics, Croft adopts the ‘radical’ view that constructions are the primary objects of linguistic analysis, with lexical and syntactic categories being defined with respect to the constructions in which they occur. This approach reverses the traditional view, according to which complex expressions are compositionally assembled through syntactic rules operating over items selected from the lexicon. The ubiquity of idioms, especially so-called constructional idioms, provides compelling evidence for the essential correctness of the radical constructional view. The possibility of a radical constructional approach to phonology is also discussed.
References (32)
References
Baker, M. (2001). The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and languagespecific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brooks, P. & Tomasello, M. (1999). Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, 351, 29–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In R. Freidin (Ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar (pp. 417–54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. London: Andre Deutsch.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. (1999). Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2000). From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics, 111, 83–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dieseel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 121, 97–141.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 641, 501–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, W. (1997). Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foolen, A. & van der Leek, F. (Eds.). (2000). Constructions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joos, M. (Ed.). (1957). Readings in linguistics, I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 751, 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1976). Semantic representations and the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Foundations of Language, 141, 307–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). A dynamic usage-based model. In R. W. Langacker, Grammar and conceptualization (pp. 91–145). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Towards a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 721, 215–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 701, 491–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pütz, M. & Verspoor, M. (Eds.). (2000). Explorations in linguistic relativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1964). General linguistics: An introductory survey. London: Longmans.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1963 [1921]). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 111, 61–82.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Brooks, P. (1998). Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 379–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Well, R. S. (1957). Immediate constituents. In Joos (1957) (pp. 186–207). First published in Language, 231(1947), 81–117.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Altamimi, Abdulaziz & Kathy Conklin
2025. The Effects of Pre‐Reading Study and Reading Exposure on the Learning and Processing of Semi‐Figurative Collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Zhang, Yi
2022. Chinese adverbs. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 330 ff. DOI logo
Macis, Marijana & Norbert Schmitt
2017. Not just ‘small potatoes’: Knowledge of the idiomatic meanings of collocations. Language Teaching Research 21:3 ► pp. 321 ff. DOI logo
Vartiainen, Turo
2016. A Constructionist Approach to Category Change. Journal of English Linguistics 44:1 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue