CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR:THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATION REVIEW OF `Construction Grammar The Structure of English` BY THOMAS HOFFMANN

Document Type : .

Authors
MEHDI DAMALIAMIRI 1
MOSTAFA ASSI 2
1 institute for humanities and cultural studies
2 INSTITUTE FOR HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES
10.30465/lsi.2025.50659.1788
Abstract
Construction Grammar refers to a set of different yet related theoretical approaches to understanding language, in which generalizations about linguistic structure are formulated in terms of constructions (the pairing of form and meaning). While the conceptual foundations of Construction Grammar can be directly attributed to Fillmore's Case Grammar, various approaches within the framework of Construction Grammar (with a stronger cognitive orientation) have emerged to develop and refine this grammar as a model capable of describing, analyzing, and generalizing linguistic constructions. The most significant approaches in Construction Grammar include Berkeley Construction Grammar, Embodied Construction Grammar, Langacker's Cognitive Grammar, Goldberg's Construction Grammar, Croft's Radical Construction Grammar, Boas' Frame-Semantic Construction Grammar, Sag's Sign-Based Construction Grammar, Fluid Construction Grammar, and the Lexical Constructional Model, which fall into three categories: formalist, usage-based, and computational. All Construction Grammar models emphasize that constructions are symbolic units of form-meaning/use and reveal the possibilities and conditions under which Construction Grammar can elucidate the production of knowledge and meaning in the mind of a language speaker. However, these approaches fundamentally differ on one key point: what is a construction? A proper understanding of the foundations and methodologies of each of these construction-based models, their commonalities and differences regarding the universality of linguistic constructions, their quantity and type, their composition and semantics, linguistic usage data, and the specification of symbolic systems, is explored in Construction Grammar: The Structure of English by Thomas Hoffmann. This work demonstrates the explanatory power of Construction Grammar at all levels of English, conducts synchronic and diachronic studies, and introduces various structural approaches, which are considered one of the most prominent achievements of Construction Grammar. In this book, the claim that Construction Grammar constitutes a comprehensive domain of grammatical theorizing is examined to determine whether a holistic approach to linguistic units can represent the reality of mental activity. Furthermore, the book illustrates that Construction Grammar utilizes various methods of real linguistic data, which can include empirical analyses, usage evidence, and textual examples. Through this book, a deeper understanding of the interaction between form and meaning in natural languages can be achieved, and the role of Construction Grammar in better language analysis can be more fully appreciated.
Keywords
construction
grammar
case
meaning
cognition
Bergen, B. (2008). A whole-systems approach to language: An interview with Luc Steels. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 329–344.  https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.18ste
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). John Benjamins.
Boas, H. C. (2002). On the role of semantic constraints in resultative constructions. University of Texas at Austin. http://sites.la.utexas.edu/hcb/files/2011/02/semantic_constraints_in_resultatives_2002.pdf
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.
Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford University Press.
Boas, H. C., & Fried, M. (2005). Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots. John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.1.11pay
Boas, H. C., Sag, I. A., & Michaelis, L. A. (2009). Sign-based construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0008
Chafe, W. (2009). Consciousness and language, In Dominiek Sandra, Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren (Eds.), Cognition and Pragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing company . https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.3.09cha
Chafe, W. (2000). Verbs and their objects and the one new idea hypothesis. LACUS Forum XXVI: The Lexicon.  http://www.lacus.org/volumes/26/11_chafe.pdf
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 17–42). John Benjamins.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach, R. T. Harms, & C. J. Fillmore (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of "Construction Grammar." Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 35–55.
Fillmore, C. J. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 17–38). Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-87144-2.50004-5
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.  https://doi.org/10.2307/414531
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
Goldberg A. E. (2013). Constructionists Approaches. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, P. 15–31.
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on "alternations." International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.  https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
Harris, R. A. (2021). The linguistics wars (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2020). Constructional approaches. In B. Aarts, J. Bowie, & G. Popova (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of English grammar (pp. 377–396). Oxford University Press.
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press.
Kiss, T., & Alexiadou, A. (Eds.). (2015). Syntax – Theory and analysis: An international handbook. De Gruyter Mouton.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). De Gruyter Mouton.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
Luzondo Oyón, A. (2011). English resultative constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model: Implications for constructional modeling within a lexical conceptual knowledge base [Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de La Rioja].
Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-based construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 133–152). Oxford University Press. .  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0010
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M.  (2004 ). Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M. (2005). The cognitive grounding of Construction Grammar. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars (pp. 1–13). John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In E. Diedrichsen & B. Nolan (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in RRG grammars (pp. 231–270). John Benjamins.
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 61–188). CSLI Publications.
Sansò, A. (2003). [Review of the book Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective, by W. Croft]. Studies in Language, 27(3), 671–682.  https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.3.10san
Steels, L. (2011). Introducing Fluid Construction Grammar. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 3–30). John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.03ste
Steels, L., De Beule, J., & Wellens, P. (2012). Fluid Construction Grammar on real robots. In L. Steels & M. Hild (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp. 195–213). Springer.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. 1. Concept structuring systems; Vol. 2. Typology and process in concept structuring. MIT Press.
Taylor, John R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zeschel, A. (2009). What’s (in) a construction? Complete inheritance vs. full-entry models. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 185–200). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.15zes
Ziem, A., & Lasch, A. (2013). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295641
 
Language and Linguistics
Volume 20, Issue 40
March 2025
Pages 307-337