Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Newman, John

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 2.135

CiteScore 2016: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 1.247
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.485

Print
ISSN
0936-5907
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 26, Issue 4 (Nov 2015)

Issues

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

Remi van Trijp
Published Online: 2015-10-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0074

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.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: cognitive-functional language processing; language formalization; computational modeling; Fluid Construction Grammar

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.

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna (ed.). 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

  • Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

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

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2. 113–124.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 131–154.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3). 532–568.Google Scholar

  • Hale, John T. 2003. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(2). 101–123.Google Scholar

  • Iwata, Seizi. 2002. Does MANNER count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics 40(1). 61–110.Google Scholar

  • Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Jaeger, T. Florian & Harry Tily. 2011. On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. WIREs: Cognitive Science 2(3). 323–335.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Kay, Martin. 1979. Functional grammar. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 142–158. Berkeley: BLS.

  • 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).

  • 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.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.Google Scholar

  • Keenan, Edward L. & Leonard M. Faltz. 1985. Boolean semantics for natural language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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:.Crossref

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

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

  • Müller, Stefan. 2006. Lexical or phrasal constructions? Language 82(4). 850–883.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Stefan & Stefan Wechsler. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 1–76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nemoto, Noriko. 1998. On the polysemy of ditransitive save: The role of frame semantics in construction grammar. English Linguistics 15. 219–242.Google Scholar

  • Penn, Gerald. 2012. Computational linguistics. In Ruth Kempson, Tim Fernando & Nicholas Asher (eds.), Philosophy of linguistics, 143–174. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

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

  • Steels, Luc. 1995. A self-organizing spatial vocabulary. Artificial Life 2(3). 319–332.Google Scholar

  • Steels, Luc (ed.). 2011. Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Steels, Luc (ed.). 2012a. Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Steels, Luc (ed.). 2012b. Experiments in cultural language evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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.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.Google Scholar

  • van Trijp, Remi. 2015. The evolution of case grammar. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

  • van Trijp, Remi & Luc Steels. 2012. Multilevel alignment maintains language systematicity. Advances in complex systems 15(3–4). 1250039.Google Scholar

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

About the article

Received: 2014-10-06

Revised: 2015-02-19

Accepted: 2015-03-16

Published Online: 2015-10-16

Published in Print: 2015-11-01


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0074.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Supplementary Article Materials

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Remi van Trijp
Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 2016, Volume 30, Page 15
[2]
Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 2016, Volume 30, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in