2. WHAT IS CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR (CxG)?
It is a constraint-based, generative, non-
derivational, mono-stratal grammatical model,
committed to incorporating the cognitive and
interactional foundations of language.
It is also inherently tied to a particular model of
the ‘semantics of understanding’, known as Frame
Semantics, which offers a way of structuring and
representing meaning while taking into account
the relationship between lexical meaning and
grammatical patterning.
3. Trademark Characteristic of CxG
Language is a repertoire of more or less complex
patterns – CONSTRUCTIONS – that integrate form
and meaning in conventionalized and in some aspects
non-compositional ways.
Form in constructions may refer to any combination of
syntactic, morphological, or prosodic patterns.
Meaning is understood in a broad sense that includes
lexical semantics, pragmatics, and discourse structure.
4. HISTORY
The notion of construction grammar developed out
of the ideas of "global rules" and
"transderivational rules" in generative semantics,
together with the generative semantic idea of a
grammar as a constraint satisfaction system.
CxG was spurred on by the development of
Cognitive Semantics, beginning in 1975 and
extending through the 1980s.
5. HISTORY
George Lakoff's 1977 paper, Linguistic Gestalts
(Chicago Linguistic Society, 1977) was an early version
of CxG, arguing that the meaning of the whole was not
a compositional function of the meaning of the parts
put together locally. Instead, he suggested,
constructions themselves must have meanings.
CxG was developed in the 1980s by linguists such
as Charles Fillmore, Paul Kay, and George Lakoff.
CxG was developed in order to handle cases that
intrinsically went beyond the capacity of generative
grammar.
6. GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION
In CxG, the grammatical construction is a pairing of form
and content.
The formal aspect of a construction is typically described as
a syntactic template, but the form covers more than
just syntax, as it also involves phonological aspects, such
as prosody and intonation.
The content covers semantic as well as pragmatic meaning.
7. GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION
The form and content are symbolically linked in the
sense advocated by Ronald Langacker.
Thus a construction is treated like a sign in which all
structural aspects are integrated parts and not
distributed over different modules as they are in
the componential model. Consequentially, not
only constructions that are lexically fixed, like many
idioms, but also more abstract ones like argument
structure schemata, are pairings of form and
conventionalized meaning. For instance,
the ditransitive schema [S V IO DO] is said to express
semantic content X CAUSES Y TO RECEIVE Z, just
like kill means X CAUSES Y TO DIE.
8. SYNTAX-LEXICON CONTINUUM
Unlike the componential model, CxG denies any
strict distinction between the two and proposes
a syntax-lexicon continuum.
The argument goes that words and
complex constructions are both pairs of form and
meaning and differ only in internal symbolic
complexity.
9. GRAMMAR AS AN
INVENTORY OF CONSTRUCTIONS
In CxG the grammar of a language is made up
of taxonomic networks of families of constructions,
which are based on the same principles as those of
the conceptual categories known from cognitive
linguistics, such as inheritance, prototypicality,
extensions, and multiple parenting.
10. Four Models of Information Storage in
the Taxonomies
1. Full-entry model - In the full-entry model
information is stored redundantly at all relevant
levels in the taxonomy, which means that it operates,
if at all, with minimal generalization.
2. Usage-based model - The usage-based model is
based on inductive learning, meaning that linguistic
knowledge is acquired in a bottom-up manner
through use. It allows for redundancy and
generalizations, because the language user
generalizes over recurring experiences of use.
11. Four Models of Information Storage in
the Taxonomies
3. Default inheritance model - According to this model,
each network has a default central form-meaning pairing
from which all instances inherit their features. It thus
operates with a fairly high level of generalization, but
does also allow for some redundancy in that it recognizes
extensions of different types.
4. Complete inheritance model - In this model,
information is stored only once at the most super
ordinate level of the network. Instances at all other levels
inherit features from the super ordinate item. The
complete inheritance does not allow for redundancy in
the networks.
12. Shift Towards Usage-Based Model
All four models are advocated by different
construction grammarians, but since the late 1990s
there has been a shift towards a general preference
for the usage-based model. The shift towards the
usage-based approach in CxG has inspired the
development of several corpus-based methodologies
of constructional analysis
13. SYNONYMY AND MONOTONY
As CxG is based on schemas and taxonomies, it does not
operate with dynamic rules of derivation. Rather, it
is monotonic.
Since CxG does not operate with surface derivations from
underlying structures, it rejects constructional polysemy and
adheres to functionalist linguist Dwight Bolinger's principle of
no synonymy, on which Adele Goldberg elaborates in her
book.
This means that construction grammarians argue, for
instance, that active and passive versions of the same
proposition are not derived from an underlying structure, but
are instances of two different constructions. As constructions
are pairings of form and meaning, active and passive versions
of the same proposition are not synonymous, but display
differences in content: in this case the pragmatic content.
14. CONSTRUCTION GRAMMARS
CxG is a "family" of theories rather than one unified
theory. There are a number of formalized CxG
frameworks. Some of these are:
BERKELEY CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR
It focuses on the formal aspects of constructions and
makes use of a unification-based framework for
description of syntax, unlike Head-Driven Phrase
Structure Grammar.
Some of its proponents/developers are Charles
Fillmore, Paul Kay, Laura Michaelis, and to a certain
extent Ivan Sag.
15. CONSTRUCTION GRAMMARS
GOLDBERGIAN/LAKOVIAN CONSTRUCTION
GRAMMAR
The type of construction grammar associated with
linguists like Goldberg and Lakoff looks mainly at the
external relations of constructions and the structure of
constructional networks. In terms of form and function,
this type of construction grammar puts psychological
plausibility as its highest desideratum. It emphasizes
experimental results and parallels with general cognitive
psychology. It also draws on certain principles
of cognitive linguistics.
16. CONSTRUCTION GRAMMARS
COGNITIVE GRAMMAR
Sometimes, Ronald Langacker's Cognitive
grammar framework is described as a type of
construction grammar. Cognitive grammar deals
mainly with the semantic content of constructions,
and its central argument is that conceptual semantics
is primary to the degree that form mirrors, or is
motivated by content. Langacker argues that even
abstract grammatical units like part-of-speech classes
are semantically motivated and involve certain
conceptualizations.
17. CONSTRUCTION GRAMMARS
RADICAL CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR
William A. Croft's radical construction grammar is
designed for typological purposes and takes into
account cross-linguistic factors. It deals mainly with
the internal structure of constructions. Radical
Construction Grammar is totally non-reductionist,
and Croft argues that constructions are not derived
from their parts, but that the parts are derived from
the constructions they appear in.
18. CONSTRUCTION GRAMMARS
EMBODIED CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR
Embodied construction grammar (ECG) adopts the basic constructionist
definition of a grammatical construction, but emphasizes the relation of
constructional semantic content to embodiment and
sensorimotor experiences. A central claim is that the content of all linguistic
signs involve mental simulations and are ultimately dependent on
basic image schemas of the kind advocated by Mark Johnson and George
Lakoff and so ECG aligns itself with cognitive linguistics. Like Construction
Grammar, ECG makes use of a unification-based model of representation. A
non-technical introduction to the NTL theory behind ECG as well as the
theory itself and a variety of applications can be found in Jerome
Feldman's From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language.
Some of its proponents/developers are the Neural Theory of Language
(NTL) group at ICSI, UC Berkeley, and the University of Hawaii, particularly
including Benjamin Bergen and Nancy Chang.
19. CONSTRUCTION GRAMMARS
FLUID CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR
Fluid construction grammar (FCG) was designed by Luc
Steels for doing experiments on the origins and development of
language. FCG is a fully operational and computationally
implemented formalism for construction grammars and
proposes a uniform mechanism for parsing and production. The
Grammar integrates many notions from
contemporary computational linguistics such as feature
structures and unification-based language processing.
Constructions are considered bidirectional and hence usable
both for parsing and production. Processing is flexible in the
sense that it can even cope with partially ungrammatical or
incomplete sentences. FCG is called 'fluid' because it
acknowledges the premise that language users constantly change
and update their grammars. The research on FCG is conducted
at Sony CSL Paris and the AI Lab at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
20. CONSTRUCTION GRAMMARS
Others...
In addition there are several construction grammarians who
operate within the general framework of CxG without
affiliating themselves with any specific CxG program. There
is a growing interest in the diachronic aspect of grammatical
constructions and thus in the importation of methods and
ideas from grammaticalization studies. Another area of
growing interest is the pragmatics of pragmatic
constructions. This is probably one of the reasons why
the usage-based model is gaining popularity among
construction grammarians. Another area of increasing
interest among construction grammarians is that
of language acquisition which is mainly due to Michael
Tomasello's work.
