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. 255–277

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

The road ahead for Construction Grammar

ORCiD logo with link | Université de Neuchâtel
Published online: 6 September 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23014.hil
Abstract
What does the future hold for Construction Grammar? What are the most promising future avenues for research on constructions? This paper addresses the development of Construction Grammar as a theory of language through the perspective of six recent PhD dissertations that explore constructional meaning, the architecture of the constructional network, and the role of language change in a constructional theory of language. The goal of this paper is to establish connections between these ideas, and to spell out how different questions concerning Frame Semantics, distributional semantic methods, priming, nodes and connections, individual differences, and constructional change all contribute to a picture that is bigger than the sum of its parts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructional meaning
  • 3.The architecture of the constructional network
  • 4.Constructions and language change
  • 5.Addressing the big questions
  • Notes
  • References
References (56)
References
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Audring, J., & Booij, G. E. (2016). Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54(4), 617–637. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthonissen, L. (2020). Special passives across the lifespan. Cognitive and social mechanisms [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Antwerp / LMU Munich.
Baayen, H. R. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, M. Kytö & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (Vol 21, pp. 899–919). Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Gildea, S., & Sommerer, L. (Eds.). (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2011). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Busso, L. (2018). Coercing Italian: Psycholinguistic investigations on valency coercion in Italian [Doctoral dissertation]. Pisa University.
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
del Prado, M., Moscoso, F., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94(1), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2020). Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 277–315). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 111–132). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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), 501–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C J. & Baker, C. F. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–339). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhodes, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 283–99). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrett, A. (1998). On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics, 21, 283–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 1041, 211–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D. (2011). Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49(6), 1219–1235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenci, A. (2008). Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Italian journal of linguistics, 20(1), 1–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Distributional models of word meaning. Annual review of Linguistics 41, 151–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lester, N. (2018). The syntactic bits of nouns: How prior syntactic distributions affect comprehension, production, and acquisition [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California at Santa Barbara.
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (Eds.). (2018). Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magne, C., Besson, M., & Robert, S. (2014). Context influences the processing of verb transitivity in French sentences: More evidence for semantic — syntax interactions. Language and Cognition, 6(2), 181–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Hsiao, A. M. (2021). Verbing and linguistic innovation. Frontiers in Communication, 61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milin, P., Filipović-Đurđević, D., & del Prado Martín, F. M. (2009). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, 601, 50–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moretti, L. (2021). On multiple constructions and multiple factors in language change: The origin of auxiliary do [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Manchester.
Perek, F. (2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–582. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piñango, M. M., & Deo, A. (2016). Reanalyzing the complement coercion effect through a generalized lexical semantics for aspectual verbs. Journal of Semantics, 33(2), 359–408. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 158–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Säily, T. (2011). Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 119–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Baumann, A. (2021). Of absent mothers, strong sisters, and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 97–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torrent, T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The constructional convergence and the construction network reconfiguration hypotheses. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, S. Gildea & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 175–214). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 491–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turney, P., & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 371, 141–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022a). Structural priming in the grammatical network: A study of English argument structure constructions [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Edinburgh.
(2022b). Extending structural priming to test constructional relations: Some comments and suggestions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 10(1), 159–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willich, A. (2022a). Konstruktionssemantik: Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022b). Introducing Construction Semantics (CxS): A frame-semantic extension of Construction Grammar and Constructicography. Linguistics Vanguard. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2007). A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 391, 990–1028. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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 5 december 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