scholarly journals Where Do Constructions Come From? (W. Croft, Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective)

2006 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 493-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
SEIZI IWATA
Keyword(s):  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Radical Construction

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.

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.

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