Constructions: a New Theoretical Approach to Language
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.7 No.5 May 2003 219 Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language Adele E. Goldberg Linguistics Department, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801-0168, USA A new theoretical approach to language has emerged in the ‘core’ of language. Mainstream generative theory the past 10–15 years that allows linguistic observations argues further that the complexity of core language cannot about form–meaning pairings, known as ‘construc- be learned inductively by general cognitive mechanisms tions’, to be stated directly. Constructionist approaches and therefore learners must be hard-wired with principles aim to account for the full range of facts about that are specific to language (‘universal grammar’). language, without assuming that a particular subset of the data is part of a privileged ‘core’. Researchers in this Tenets of constructionist approaches field argue that unusual constructions shed light on Each basic tenet outlined below is shared by most more general issues, and can illuminate what is constructionist approaches. Each represents a major required for a complete account of language. divergence from the mainstream generative approach and, in many ways, a return to a more traditional view of Constructions – form and meaning pairings – have been language. the basis of major advances in the study of grammar since Tenet 1. All levels of description are understood to the days of Aristotle. Observations about specific linguistic involve pairings of form with semantic or discourse constructions have shaped our understanding of both function, including morphemes or words, idioms, particular languages and the nature of language itself. But partially lexically filled and fully abstract phrasal only recently has a new theoretical approach emerged that patterns. (See Table 1) allows observations about constructions to be stated Tenet 2. An emphasis is placed on subtle aspects of the directly, providing long-standing traditions with a frame- way we conceive of events and states of affairs. work that allows both broad generalizations and more Tenet 3. A ‘what you see is what you get’ approach to limited patterns to be analyzed and accounted for fully. syntactic form is adopted: no underlying levels of syntax This is in contrast to the mainstream ‘generative’ approach or any phonologically empty elements are posited. to language, which has held sway for the past several Tenet 4. Constructions are understood to be learned on decades, beginning with Chomsky in 1957 [1]. the basis of the input and general cognitive mechanisms Many linguists with varying backgrounds have recently (they are constructed), and are expected to vary cross- converged on several key insights that have given rise to a linguistically. new family of approaches, here referred to as ‘construc- Tenet 5. Cross-linguistic generalizations are explained tionist’ approaches [2–23]. Constructionist approaches by appeal to general cognitive constraints together with share certain foundational ideas with the mainstream the functions of the constructions involved. generative approach. Both approaches agree that it is Tenet 6. Language-specific generalizations across con- essential to consider language as a cognitive (mental) structions are captured via inheritance networks much system; both approaches acknowledge that there must be a like those that have long been posited to capture our way to combine structures to create novel utterances, and non-linguistic knowledge. both approaches recognize that a non-trivial theory of Tenet 7. The totality of our knowledge of language is language learning is needed. captured by a network of constructions: a ‘construct-i-con.’ In other ways, constructionist approaches contrast sharply with the mainstream generative approach. The Each of these tenets is explained in a subsequent latter has held that the nature of language can best be section below. revealed by studying formal structures independently of their semantic or discourse functions. Ever increasing Constructions: what they are layers of abstractness have characterized the formal Constructions are stored pairings of form and function, representations. Meaning is claimed to derive from the including morphemes, words, idioms, partially lexically mental dictionary of words, with functional differences filled and fully general linguistic patterns. Examples are between formal patterns being largely ignored. Semi- given in Table 1. regular patterns and unusual patterns are viewed as Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction as ‘peripheral,’ with a narrow band of data seen as relevant to long as some aspect of its form or function is not strictly predictable from its component parts or from other Corresponding author: Adele E. Goldberg ([email protected]). constructions recognized to exist. In addition, many http://tics.trends.com 1364-6613/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 220 Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.7 No.5 May 2003 Table 1. Examples of constructions, varying in size and complexity; form and function are specified if not readily transparent Construction Form/Example Function Morpheme e.g. anti-, pre-, -ing Word e.g. Avocado, anaconda, and Complex word e.g. Daredevil, shoo-in Idiom (filled) e.g. Going great guns Idiom (partially filled) e.g. Jog ksomeone’sl memory Covariational-Conditional Form: The Xer the Meaning: linked independent and dependent variables construction [10] Yer (e.g. The more you think about it, the less you understand) Ditransitive Form: Subj [V Obj1 Meaning: transfer (intended or actual) (double-object) Obj2] (e.g. He gave her a Coke; He baked her a muffin) construction Passive Form: Subj aux VPpp (PPby) (e.g. The armadillo was hit Discourse function: to make undergoer topical and/or by a car) actor non-topical constructionist approaches argue that patterns are stored and relative clauses are understood to be learned pairings even if they are fully predictable as long as they occur with of form and (semantic or discourse) function – that is, they sufficient frequency [24–29]. are also constructions. Each pairs certain formal proper- Unlike mainstream generative grammar, the construc- ties with a certain communicative function. tionist framework emphasizes the semantics and distri- Even basic sentence patterns of a language can be bution of particular words, grammatical morphemes, and understood to involve constructions. That is, the main verb cross-linguistically unusual phrasal patterns. The hypoth- can be understood to combine with an argument-structure esis behind this methodology is that an account of the rich construction (e.g. transitive, intransitive, ditransitive semantic, pragmatic, and complex formal constraints on constructions, etc.) [7]. The alternative is to assume that these patterns readily extends to more general, simple or the form and general interpretation of basic sentence regular patterns. patterns are determined by semantic and/or syntactic As an example of an unusual pattern, consider the information specified by the main verb. The sentence Covariational Conditional construction in Table 1 (e.g. ‘The patterns given in (1) and (2) indeed appear to be more you think about it, the less you understand’). The determined by the specifications of give and put respect- construction is interpreted as involving an independent ively: variable (identified by the first phrase) and a dependent (1) Chris gave Pat a ball. variable (identified by the second phrase). The word the (2) Pat put the ball on the table. normally occurs at the beginning of a phrase headed by a noun. But in this construction it requires a comparative Give is a three-argument verb: an act of giving requires phrase. The two major phrases of the construction resist three characters: a giver (or agent), a recipient, and classification as either noun phrases or clauses. The something given (or ‘theme’). It is therefore expected to requirement that two phrases of this type be juxtaposed appear with three phrases corresponding to these three without conjunction is another non-predictable aspect of roles. In (1), for instances, Chris is agent, Pat is recipient, the pattern. Because the pattern is not strictly predictable, and a ball is theme. Put, another three-argument verb, a construction is posited that specifies the particular form requires an agent, a theme (object that undergoes the and semantic function involved [10]. change of location) and a final location of the theme’s Other unusual constructions include those in Table 2. motion. It appears with the corresponding three argu- Although some of the patterns are primarily used ments in (2). However, whereas (1) and (2) represent colloquially, they are part of every native speaker’s perhaps the prototypical case, in general the interpret- repertoire of English. (The stranded preposition construc- ation and form of sentence patterns of a language are not tion is unusual not by virtue of its being prescriptively reliably determined by independent specifications of the dispreferred, but in that it is found only in a few Germanic main verb. For example, it is implausible to claim that languages). sneeze has a three-argument sense, and yet it can appear More common patterns such as passive, topicalization as such in (3). The patterns in (4)–(6) are likewise not naturally attributed to the main verbs: Table 2. Productive or semi-productive constructions that are (3) ‘He sneezed his tooth right across town.’ (Robert