Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Construction Grammar
- Part I The Constructional View of Language
- Part II Methodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research
- 6 Frequency
- 7 Corpus Linguistics and the Cognitive/Constructional Endeavor
- 8 Behavioral Evidence and Experimental Methods
- 9 Constructional Networks
- Part III Case Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax
- Part IV Multimodality and Construction Grammar
- Part V Constructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation
- Part VI Constructional Applications
- Index of Terms
- Index of Languages
- Index of Constructions
- References
8 - Behavioral Evidence and Experimental Methods
from Part II - Methodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2025
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Construction Grammar
- Part I The Constructional View of Language
- Part II Methodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research
- 6 Frequency
- 7 Corpus Linguistics and the Cognitive/Constructional Endeavor
- 8 Behavioral Evidence and Experimental Methods
- 9 Constructional Networks
- Part III Case Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax
- Part IV Multimodality and Construction Grammar
- Part V Constructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation
- Part VI Constructional Applications
- Index of Terms
- Index of Languages
- Index of Constructions
- References
Summary
This chapter provides an overview of empirical support for Construction Grammar in the form of behavioral evidence, that is, information derived from the behavior of language users on certain tasks, typically through controlled experiments. Three types of evidence are discussed in particular: (i) evidence from language comprehension tasks that syntactic patternsconvey meaning independently of individual lexical items, (ii) evidence that constructions prime each other both in form and in meaning, and (iii) evidence that grammar consists of a network of related constructions of varying degrees of generality. Many of the cited studies come from the psycholinguistic literature, and even though they were originally not necessarily framed in terms of constructions, their findings are largely in line with the constructional approach. Throughout the discussion, it will be shown how these findings provide evidence for some of the core tenets of Construction Grammar.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 196 - 219Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Baicchi, A. (2015). Construction Learning as a Complex Adaptive System: Psycholinguistic Evidence from L2 Learners of English. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, G. (2013). Psycholinguistics. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 379–396.Google Scholar
Bencini, G. & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, S. & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition, 114(3), 455–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31(2), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, H. P. & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busso, L., Lenci, A., & Perek, F. (2020). Valency coercion in Italian: An exploratory study. Constructions and Frames, 12(2), 171–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busso, L., Perek, F., & Lenci, A. (2021). Constructional associations trump lexical associations in processing valency coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(2), 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2012). Mapping concepts to syntax: Evidence from structural priming in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 833–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In Schönefeld, D., ed., Constructions All Over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications, special issue of Constructions, SV1-7/2006, 1–28.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., Milin, P., & Medimorec, S. (2020). Construal in language: A visual-world approach to the effects of linguistic alternations on event perception and conception. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(1), 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddington, D. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. (2010). Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, A., eds., Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. S. & Bock, K. (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 1011–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Bencini, G. (2005). Support from language processing for a constructional approach to grammar. In Tyler, A. E., Takada, M., Kim, Y., & Marinova, D., eds., Language in Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language and Language Learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. & Markman, A. (2009). Constructional sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(4), 675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldwater, M., Tomlinson, M., Echols, C., & Love, B. (2011). Structural priming as structure-mapping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 156–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2010). Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In Rice, S. & Newman, J., eds., Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 59–72.Google Scholar
Gries, S Th. & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. & Weinstein-Tull, J. (2003). Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 537–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, M. & Goldberg, A E. (1999). Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In Hahn, M. & Stoness, S. C., eds., Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 208–211.Google Scholar
Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2003). Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(2), 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Kolk, H. H. J. (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41(2), 143–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Healy, A. F. & Miller, G. A. (1970). The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 20, 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, I., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Costa, A. (2012). The comprehension of anomalous sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 122(2), 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. E. (2007). Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences, 3(1), 26–44.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. E. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition, 127(1), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M. A. & Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1439–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kako, E. (2006a). The semantics of syntactic frames. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 562–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kako, E. (2006b). Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cognition, 101(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaschak, M. P. & Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 508–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konopka, A. E. & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58(1), 68–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lapata, M., Keller, F., & Schulte im Walde, S. (2001). Verb frame frequency as a predictor of verb bias. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(4), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappert, S. & Pechmann, T. (2013). Bidirectional structural priming across alternations: Evidence from the generation of dative and benefactive alternation structures in German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1303–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappert, S. & Pechmann, T. (2014). Priming word order by thematic roles: No evidence for an additional involvement of phrase structure. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(11), 2260–2278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. & Hilpert, M. (2014). Constructional tolerance: Cross-linguistic differences in the acceptability of non-conventional uses of constructions. Construction and Frames, 6(2), 266–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1999). Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(4), 136–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pijpops, D., Dirk Speelman, D., Van de Velde, F., & Grondelaers, S. (2021). Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 487–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potter, M. C. & Lombardi, L. (1998). Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(3), 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pülvermüller, F., Cappelle, B., & Shtyrov, Y. (2013). Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 397–416.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, G.-H. & Kim, H. (2021). Roles of verb and construction cues: Cross-language comparisons between English and Korean sentence comprehension. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 19(2), 332–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Baumann, A. (2021). Of absent mothers, strong sisters and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 97–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooley, K. M. & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 925–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2005). Plausibility and verb subcategorization in temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528–553.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds, Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasilyeva, M. & Waterfall, H. (2011). Beyond syntactic priming: Evidence for activation of alternative syntactic structures. Journal of Child Language, 39(2), 1–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Wiechmann, D. (2008). Initial parsing decisions and lexical bias: Corpus evidence from local NP/S-ambiguities. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. P. & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(3), 368–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittenberg, E. & Levy, R. (2017). If you want a quick kiss, make it count: How choice of syntactic construction affects event construal. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenberg, E. & Snedeker, J. (2014). It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(5), 635–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J., Bencini, G., Goldberg, A. E., & Snedeker, J. (2019). How abstract is syntax? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 193, 104045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, J., Morato, R., & Snedeker, J. (2019). Priming semantic structure in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 3, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J. & Snedeker, J. (2018). How broad are thematic roles? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 179, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, J., Snedeker, J., & Wittenberg, E. (2018). Event structures drive semantic structural priming, not thematic roles: Evidence from idioms and light verbs. Cognitive Science, 42(8), 2918–2949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar