Syntactic theories and syntactic methodology: a reply to Seuren

2004 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 637-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM CROFT
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Data ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Syntactic Representation ◽  
Radical Construction ◽  
Syntactic Theories

In his review of Radical Construction Grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective (Croft 2001), Pieter Seuren argues that the theory of syntactic representation argued for in that book is fundamentally misguided. S also raises a number of general methodological and philosophical issues, as well as some empirical data, which he claims are problematic for RCG. I begin by dealing with the general critique, then turn to S's discussion of the specific major theses of RCG and his empirical data.

scholarly journals The importance of being modular

2004 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
PIETER A. M. SEUREN
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Large Majority ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
The One ◽  
Radical Construction

William Croft,Radical Construction Grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. xxviii+416.My reason for writing this review article is that I want to highlight a particular basic opposition in linguistic theory and methodology. On the one hand, we have what is usually called COGNITIVISM, represented in the book under review by the new theory of Radical Construction Grammar, henceforth RCG. On the other hand, there is a variety of schools, together forming a large majority in the field, whose theoretical overlap may be characterized by the term MODULARITY. I argue against cognitivism and in favour of the modularity view, and I am using the book under review as an opportunity to define the issue and put forward the arguments.

Radical Construction Grammar

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Croft
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Grammatical Categories ◽  
Syntactic Representation ◽  
Grammatical Roles ◽  
Radical Construction ◽  
Innovative Approaches

This chapter discusses the theory of Radical Construction Grammar (RCG). The typological diversity of languages leads to the hypothesis that all grammatical categories are language specific and construction specific and so constructions are basic units of syntactic representation. It also leads to the hypothesis that there is no formal syntactic structure other than the part/whole structure of constructions and the grammatical roles that occur in constructions, and that constructions are language specific. The chapter offers innovative approaches to grammatical categories, generalizations and universals, and integrates both language-internal and cross linguistic variation into construction grammar.

scholarly journals Recursion and the Definition of Universal Prosodic Categories

Languages ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 125
Author(s):  
Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng ◽  
Laura J. Downing
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Current Controversy ◽  
Syntactic Representation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Prosodic Categories ◽  
Phonological Phrase

It is widely agreed that prosodic constituents should mirror syntactic constituents (unless high-ranking prosodic constraints interfere). Because recursion is a feature of syntactic representations, one expects recursion in prosodic representations as well. However, it is of current controversy what kinds of syntactic representation motivate prosodic recursion. In this paper, the use of Phonological Phrase recursion is reviewed in several case studies, chosen because prosodic recursion mostly does not reflect syntactic recursion as defined in current syntactic theory. We provide reanalyses that do not appeal to prosodic recursion (unless syntactically motivated), showing that Phonological Phrase recursion is not necessary to capture the relevant generalizations. The more restrictive use of prosodic recursion we argue for has the following conceptual advantages. It allows for more consistent cross-linguistic generalizations about the syntax–prosody mapping so that prosodic representations more closely reflect syntactic ones. It allows the fundamental syntactic distinctions between clause (and other phases) and phrase to be reflected in the prosodic representation, and it allows cross-linguistic generalizations to be made about the prosodic domain of intonational processes, such as downstep and continuation rise.

scholarly journals Syntax or nothing: Some theoretical and empirical remarks on implicit arguments

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres Saab
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Satisfactory Solution ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Repair Strategy ◽  
Implicit Arguments ◽  
Syntactic Representation

<p>I show that core implicit subjects in Spanish (i.e., the ones that occur with analytical passives, impersonal <em>se</em>, and causatives) can be derived from a theory under which absence of <em>Merge</em> in external subject position is a possible syntactic output. Core implicit arguments then have no syntactic representation (<em>pace</em> Landau 2010). Absence of <em>Merge</em> can make to arise two different scenarios: (i) a conflict at the interfaces, which requires the implementation of some repair strategy, (ii) no conflict at the interfaces; i.e., a legitimate object at the interfaces. The first scenario is illustrated with reference to the so-called impersonal <em>se</em> in Spanish, and the second one with reference to analytical passives. The proposed system is able to capture a set of very intricate facts that does not have a satisfactory solution hitherto. Crucially, this particular view on implicit arguments, together with a purely syntactic theory of argument structure, derives the full distribution of impersonals and reflexives in <em>hacer</em> ‘to make’ causative contexts. Finally, it is shown that the arbitrary readings that the two scenarios above described display have a different source: whereas impersonal <em>se</em> requires (costly) default computation at the interface, arbitrary interpretations in analytical passives are calculated at the <em>v</em>P level.   </p>

A construction grammar analysis of the transitivebeperfect in present-day Canadian English

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
YURI YERASTOV
Keyword(s):  
Argument Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Syntactic Analysis ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
Canadian English ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Fixed Material ◽  
Grammar Analysis ◽  
Generative Approach ◽  
Surface Realization

This article offers a syntactic analysis of the construction [be doneNP], e.g.I am done dinner, I am finished my homework, as found in Canadian English and some US dialects. After situating this construction in the context of a productive transitivebeperfect in Scots/English dialects, [be doneNP] will be distinguished from a set of its conceptual and structural relatives, and ultimately be shown not to be reducible to a surface realization of another underlying structure. From the perspective of syntactic theory, the article problematizes the parsimony of the mainstream generative approach (most recently in MacFadden & Alexiadou 2010) in accounting for the facts of [be doneNP] on strictly compositional grounds, as well as the mainstream view of lexical items as projecting theta grids and subcategorization frames (as e.g. in Grimshaw 1979; Emonds 2000). Following Fillmoreet al.(1988), Goldberg (1995, 2005) and others, what will be suggested instead is a construction grammar approach to [be doneNP], under which a construction holistically licenses its argument structure. Along these lines [be doneNP] will be characterized as an abstract construction with some fixed material.

Why Construction Grammar is radical

2004 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 321-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Cognitive Linguistics ◽  
Linguistic Analysis ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Traditional View ◽  
Compelling Evidence ◽  
Radical Construction

This article reviews some of the foundational assumptions of Croft'sRadical Construction Grammar. While constructions have featured prominently in much recent work in cognitive linguistics, Croft adopts the ‘radical’ view that constructions are the primary objects of linguistic analysis, with lexical and syntactic categories being defined with respect to the constructions in which they occur. This approach reverses the traditional view, according to which complex expressions are compositionally assembled through syntactic rules operating over items selected from the lexicon. The ubiquity of idioms, especially so-called constructional idioms, provides compelling evidence for the essential correctness of the radical constructional view. The possibility of a radical constructional approach to phonology is also discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document