Cover not available

In:Usage-based Perspectives on Language and Language Acquisition: In honour of Heike Behrens
Edited by Karin Madlener-Charpentier, Marjolijn H. Verspoor, Mirjam Weder and Annelies Häcki Buhofer
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 35] 2026
► pp. 141–167

Chapter 5
Construction families and grammatical paradigms — or why the constructicon needs horizontal relations

Authors
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
It is a standard assumption of construction grammar that grammar constitutes a network, known as the constructicon. Thus far, research on the constructicon has been mainly concerned with the taxonomic organization of grammar. However, a number of recent studies have argued that the constructicon is not only a taxonomy of hierarchically related grammatical patterns but that it also includes horizontal relations between constructions at the same level of abstraction (e.g., Cappelle, 2006; Diessel, 2019a; Sommerer & Smirnova, 2020; Van de Velde, 2014). Building on this view, the current paper argues that horizontal relations are crucial to the analysis of two general phenomena of grammar: construction families and grammatical paradigms. Construction families are groups of similar constructions that share some of their semantic and formal properties, whereas grammatical paradigms are pairs, or sets, of alternating constructions that profile a particular contrast or set of oppositions. Psycholinguistic evidence for horizontal relations comes from research on syntactic priming, linguistic productivity, blocking (or preemption), and neighborhood effects in language use and acquisition.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Taxonomic relations
    • 1.2Horizontal relations
    • 1.3Hypothesis
  • 2.Paradigms
    • 2.1Morphological paradigms
    • 2.2Syntactic paradigms
  • 3.Families
    • 3.1Resultative constructions
    • 3.2Subordinate clauses
    • 3.4Summary: Construction families
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
References (80)
References
Abbot-Smith, K., & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995–1026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. (2012). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon (4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2021). Constructivist approaches to first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 48(5), 959–983. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloom, B. (2021). Lateral relations and multiple source constructions. The Old English subject relative clause and the Norwegian ‘Han-Mannen’-construction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Jena. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Audring, J. (2017). Construction morphology and the parallel architecture of grammar. Cognitive Science, 41(Suppl. 2), 277–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5), 425–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions, 1, 1–28. 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
(2003). Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2013). Construction grammar and first language acquisition. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 347–364). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 295–321). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019b). Preposed adverbial clauses. Functional adaptation and diachronic inheritance. In K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis, & I. A. Seržant (Eds.), Explanation in linguistic typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence (pp. 191–226). Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). A dynamic network approach to the study of syntax. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. 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
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81(4), 1–25. 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. 277–316). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, G., & Politt, K. (2020). Grammatical categories as paradigms in construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 42–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonteyn, L., & Van de Pol, N. (2016). Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics, 29(2), 185–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forker, D. (2013). A grammar of Hinuq. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, R. W. (2010). A grammar of Bao’an Tu. A Mongolian language of Northwest China (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University at Buffalo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gahl, S., Yao, Y., & Johnson, K. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 789–806. 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
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. 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
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics. A study of particle placement. Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2000). Periphrasis. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology. A handbook on inflection and word formation (pp. 564–664). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics, 42(1), 25–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 197–208). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form — frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics, 57(3), 605–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Karjus, A. (2017). Explaining asymmetries in number marking: Singulatives, pluratives, and usage frequency. Linguistics, 55(6), 1213–1235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hetterle, K. (2015). Adverbial clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. 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
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction grammar. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hole, D. (2011). The deconstruction of Chinese shì … de clefts revisited. Lingua, 121(11), 1707–1733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Closs Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S. (2013). Japanese (rev. ed.). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantics structures. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2016). Morphological schemas: Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. Mental Lexicon, 11(3), 467–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., & Dryer, M. S. (2007). Passive in the world’s languages. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 325–361). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 152–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In S. Kemmer & M. Barlow (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–64). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 185–222). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. P. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. (2018). Introduction. Constructions and constructicography. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. H. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miestamo, M. (2005). Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, V. P. (2001). Resultative constructions. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals (pp. 928–940). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesset, T., & Janda, L. A. (2023). A network of allostructions: Quantified subject constructions in Russian. Cognitive Linguistics, 34(1), 67–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norde, M., & Morris, C. (2018). Derivation without category change. A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 47–92). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., Speelman, D., Van de Velde, F., & Grondelears, S. (2021). Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 487–528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radford. A. (1988). Transformational Grammar. A first course. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siemund, P. (2001). Interrogative constructions. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals (pp. 1010–1028). De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smirnova, E. (2021). Horizontal links withing and between paradigms: The constructional network of reported directives in German. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle, & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and diachronic construction grammar (pp. 185–218). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinkrauss, R. (2026). The ditransitive verb-argument construction in German L1 acquisition — A longitudinal case study. In K. Madlener-Charpentier, M. Verspoor, M. Weder, & A. Häcki Buhofer (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on language and language acquisition. In honour of Heike Behrens. John Benjamins (this volume).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2004). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(5), 201–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usage-based approach. Harvard University Press.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
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), The extending scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–179). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, E., & Traugott, E. C. (2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar (pp. 167–212). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue