Radical Construction Grammar: Categories and Constructions

2004 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 637-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM CROFT

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.


2004 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
PIETER A. M. SEUREN

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.


2004 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 321-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Taylor

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Leuschner

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.


2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Petré,

AbstractThis article provides an analysis—within the framework of Radical Construction Grammar—of how become developed into a copula ‘become’ out of an original sense ‘arrive’, and wax, originally ‘grow’, also came to be used as a copula ‘become’. Importantly, it explains why these verbs successfully became fully productive copulas in a very short period of time. It is argued that this happened after a pre-copular stage had reached a cognitive threshold value. The occurrence of this threshold is related to the fact that the copular constructions featuring become and wax were not the end result of a single diachronic lineage of constructions (i.e. one construction developed out of another one, one at a time). Instead, the copularization of these verbs was the result of an interaction between lineages of constructions, belonging to two groups: (i) constructions involving become or wax, which gradually changed and interacted with each other; (ii) constructions involving already existing copulas, notably weorđan ‘become’, which provided a generally productive analog upon which the newly emerging copulas could graft. Generally, the article calls attention to the importance of multiple source constructions and thresholds in understanding grammaticalization processes and productivity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document