Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:06:29.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sign-Based Construction Grammar: A guided tour1

Review products

BoasHans C. & SagIvan A. (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2012. Pp. xvi + 391.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

FRANK VAN EYNDE
FRANK VAN EYNDE*
Affiliation:
University of Leuven
*
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven, Blijde Inkomststraat 21, 3000 Leuven, Belgiumfrank.vaneynde@ccl.kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sign-Based Construction Grammar (sbcg) is, on the one hand, a formalized version of Berkeley Construction Grammar (bcg), and, on the other hand, a further development of constructionist Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (hpsg). The volume edited by Hans Boas and Ivan Sag is the first book length presentation of the framework. Its centerpiece is a 130-page synopsis of the theory by Ivan Sag. The other contributions to the volume provide background, justification, case studies, an extension to diachronic syntax and a presentation of the FrameNet Constructicon. This review gives a guided tour of the framework, explaining its central notions and assumptions, as well as the notation in which they are cast. It also compares the sbcg framework with other types of Construction Grammar and with hpsg. The case studies are summarized and briefly evaluated.

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , 01 March 2016 , pp. 194 - 217
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Allegranza, Valerio. 1998. Determiners as functors: NP structure in Italian. In Balari, Sergio & Dini, Luca (eds.), Romance in HPSG, 55–107. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Allegranza, Valerio. 2007. The signs of determination: Constraint-based modelling across languages. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin & Chang, Nancy. 2009. Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M. (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 147–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Sag, Ivan A. (eds.). 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bouma, G. 1996. Extraposition as a nonlocal dependency. Proceedings of Formal Grammar 96, 1–14. UC Berkeley: Prague.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan(ed.). 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2000. Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles & Baker, Collin. 2010. A frames approach to semantic description. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 313–339. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles & Kay, Paul. Unpublished. Construction grammar coursebook.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoff & Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2009. The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20, 93–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘what’s $x$ doing $y$?’ construction. Language 75, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Sag, Ivan A.. 2012. Cleaning up the big mess: Discontinuous dependencies and complex determiners. In Boas & Sag (eds.), 229–256.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Sag, Ivan A.. 2005. English object extraposition: A constraint-based approach. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 192–212. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Sells, Peter. 2011. The big mess construction: Interaction between the lexicon and constructions. English Language and Linguistics 15, 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Keyser, S. (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages, 53–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1925. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2015. Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford/Chicago: CSLI Publications and University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33, 431–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas & Sag (eds.), 69–202.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc(ed.). 2011. Design patterns in fluid construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 1996. An HPSG treatment of itextraposition without lexical rules. In Durieux, G., Daelemans, W. & Gillis, S. (eds.), Clin vi. Papers from the Sixth Clin Meeting, 231–248. Antwerpen: CNTS, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 1998. The immediate dominance schemata of HPSG. In Coppen, Peter-Arno, van Halteren, Hans & Teunissen, Lisanne (eds.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 1997, 119–133. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 2006. NP-internal agreement and the structure of the noun phrase. Journal of Linguistics 42, 139–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 2007. The big mess construction. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 415–433. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, Stanford University.Google Scholar