1. Cognitive Linguistics Croft & Cruse 10 An overview of construction grammars (part 2, 10.2.2 through end)

2. 10.2.2 Lakoff (1987) & Goldberg (1995) Q&A: –1) What is the status of the categories of the syntactic elements in construction grammar? Participant roles are non-reductionist – the complex event is the primitive, but syntactic roles are reductionist, assuming primitive roles such as subject, object –2) What sorts of syntactic relations are posited? NA and see above

3. 10.2.2 Lakoff (1987) & Goldberg (1995) Q&A: –3) What sorts of relations are found between constructions? Radial categories, with central, prototypical members and other members related via metaphorical extension –4) How is information stored in the construction taxonomy? It is stored redundantly at various levels, in conformity with the Usage-Based model and evidence that information is stored redundantly in the mind

4. 10.2.3 Cognitive Grammar (Langacker) Cognitive Grammar’s model of syntactic representation is a construction grammar model, emphasizing symbolic and semantic definitions of what is traditionally analyzed as syntax A symbolic unit links a semantic pole to a phonological pole

5. 10.2.3 Cognitive Grammar (Langacker), cont’d. Q&A: –1) What is the status of the categories of the syntactic elements in construction grammar? Syntactic categories such as noun, verb, subject, object are abstract semantic construals of the content of their denotations. So they are semantic and based on construal of experience. –2) What sorts of syntactic relations are posited? Valence is handled as elaboration sites for substructures, and they represent a gradient

6. 10.2.3 Cognitive Grammar (Langacker), cont’d. Q&A: –3) What sorts of relations are found between constructions? Again, we have a radial category with prototype and (metaphorical) extensions –4) How is information stored in the construction taxonomy? Like Lakoff & Goldberg, Langacker’s is a Usage- Based model

7. 10.2.4 Radical Construction Grammar (Croft) Adopts the radial category structure and Usage-Based model we see with Lakoff, Goldberg, and Langacker Thoroughly non-reductionist Rejects autonomous syntactic relations Brings in models of conceptual space and semantic map as organizing principles

8. 10.2.4 Radical Construction Grammar (Croft), cont’d. Q&A: –1) What is the status of the categories of the syntactic elements in construction grammar? Constructions are the basic units, and syntactic categories are defined in relation to constructions. There are no atomic schematic units defined independently of constructions. Constructions are organized into radial categories with prototypes and extensions

9. 10.2.4 Radical Construction Grammar (Croft), cont’d. Q&A: –2) What sorts of syntactic relations are posited? Relations between parts of a construction are defined in purely semantic terms – there are no syntactic relations in Radical Construction Grammar. When you look cross-linguistically, you find that syntactic relations are not uniform, and their semantic content is not the same.

10. 10.2.4 Radical Construction Grammar (Croft), cont’d. Q&A: –3) What sorts of relations are found between constructions? Constructions define all the relations. So the Transitive construction defines both the Transitive Verb and the Transitive Object. And the Morphological Verb construction defines the Verb as the stem and inflections, uniting Transitive and Intransitive Verbs. It’s constructions all the way up.

11. 10.2.4 Radical Construction Grammar (Croft), cont’d. Q&A: –4) How is information stored in the construction taxonomy? Information is represented redundantly in conformity with the Usage-Based model –Conceptual space – functional properties, based on (universal?) experience –Semantic map – how items map onto the conceptual space Constructions are language-specific