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. 220–254

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

Usage-based constructionist approaches and large language models

ORCiD logo with link | Princeton University
Published online: 15 August 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23017.gol
Abstract
The constructionist framework is more relevant than ever, due to efforts by a broad range of researchers across the globe, a steady increase in the use of corpus and experimental methods among linguists, consistent findings from laboratory phonology, neuroscience, sociolinguistics, and striking progress in transformer-based large language models. These advances promise exciting developments and a great deal more clarity over the next decade. The constructionist approach rests on two interrelated but distinguishable tenets: a recognition that constructions pair form with function at varying levels of specificity and abstraction, and the recognition that our knowledge and use of language are dynamic and based on language use.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Constructions all the way down
    • 1.2Definition
  • 2.The usage-based nature of language
    • 2.1Hazard a guess
    • 2.2Skewed input
  • 3.The usage-based nature of language is a challenge for symbolic formalisms
    • 3.1Symbolic, feature-based formalisms
    • 3.2Combining constructions: An example
  • 4.A game changer: Large Language Models
    • 4.1Lossy compression and interpolation
    • 4.2Conform to conventions
    • 4.3Complex dynamic network of constructions at varying levels of abstraction and complexity
    • 4.4Context-dependent interpretation
    • 4.5Semantic relationships among discontinuous elements
    • 4.6NEW: Goal is to be helpful
    • 4.7With great power comes great responsibility
  • 5.GPTs at work
    • 5.1Intention-reading and social inferences
    • 5.2GPT correctly interprets unusual examples
    • 5.3GPT4 on a simple math problem
    • 5.4GPT4 appropriately characterizes conceptual metaphors
    • 5.5Over-reliance on associations can lead GPT models (and humans) astray
  • 6.Looking ahead
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (160)
References
Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M. (2010). The influence of frequency and semantic similarity on how children learn grammar. First Language, 30(1), 79–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., & Nikolaeva, I. (2014). Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1 L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 621–636. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & del Prado Martin, F. M. (2005). Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language, 81(3), 666–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barak, L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2017). Modeling the partial productivity of constructions. In The AAAI 2017 spring symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and natural language understanding, [Technical report SS-17-02] (pp. 131–138). AAAI Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A. (2011). West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics, 49(1), 53–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 161, 522–533. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Ellis, N. C., Blythe, R., Holland, J., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Larsen-Freeman, D., Croft, W., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? 🦜. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610–623). ACM. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical dimensions (pp. 147–190). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H., & Sag, I. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., Ibarretke, I., Kita, S., Lupke, F., & Ameka, F. (2007). Principles of event segmentation in language. Language, 83(3), 495–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Cues that chimpanzees do and do not use to find hidden objects. Animal Cognition, 3(1), 23–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G. (2011). Ad hoc cognition. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 826). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chater, N. (2018). Mind is flat: The remarkable shallowness of the improvising brain. Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiang, T. (2023, February 9). ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web. The New Yorker.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Roberts, I., & Watumull, J. (2023, March 8). Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT. The New York Times.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems, 30 (NIPS 2017). Curran Associates Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2022). The language game: How improvisation created language and changed the world. Hachette UK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christianson, K. (2016). When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 817–828. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christianson, K., & Ferreira, F. (2005). Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition, 98(2), 105–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Citron, F. M. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–2595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Yanti. (2014). The grammar of binding in the languages of the world: Innate or learned? Cognition, 1411, 138–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Congdon, E. L., Novack, M. A., Brooks, N., Hemani-Lopez, N., O’Keefe, L., & Goldin Meadow, S. (2018). Better together: Simultaneous presentation of speech and gesture in math instruction supports generalization and retention. Learning and Instruction, 501, 65–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Morphosyntax: Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Philosophical reflections on the future of construction grammar (or, Confessions of a Radical Construction Grammarian). Constructions and Frames, 16(2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(3), 251–261.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuneo, N., & Goldberg, A. E. (2023). The discourse functions of grammatical constructions explain an enduring syntactic puzzle. Cognition, 2401, 105563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuneo, N., Floyd, S., & Goldberg, A. E. (2024). Word meaning is complex: Language-related generalization differences in autistic adults. Cognition, 2441, 105691. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dasgupta, I., Lampinen, A. K., Chan, S. C. Y., Creswell, A., Kumaran, D., McClelland, J. L., & Hill, F. (2022). Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. arXiv. [URL]
Desagulier, G. (2016). A lesson from associative learning: Asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 173–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One Billion Words, 1990–2019.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H., Dabrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (2019). Usage-based construction grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 50–80.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Hilpert, M. (2016). Frequency effects in grammar. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Docherty, G. J., & Foulkes, P. (2014). An evaluation of usage-based approaches to the modelling of sociophonetic variability. Lingua, 1421, 42–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Domanchin, M., & Guo, Y. (2017). New frontiers in interactive multimodal communication. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 377–380). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L. E., & Ashby, W. J. (2003). Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, J. (2019). Frequency vs. association for constraint selection in usage-based Construction Grammar. In E. Chersoni, C. Jacobs, A. Lenci, T. Linzen, L. Prévot & E. Santus (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on cognitive modeling and computational linguistics (pp. 117–128). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Natural language processing for corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179–211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Mineroff, Z., Siegelman, M., & Blank, I. (2018). Word meanings and sentence structure recruit the same set of fronto-temporal regions. Language, 62, 1, 67–82.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. The Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 11, 123–131.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni Di Semantica, 6(2), 222–253.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, 641, 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foolen, A. (2012). The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics. In A. Foolen, U. M. Lüdtke, T. P. Racine & J. Zlatev (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language (pp. 349–369). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, E., & Michaelis, L. (2017). When relative clause extraposition is the right choice, it’s easier. Language and Cognition, 91, 332–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
French, R. M. (2000). The Turing test: The first 50 years. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(3), 115–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, M. (1994). Grammatical functions in case languages: Subjecthood in Czech. The Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20(1), 184–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. C. N. (2006). Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415(6873), 755–755. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (2014). The functional approach to grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 38–62). Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Compositionality. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Semantics (pp. 419–433). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Subtle implicit language facts emerge from the functions of constructions. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 1–11. 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., & Abbot-Smith, K. (2021). The constructionist approach offers a useful lens on language learning in autistic individuals: Response to Kissine. Language, 97(3), e169–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. & van der Auwera, J. (2012). This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica, 46(1), 109–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 14(3), 289–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Ferreira, F. (2022). Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(4), 300–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Herbst, T. (2021). The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics, 59(1), 285–318. 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
Goldberg, A. E., & Lee, C. (2021). Accessibility and historical change: An emergent cluster led uncles and aunts to become aunts and uncles. Frontiers in Psychology, 121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Michaelis, L. A. (2017). One among many: Anaphoric one and its relationship with numeral one. Cognitive Science, 411, 233–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2009). The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31(5), 663–723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C. S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 39–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grand, G., Blank, I. A., Pereira, F., & Fedorenko, E. (2022). Semantic projection recovers rich human knowledge of multiple object features from word embeddings. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(7), 975–987. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graves, A., Mohamed, A., & Hinton, G. (2013). Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. arXiv. [URL].
Gries, S. T. (2011). Phonological similarity in multi-word units. Cognitive Linguistics, 221, 491–510. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Overhauling collostructional analysis: Towards more descriptive simplicity and more explanatory adequacy. Cognitive Semantics, 9(3), 351–386.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S., & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbour clustering. Corpora, 31, 59–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Hilpert, M. (2010). Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 293–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harmon, Z., & Kapatsinski, V. (2017). Putting old tools to novel uses: The role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology, 981, 22–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. D., Yamakoshi, T., Griffiths, T. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2020). Investigating representations of verb bias in neural language models. arXiv. [URL].
Herbst, T. (2011). The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. ZAA, 4(4), 347–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Apes’ and children’s understanding of cooperative and competitive motives in a communicative situation. Developmental Science, 9(5), 518–529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). The road ahead for Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 16(2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 81, 164–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2005). Introduction to English grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 53(2), 195–197.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P. (2022). Language acquisition: The basics. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, M. (2001). Minimizers, maximizers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning. Journal of Semantics, 18(4), 297–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In N. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-Particle explorations (pp. 67–94). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V., & Vakareliyska, C. (2013). [N[N]] compounds in Russian: A growing family of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 69–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (2011). The cross-linguistic prevalence of SOV and SVO word orders reflects the sequential and hierarchical representation of action in Broca’s area. Language and Linguistic Compass, 6(1), 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khasbage, Y., Carrión, D. A., Hinnell, J., Robertson, F., Singla, K., Uhrig, P., & Turner, M. (2022). The red hen anonymizer and the red hen protocol for de-identifying audiovisual recordings. Linguistics Vanguard. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition: Evidence from sentential complements. Language Sciences, 32(1), 132–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, J. B., & Michaelis, L. A. (2020). Syntactic constructions in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, J. B., & Sells, P. (2013). The Korean sluicing: A family of constructions. Studies in Generative Grammar, 23(1), 103–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, E. (2023, March 12). This changes everything. The New York Times.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 621, 621–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The Chicago University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). The all new don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 81, 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. (1993). Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 631, 759–813.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 41, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahowald, K. (2023). A discerning several thousand judgments: GPT-3 rates the article + adjective + numeral + noun construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Majid, A., Evans, N., Gaby, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages. In N. Evans, A. Gaby, S. C. Levinson & A. Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (pp. 29–60). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Botvinick, M. M., Noelle, D. C., Plaut, D. C., Rogers, T. T., Seidenberg, M. S., & Smith, L. B. (2010). Letting structure emerge: Connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 348–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group (1986). Parallel distributed processing (Vol. 11). MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1987). Parallel distributed processing, volume 2: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Psychological and biological models (Vol. 21). MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCoy, R. T., Smolensky, P., Linzen, T., Gao, J., & Celikyilmaz, A. (2021). How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN. arXiv. [URL]
Michaelis, L., & Francis, H. (2007). Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. In N. Hedberg & R. Zacharski (Eds.), The grammar pragmatics interface: Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel (pp. 19–48). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2024). Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive: How to make room for the next generation of Construction Grammarians. Constructions and Frames, 16(2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Misra, K., & Mahowald, K. (2024). Language models learn rare phenomena from less rare phenomena: The case of the missing AANNs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19827.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Namboodiripad, S., Cuneo, N., Kramer, M. A., Sedarous, Y., Sugimoto, Y., Bisnath, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2022). Backgroundedness predicts island status of non-finite adjuncts in English. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 281, 347–355.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ostrovsky, Y., Meyers, E., Ganesh, S., Mathur, U., & Sinha, P. (2009). Visual parsing after recovery from blindness. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1484–1491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv. [URL]
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
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. Choosing the best available option: Productivity is context dependent [Manuscript in preparation].
Piantadosi, S. T. (2014). Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 211, 1112–1130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language. Lingbuzz, 71801.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3), 280–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rambelli, G., Chersoni, E., Blache, P., & Lenci, A. (2022). Compositionality as an analogical process: Introducing ANNE. In M. Zock, E. Chersoni, Y. Hsu & E. Santus (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on cognitive aspects of the lexicon (pp. 78–96). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roose, K. (2023, February 17). A conversation with Bing’s chatbot left me deeply unsettled. The New York Times.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1973). A fake NP squish. In C-J. N. Bailey & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp. 96–140). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shcherbakova, O., Blasi, D. E., Gast, V., Skirgård, H., Gray, R. D., & Greenhill, S. J. (2024). The evolutionary dynamics of how languages signal who does what to whom. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 7259.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shirtz, S., & Goldberg, A. E. (Forthcoming). The English Phrase-As-Lemma Construction: When a phrase masquerades as a word, people play along [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Steels, L., & de Beule, J. (2006). A (very) brief introduction to fluid construction grammar. In J. Allen, J. Alexandersson, J. Feldman & R. Porzel (Eds.), Proceedings of the third workshop on scalable natural language understanding (pp. 73–80). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, F. F., & Turner, M. (2013). Multimodal Construction Grammar. In M. Borkent, B. Dancygier & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp. 255–274). CSLI Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J., & Hasson, U. (2010). Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(32), 14425–14430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard university press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Why we cooperate. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). A natural history of human morality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Origins of human communication. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes (Vol. 61). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trips, C., & Kornfilt, J. (Eds.) (2017). Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding. Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2022). 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
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. PsyArXiv. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2014). Long-distance dependencies without filler−gaps: A cognitive-functional alternative in fluid construction grammar. Language and Cognition, 6(2), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Towards bidirectional processing models of sign language: A constructional approach in fluid construction grammar. In G. Airenti, B. G. Bara & G. Sandini (Eds.), Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific joint conference on cognitive science (pp. 668–673). CEUR Workshop Proceedings.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 16(2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vig, J. (2019). A multiscale visualization of attention in the transformer model. arXiv. [URL].
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Helping and cooperation at 14 months of age. Infancy, 11(3), 271–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weissweiler, L., Böbel, N., Guiller, K., Herrera, S., Scivetti, W., Lorenzi, A., Melnik, N., Bhatia, A., Schütze, H., Levin, L., Zeldes, A., Nivre, J., Croft, W., & Schneider, N. (2024). UCxn: Typologically Informed Annotation of Constructions Atop Universal Dependencies. arXiv. [URL]
Weissweiler, L., He, T., Otani, N., Mortensen, D. R., Levin, L., & Schütze, H. (2023). Construction Grammar provides unique insight into neural language models. arXiv. arXiv:2302.02178Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willems, R. M., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture, and action: A review. Brain and Language, 101(3), 278–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2013). Formulaic language. Language Teaching, 46(3), 316–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Morin, Cameron & Matti Marttinen Larsson
2025. Large corpora and large language models: a replicable method for automating grammatical annotation. Linguistics Vanguard DOI logo
Bonial, Claire & Harish Tayyar Madabushi
2024. Constructing understanding: on the constructional information encoded in large language models. Language Resources and Evaluation DOI logo
Lina, Chen
2024. The development of the theory of construction grammar in 1985–2024. OOO "Zhurnal "Voprosy Istorii" ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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