Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T14:48:52.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Constructions in Typological and Cross-Linguistic Context

from Part V - Constructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
William Croft
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

Construction Grammar and typology share many assumptions and each approach can fruitfully inform the other. Both fields start from a pairing of form and function and treat lexicon, morphology, and syntax as a continuum of varying strategies to express function. Cross-linguistic comparison leads to a distinction between language-particular categories and structures, determined by distributional analysis, and comparative concepts that are cross-linguistically valid. Strategies are morphosyntactic formal structures that are defined language-independently and constructions are comparative concepts; as such, constructions and their components can be aligned across languages, and strategies allow the alignment of morphosyntactic structures used for constructions across languages. Typologists have also developed representations of the conceptual relations between the functions of different constructions in terms of conceptual spaces. Typological diversity also suggests that the only universal syntactic structure is the part–whole relation between a construction and its constituents. Both Construction Grammar and typology give a prominent role to diachrony, seeing constructions as lineages.

Keywords

Construction Grammartypologycomparative conceptdistributional analysisconstructionstrategysemanticsinformation packagingdiachronylineage
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 439 - 468
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C. D. (1949). A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A Study into the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2003). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 145–167.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Thompson, S. A. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. In Juge, M. L. & Moxley, J. O., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 378–388.Google Scholar
Chafe, W., ed. (1980). The Pear Stories, New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1977). On the gradual nature of syntactic change. In Li, Ch, ed., Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1978). Ergativity. In Lehmann, W., ed., Syntactic Typology. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 329–394.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2007). The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics, 18, 339–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2009). Constructions and generalizations [Review of Goldberg, Constructions at work]. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 157–166.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2010a). Relativity, linguistic variation and language universals. CogniTextes, 4, 303. http://cognitextes.revues.org/303/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2010b). The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In Trousdale, G. & Hoffmann, T., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2021). Ten Lectures on Construction Grammar and Typology. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2022). Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2024a). Word classes in Radical Construction Grammar. In van Lier, E., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Word Classes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2024b). Philosophical reflections on the future of construction grammar, or, confessions of a Radical Construction Grammarian. Constructions and Frames, https://benjamins.com/catalog/cf.23011.cro.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Poole, K. T. (2008). Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2007). A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Webelhuth, G., Koenig, J.-P., & Kathol, A., eds., Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet constructicon. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 309–372.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H., ed., Universals of Grammar, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1979). Rethinking linguistics diachronically. Language, 55, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 211–242.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86, 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2012). How to compare major word-classes across the world’s languages. In Graf, T., Paperno, D., Szabolcsi, A., & Tellings, J., eds., Theories of Everything: In Honor of Edward Keenan. Los Angeles: UCLA, pp. 109–130.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N., & Wiemer, B., eds., What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, J. P. (1981). The Kanuri Language: A Reference Grammar. Madison: University of Wisconsin African Studies Program.Google Scholar
Janhunen, J. A. (2012). Mongolian. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., & Rhee, S. (2019). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2015). Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd edition. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., Meira, S., & Language and Cognition Group (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79, 485–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D., eds. (2006). Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondloch, J. L. (1978). Basic Quiché Grammar. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies.Google Scholar
Munro, P. (1984). Floating quantifiers in Pima. In Cook, E.-D. & Gerdts, D. B., eds., Syntax and Semantics 16: The Syntax of Native American Languages. New York: Academic Press, pp. 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regier, T., Khetarpal, N., & Majid, A. (2013). Inferring semantic maps. Linguistic Typology, 17, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 69–202.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. (1986). Kilivila: The Language of the Trobriand Islanders. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L. (1997). Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1977). Rubber sheet cognition in language. In W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, & S. Philosoph, eds., Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: ,publisher-name>Chicago University Press, pp. 612–628.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. J. (1980). A Grammar of Yuwaalaraay. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×