Comparing constructional approaches to grammar

Constructional approaches to grammar (among which we include Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar) share two key features in common, by definition. Firstly, despite differences in how ‘construction’ is defined, these approaches recognise grammatical constructions as symbolic units. From this perspective, linguistic knowledge consists of constructions ‘stored whole’ rather than ‘built’ (as they are in the ‘words and rules’ model). The second shared feature is the assumption of a structured inventory (Langacker 1987). All constructional approaches reject the idea that knowledge of language consists of an unordered set of constructions. Instead, these approaches make some statement concerning the nature of relationships between constructions within a complex network of links; these links rest not only upon shared structure, but also upon shared meaning (such as polysemy links or metaphorical extension links).

With respect to the differences between constructional approaches, we saw that each approach takes a different position on how the notion of construction is to be defined. Langacker views any unit with complex symbolic structure as a construction, regardless of whether its structure or meaning can be predicted from the properties of its subparts. In defining the term ‘construction’ in this way, Langacker’s conception of a construction comes closest to the traditional sense of the term. Goldberg defines the construction as any symbolic unit, complex or otherwise, that is to some degree arbitrary (unpredictable) in terms of meaning or structure. In this respect, Goldberg’s model is closer to the Construction Grammar model that we discussed in the previous chapter than it is to Cognitive Grammar. In Radical Construction Grammar, every linguistic unit is a construction, regardless of complexity or arbitrariness. Indeed, everything in RCG is arbitrary, if we take this model to its logical conclusion, since everything is construction-specific. In Embodied Construction Grammar, a similar view of constructions is taken, although the emphasis in this model is on language processing and on the nature of the embodied know ledge with which the language system interacts rather than on the nature of the language system itself.

A further point of contrast concerns whether or not constructional approaches can be described as usage-based. While the constructional approaches discussed in this chapter, in addition to Cognitive Grammar, can all be described as usage-based approaches, the Kay and Fillmore theory of Construction Grammar, as we saw in the previous chapter, is not a usage based model. This represents a fundamental division between Kay and Fillmore’s theory on the one hand, and what can be classed together as cognitively oriented constructional approaches on the other. As we saw in Chapter 4, the usage-based thesis is central to cognitive approaches, because the usage-based thesis goes hand in hand with the cognitive model’s rejection of the Universal Grammar hypothesis, which in turn is related to the rejection of the idea that linguistic knowledge is a specialised or encapsulated knowledge system.

Finally, a parameter of comparison between constructional approaches that is discussed by Croft and Cruse (2004) relates to the issue of whether these theories can be described as reductionist or non-reductionist. The difference between a reductionist model and a non-reductionist model relates to the directionality of the relationship between part and whole (for example, the relationship between grammatical units like subject, object and verb (parts) and the construction in which they occur (whole)). In a non-reductionist model, the whole (construction) is the primitive unit, rather like a Gestalt, and the parts emerge as properties of that whole. In a reductionist model, the parts are the primitives and the whole is constructed from the parts. Croft and Cruse describe RCG as non-reductionist, because the whole construction is the primitive and the parts are defined in relation to that whole. In contrast, Kay and Fillmore’s Construction Grammar is reductionist, because although it recognises constructions, it still views these as composed of smaller atomic units. Recall from Chapter 19 that in Construction Grammar complex constructions in part inherit their properties from basic constructions such as the head-complement construction and the subject-predicate construction, for example. Croft and Cruse describe Goldberg’s participant roles as non reductionist, because she assumes frame semantics. In other words, the frame is the primitive unit and the participant roles emerge from that frame. In contrast, her analysis of syntactic roles and relations is described as reductionist by Croft and Cruse, since she relies upon atomic primitives such as subject, object and verb in describing the syntactic properties of each construction, without positing an independent account of the origins of these primitives. In contrast, Cognitive Grammar views grammatical units such as subject and object as emerging from TR-LM organisation, which in turn derives from figure ground organisation at the conceptual level. It follows that Cognitive Grammar is a non-reductionist model.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

الحلقة 24 من جائزة العميد القرآنية تشهد تأهّل القارئ عبد الله محمد من باكستان إلى المرحلة النهائية.

تكريم طلبة جامعة العميد الفائزين في المسابقة الثقافية الكبرى للمطالعة والقراءة

معهد القرآن الكريم النسوي يطلق مسابقته القرآنية (قصة آية) في النجف الأشرف

الجامعة التكنولوجية: برنامج العتبة العباسية المقدسة الرمضاني يعزز القيم الثقافية والإنسانية في الجامعات

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

دراسة: تناول القهوة يوميا يخفض خطر الإصابة بالاضطرابات النفسية

عرض شائع في الفم قد يكون مرتبطا بخطر الإصابة بأمراض خطيرة

نصائح عامة لاستخدام سماعات الرأس بأمان

تأثير اللياقة البدنية على الدماغ

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

ديدان الأرض تكشف تلوث التربة بالمعادن الثقيلة

خبير أرصاد جوية: ظاهرة النينيو القادمة قد تكون الأقوى خلال 10 سنوات

"ناسا" تكشف موعد إعادة إطلاق رحلتها المأهولة إلى القمر

علماء الجيولوجيا يفكون لغز الصدع العملاق تحت الماء في المحيط الأطلسي

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

The nature of grammaticalization

Grammaticalisation

The interrogative channel

The demonstrative channel

Analysis and simulation

Emphasis on language processing

Embodied Construction Grammar

Five key features of RCG

Emphasis on diversity

Taxonomy of constructions

Radical Construction Grammar

Relationships between constructions