Cover not available

Article In: Constructions and Frames: Online-First Articles

Construction Grammar as a framework

 | The University of Texas at Austin
 | University of Helsinki
 | University of Gothenburg
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
In this paper, we discuss the prevalent diversity of constructionist approaches in relation to the idea of Construction Grammar as a coherent field of linguistic study. We do so, based on the views of about 190 constructionist researchers, as expressed in a questionnaire in 2021. While the responses show both variety and agreement, the main dividers appear to be whether all constructionist approaches are usage-based, on the one hand, and the stance towards formalization, on the other. We argue that the diversity of approaches is on the one hand a strength, in that a great variety of linguistic phenomena can be accounted for from a constructionist viewpoint. On the other hand, it is a weakness if these accounts are not mutually compatible. If Construction Grammar is to truly work as a model of language as a whole, the various approaches must not only get to co-exist — and flourish — but also be made to fit together. This is not a call for conformity, but rather for communication and cross-fertilization.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The 2021 questionnaire and roundtable discussion
  • 3.From (Berkeley) Construction Grammar to a variety of constructionist approaches
  • 4.A variety of flavors
    • 4.1No common system of representation
    • 4.2Translatability of research results
    • 4.3Uneven coverage of different types of constructions
    • 4.4Usage-based to different degrees
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Can we have the cake and eat it, too?
    • 5.2Usage-based formalization?
      • Abstraction
      • Formalization
      • Unfamiliarity
    • 5.3Construction Grammar
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (119)
References
Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2002). Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies. In B. Altenberg & S. Granger (Eds.), Lexis in contrast (pp. 3–50). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andréasson, M., & Lyngfelt, B. (in press). Clausal constructions and clause formation in Swedish: A constructionist syntax model. Cambridge University Press.
Audring, J., & Jackendoff, R. (2025). Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 101–128). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Backus, A. (2020). Usage-based approaches. In E. Adamou & Y. Matras (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language contact (pp. 110–126). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdahl, J. (2004). The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German, and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Focus on Germanic typology (pp. 101–130). Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based approaches to language. CSLI Publications.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 extensions (pp. 147–190). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beuls, K., & van Eecke, P. (2023). Fluid Construction Grammar: State of the art and future outlook. In C. Bonial & H. T. Madabushi (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Construction Grammars and NLP (CxGs+NLP, GURT/SyntaxFest 2023) (pp. 41–50). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). Construction Grammar and Artificial Intelligence. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 543–571). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blensenius, K., & Lyngfelt, B. (2025). Network relations in the Swedish constructicon. In D. Dannélls, K. Blensenius & L. Borin (Eds.), Sixty years of Swedish computational lexicography (pp. 261–287). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2000). Resultative constructions in English and German [Doctoral dissertation]. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
(2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). You wanna consider a constructional approach to wanna-contraction? In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 479–491). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010a). Comparing constructions across languages. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Computational resources: FrameNet and constructicon. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 549–573). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2022). Directions for pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and teaching (with) constructions. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025a). Constructional syntax. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 44–70). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025b). What happened to Frame Semantics? English Linguistics, 411, 1–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Dux, R. (2017). From the past to the present: From case frames to semantic frames. Linguistic Vanguard, 3(1), 20160003. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Leino, J., & Lyngfelt, B. (2024). Constructionist views on Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 16(2), 169–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Ruppenhofer, J., & Baker, C. (2024). FrameNet at 25. International Journal of Lexicography, 37(3), 263–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). FrameNet at 25: Results and applications. International Journal of Lexicography, 38(2), 159–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 183–228). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2018). The construction of words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borin, L., & Lyngfelt, B. (2025). Framenets and constructicons. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 71–100). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouveret, M., & Legallois, D. (Eds.). (2012). Constructions in French. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez García, F. (2014). Exploring functional-cognitive space. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2024). Can Construction Grammar be proven wrong? Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chapin, P. G. (1972). Review of Stockwell, Schachter and Hall Partee (1968), Integration of transformational theories on English syntax. Language, 481, 645–667. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). Government and Binding Theory. Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Language and mind. The Darwin Lecture, Darwin College.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 211–232). 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
De Knop, S. (2025). Construction-based language learning and teaching. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 596–622). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G. (Eds.). (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. De Gruyter. 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
(2023). The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of Construction Grammar. Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 141, 35–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 110–132). Oxford University Press.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. 313–340). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar [Manuscript]. CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information.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), 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2004). Predicate semantics and event construal in Czech case marking. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 87–120). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fujii, S. (2004). Lexically (un)filled constructional schemes and construction types: The case of Japanese modal conditional constructions. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 121–156). John Benjamins. 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
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University 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
Gries, S. Th. (2022). On, or against?, (just) frequency. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Directions for pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and teaching (with) constructions (pp. 47–72). De Gruyter Mouton. 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
Hens, G. (1996). (jm)(einen Brief) schreiben: Zur Valenz in der Konstruktionsgrammatik. Linguistische Berichte, 1641, 334–356.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2019). Constructicons — a new type of reference work? Lexicographica, 351, 3–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2025). Frequency: Psychological and methodological considerations. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 149–170). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2025). The constructicon: Language as a cognitive network of constructions. In Reference module in social sciences. Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–72). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure, 121, 334–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017). From constructions to Construction Grammar. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Construction Grammar. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (Ed.). (2013). Cognitive linguistics — the quantitative turn: The essential reader. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1991). An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
Kay, P. (1995). Construction Grammar. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 32–48). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (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 other dangerous things. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2004). On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 157–199). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K., & Lemoine, K. (2005). Definite null objects in (spoken) French: A construction-grammar account. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 13–56). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. II. Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R., & Petruck, M. (2018). The FrameNet constructicon in action. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 19–41). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leino, J. (2005). Frames, profiles and constructions: Two collaborating CGs meet the Finnish permissive construction. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 89–120). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzi, A., Ljunglöf, P., Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Croft, W., Ziem, A., Böbel, N., Bäckström, L., Uhrig, P., & Matos, E. (2024). MoCCA: A model of comparative concepts for aligning constructicons. In Proceedings of the 20th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation at LREC-COLING 2024 (pp. 93–98). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. (2018). Introduction: Constructions and constructicography. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 1–18). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2025). Frame Semantics. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 23–43). Cambridge University Press. 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
(2013). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 133–152). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 721, 215–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond alternations. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohara, K. (2005). From relativization to clause-linkage: Evidence from Modern Japanese. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 57–70). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). Construction discourse. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 519–540). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pälsi, M. (2000). Finnish resultative sentences. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 131, 211–250.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petruck, M. (1996). Frame Semantics. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 69–202). CSLI Publications.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
Steels, L. (2011). A first encounter with Fluid Construction Grammar. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 31–68). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Fluid Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 152–167). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tayyar Madabushi, H., Romain, L., Milin, P., & Divjak, D. (2025). Construction Grammar and language models. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 572–595). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsujimura, N. (2005). Mimetic verbs and innovative verbs in the acquisition of Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 311, 371–382.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2017). A computational Construction Grammar for English. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding (pp. 266–273). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 16(2), 311–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). Different constructional approaches in practice: A comparative study. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 249–289). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & van Eecke, P. (2022). The FCG editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLOS ONE, 17(6), 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ward, N. G. (2025). Prosodic constructions. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 337–353). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (1998). Contrastive lexical semantics. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics (pp. 25–44). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1994). Dealing out meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 201, 611–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Exceptional degree markers: A puzzle in internal and external syntax. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 471, 111–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue