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.

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.

Beyond Aristotle and gradience

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 409-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Croft
Keyword(s):  
A Priori ◽  
Category Member ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
The Other ◽  
Parts Of Speech ◽  
Grammatical Categories ◽  
Distributional Patterns ◽  
The One ◽  
Syntactic Properties ◽  
Radical Construction

Aarts (2004) argues that the best way to model grammatical categories is a compromise preserving Aristotelian form classes with sharp boundaries on the one hand, and allowing gradience in terms of the number of syntactic properties that a category member possesses on the other. But the assumption of form classes causes serious theoretical and empirical problems. Constructions differ in their distributional patterns, but no a priori principles exist to decide which constructions should be used to define form classes. Grammatical categories must be defined relative to specific constructions; this is the position advocated in Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001). Constructionally defined categories may have sharp boundaries, but they do not divide words into form classes. Nevertheless, the most important traditional intuitions for parts of speech (Aarts’ chief examples) are reinterpretable in terms of crosslinguistic universals that constrain distributional variation but do not impose Aristotelian form classes, gradable or not, on the grammars of particular languages.

In defence of distributional analysis, pace Croft

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 431-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bas Aarts
Keyword(s):  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Distributional Analysis ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Parts Of Speech ◽  
Grammatical Categories ◽  
Small Set ◽  
Word Classes ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Grammar Analysis ◽  
Radical Construction

In a number of publications (e.g. Croft 2001, 2004, 2006) Bill Croft has argued that distributional analysis as a methodology for setting up grammatical categories poses problems which can be avoided if constructions, not word classes, are grammatically primitive, and if categories are derived from constructions. He writes: The Radical Construction Grammar analysis of parts of speech does not have Aristotelian grammatical categories of the sort envisioned by Aarts for particular language grammars. There are categories for each construction and each constructional role in a language. These construction-specific categories will have sharp boundaries to the extent that there are sharp acceptability judgements of what can and cannot occur in the relevant constructional role. In this sense, the categories are Aristotelian. But they do not lead to a small set of mutually exclusive word classes, which is what Aarts assumes we must posit. Instead, there are overlapping categories of formatives representing their diverse distributional behavior — which is what a speaker actually knows about her language. (Croft 2006: 10–11) In this paper I will not be discussing the merits of Radical Construction Grammar, except to say that it is an interesting, challenging and exciting new approach to language. My aim here is more modest: I hope to show that distributional analysis is not as flawed as Croft suggests, and I will defend the distributional analyses discussed in Aarts (2004).

Syntactic representation of null arguments

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Ruda
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Null Arguments ◽  
Syntactic Representation ◽  
Independent Features ◽  
Argument Omission ◽  
Type Shifting

Focusing on definite-argument drop, this chapter puts forward the hypothesis that null arguments are minimally represented as [nPn] and maximally as a fully-fledged pronoun ([DP D [PersP Pers [NumP Num [nPn]]]] or [PersP Pers [NumP Num [nPn]]]). The (un)availability of such arguments in a language is a consequence of independent features of its grammar: the lexical specification of its nominalizing n heads (esp. their association with phonetic material) and the avaialbility of post-syntactic type-shifting operations (esp. ι‎). The working of this approach is illustrated mostly with data from English, Polish, and Kashubian. The two latter languages are argued here to differ from English with respect to the inflectional properties of their nouns, as well as with respect to the mechanisms of NP interpretation. The chapter discusses the predictions thehypothesis makes about the identity of null arguments with respect to cross-linguistic variation in the patterns of argument omission.

Supplemental relative clauses: Internal and external syntax

2012 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 573-608 ◽  
Author(s):  
RUSSELL LEE-GOLDMAN
Keyword(s):  
Internal Structure ◽  
Linear Order ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Order Constraints ◽  
Syntactic Constraints ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses

The internal syntactic structures of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses are largely identical. This paper argues that despite a uniform internal structure, the external distributions – specifically, linearization with respect to the head – of non-restrictive relative clauses are subject to several conditions. In particular, sentential non-restrictive relative clauses with which and what can appear to the left of their heads in limited (and distinct) syntactic contexts. These lexical and syntactic constraints are represented within the framework of Sign-based Construction Grammar. In light of these observations, the paper revisits claims about the internal structure of parenthetical as-clauses. Prior claims that as cannot be a relativizer are shown to be unfounded, and new data are presented in favor of treating them as relative clauses with the external distribution of sentential adverbials. This is possible given the ability to state separately specifications of construction-internal syntactic structure and construction-external linear-order constraints.

Sinclair, pattern grammar and the question of hatred

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Teubert
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Dependency Grammar ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Grammatical Categories ◽  
Lexical Items ◽  
Local Grammar

The view of pattern grammar is that syntactic structures and lexical items are co-selected and that grammatical categories begin to align very closely with semantic distinctions. While this is certainly a valid position when analysing the phenomenon of collocation, it does not really solve the problem for open choice issues. Not all language use can be subsumed under the idiom principle. The noun hatred, for instance, can co-occur with any discourse object for which hatred can be expressed. It can also co-occur with other lexical items standing for various circumstantial aspects. The grammatical structure itself often does not tell us whether we find expressed the object of hatred or some circumstantial aspect, as these structures tend to have more than one reading. Lexicogrammar, or local grammar, is more than equating a syntactic structure with a semantic pattern. We have to be aware of the different functions or readings a given grammatical structure can have. The framework of valency/dependency grammar can help us to make the necessary distinctions.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Concessive conditionals as a family of constructions

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Leuschner
Keyword(s):  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Typological Approach ◽  
Radical Construction

Abstract This squib sketches an approach to concessive conditionals (CCs) from the perspective of Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001). It brings earlier functional-typological work on CCs to bear on language-particular constructionist analyses of CCs, using the notions of ‘family (of constructions)’ and ‘prototype’ as a bridge. After suggesting how these notions can be applied to CCs under a functional-typological approach, the structure of the CC sub-constructicon in German is discussed, and directions for future research are offered to round the squib off.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document