Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton October 16, 2015

Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of coercion and argument structure

Remi van Trijp
From the journal Cognitive Linguistics

Abstract

One of the most salient hallmarks of construction grammar is its approach to argument structure and coercion: rather than positing many different verb senses in the lexicon, the same lexical construction may freely interact with multiple argument structure constructions. This view has however been criticized from within the construction grammar movement for leading to overgeneration. This paper argues that this criticism falls flat for two reasons: (1) lexicalism, which is the alternative solution proposed by the critics, has already been proven to overgenerate itself, and (2) the argument of overgeneration becomes void if grammar is implemented as a problem-solving model rather than as a generative competence model; a claim that the paper substantiates through a computational operationalization of argument structure and coercion in Fluid Construction Grammar. The paper thus shows that the current debate on argument structure is hiding a much more fundamental rift between practitioners of construction grammar that touches upon the role of grammar itself.

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper has been funded by and carried out in the Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris. The author would like to thank the editors of Cognitive Linguistics and the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback and help in improving this manuscript. He also wishes to thank his colleagues, particularly Luc Steels, Katrien Beuls, Miquel Cornudella Gaya and Paul Van Eecke for their continuous support and for creating such a superb working environment.

References

Baker, Collin F., Charles J. Fillmore & John B. Lowe. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Morristown, NJ: ACL.10.3115/980451.980860Search in Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna (ed.). 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.8Search in Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2008a. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in construction grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6, 113–144.10.1075/arcl.6.06boaSearch in Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2008b. Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in construction grammar. In Jaakko Leino (ed.), Constructional reorganization, 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.5.02boaSearch in Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. & Ivan A. Sag (eds.). 2012. Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Bos, Johan. 2011. A survey of computational semantics: Representation, inference and knowledge in wide-coverage text understanding. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(6). 336–366.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00284.xSearch in Google Scholar

Bouma, Gosse & Gertjan van Noord. 1994. Constraint-based categorial grammar. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, 147–154. Las Cruces: ACL.10.3115/981732.981753Search in Google Scholar

Briscoe, Ted & Ann Copestake. 1999. Lexical rules in constraint-based grammars. Computational Linguistics 25(4). 487–526.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar

Carpenter, Bob. 1991. The generative power of categorial grammars and head-driven phrase structure grammars with lexical rules. Computational Linguistics 17(3). 301–313.Search in Google Scholar

Charniak, Eugene. 1993. Statistical language learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2. 113–124.10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 21–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language studies: Studies in honour of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.243.07croSearch in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 120–133. Waltham, MA: Glinn and Company.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Steven R. Harnad, Horst D. Steklis & Jane Lancaster (eds.), Origins and evolution of language and speech, 20–32. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.xSearch in Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76.10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 131–154.10.1515/9783110335255.57Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3). 532–568.10.1353/lan.2004.0129Search in Google Scholar

Hale, John T. 2003. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(2). 101–123.10.1023/A:1022492123056Search in Google Scholar

Iwata, Seizi. 2002. Does MANNER count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics 40(1). 61–110.10.1515/ling.2002.008Search in Google Scholar

Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.6Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian & Harry Tily. 2011. On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. WIREs: Cognitive Science 2(3). 323–335.10.1002/wcs.126Search in Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Dan. 2003. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Dan & James H. Martin. 2000. Speech and language processing. An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Kay, Martin. 1979. Functional grammar. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 142–158. Berkeley: BLS.10.3765/bls.v5i0.3262Search in Google Scholar

Kay, Martin. 2011. Zipf’s law and l’arbitraire du signe. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 6. http://elanguage.net/journals/lilt/article/view/2584 (accessed 17 February 2015).10.33011/lilt.v6i.1251Search in Google Scholar

Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.4.05kaySearch in Google Scholar

Kay, Paul & Laura A. Michaelis. 2012. Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, 2271–2296. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. & Leonard M. Faltz. 1985. Boolean semantics for natural language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-6404-4Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610479Search in Google Scholar

Loreto, Vittorio, Andrea Baronchelli, Animesh Mukherjee, Andrea Puglisi & Francesca Tria. 2011. Statistical physics of language dynamics. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2011/04/P0400.Search in Google Scholar

Meurers, Detmar & Guido Minnen. 1997. A computational treatment of lexical rules in HPSG as covariation in lexical entries. Computational Linguistics 23(4). 543–568.Search in Google Scholar

Michaelis, Laura. 2013. Sign-based construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffman & Graham Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0008Search in Google Scholar

Morita, Joe. 1998. Some notes on prepositional resultatives. Tsukuba English Studies 17. 319–340.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Stefan. 2006. Lexical or phrasal constructions? Language 82(4). 850–883.10.1353/lan.2006.0213Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Stefan & Stefan Wechsler. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 1–76.10.1515/tl-2014-0001Search in Google Scholar

Nemoto, Noriko. 1998. On the polysemy of ditransitive save: The role of frame semantics in construction grammar. English Linguistics 15. 219–242.10.9793/elsj1984.15.219Search in Google Scholar

Penn, Gerald. 2012. Computational linguistics. In Ruth Kempson, Tim Fernando & Nicholas Asher (eds.), Philosophy of linguistics, 143–174. Amsterdam: North Holland.10.1016/B978-0-444-51747-0.50005-6Search in Google Scholar

Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago & Stanford: University of Chicago Press/CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan A. & Thomas Wasow. 2011. Performance-compatible competence grammar. In Robert D. Borsley & Kersti Börjars (eds.), Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar, 359–377. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444395037.ch10Search in Google Scholar

Steels, Luc. 1995. A self-organizing spatial vocabulary. Artificial Life 2(3). 319–332.10.1162/artl.1995.2.3.319Search in Google Scholar

Steels, Luc (ed.). 2011. Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.11Search in Google Scholar

Steels, Luc (ed.). 2012a. Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-34120-5Search in Google Scholar

Steels, Luc (ed.). 2012b. Experiments in cultural language evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ais.3Search in Google Scholar

Steels, Luc & Joachim De Beule. 2006. Unify and merge in Fluid Construction Grammar. In Paul Vogt, Yuuga Sugita, Elio Tuci & Chrystopher Nehaniv (eds.), Symbol grounding and beyond: Third international workshop on the emergence and evolution of linguistic communication (EELC2006), 197–223. Berlin: Springer Verlag.10.1007/11880172_16Search in Google Scholar

van Trijp, Remi. 2011. A design pattern for argument structure constructions. In Luc Steels (ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, 115–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.11.07triSearch in Google Scholar

van Trijp, Remi. 2015. The evolution of case grammar. Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_611694Search in Google Scholar

van Trijp, Remi & Luc Steels. 2012. Multilevel alignment maintains language systematicity. Advances in complex systems 15(3–4). 1250039.10.1142/S0219525912500397Search in Google Scholar

Wellens, Pieter. 2011. Organizing constructions in networks. In Luc Steels (ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, 181–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.11.10welSearch in Google Scholar

Received: 2014-10-6
Revised: 2015-2-19
Accepted: 2015-3-16
Published Online: 2015-10-16
Published in Print: 2015-11-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton