Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective

By W. Bruce Croft. 2001

1,975 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/360f293e0d1b9d5985ba9bc3c32fb0bb59d4a0ae

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

From Usage to Grammar: The Mind's Response to Repetition (2007, background): “Proposals have been made by Fillmore and Kay (e.g. Fillmore et al. 1988, Kay & Fillmore 1999), Goldberg (1995, 2003), Lakoff (1987), Langacker (1987), and Croft (2001).”
Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages (2008, background): “1 I would like to thank Martine Vanhove, Maria Kotjevskaja-Tamm, Sergueï Sakhno and Françoise Rose for their precious comments on a previous version of this article. 2 “Les concepts (...) sont purement différentiels, définis non pas positivement par leur contenu, mais négativement par leurs rapports”
On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology (2011, background): “…R P indirective directive T R P T R P secundative primative indirective alignment neutral alignment secundative alignment Other prominent works in the 1990s and 2000s that adopted the SAP terminology are Blake 1994; Siewierska 1984, 2004; Payne 1997; Creissels 2006 (as well as Croft 2001, 2003).”
Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English (2009, background): “This is challenging, because word order knowledge can differ greatly across languages (Baker, 2005; Croft, 2001) and it is not clear how the learner discovers the appropriate settings for these constraints during syntax acquisition (Chang, Lieven, & Tomasello, 2008; Mazuka, 1998).”
Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar (2005, background): “This is not to say that generalizations over parts of different constructions—e.g. the identical inflections of verbs, no matter whether they are intransitive, transitive or ditransitive—are impossible in Radical Construction Grammar (see Croft 2001:53-57; Croft & Cruse to appear, ch. 10).”
Radical Construction Grammar (2001, background): “As with categories, one can argue that the grouping of elements is construction-specific, motivated by the function of that construction, and they may not be the same from one construction to the next (Croft 2001, ch. 5).”
Phonological development: toward a “radical” templatic phonology (2007, methodology): “Radical Construction Grammar also adopts the definition of categories used by Pierrehumbert, as a level of discrete categories mapped onto a density distribution of individual functions or meanings, the conceptual space parallel to the space defined by phonetic parameters.”
Constructions, Chunking, and Connectionism: The Emergence of Second Language Structure (2008, background): “…from the interaction of higher-level principles-and-parameters and lower-level lexicon, cognitive linguistics – construction grammar in particular (Croft, 2001; Goldberg, 1995) – has brought them back to the fore, suspecting instead that it is the higher-level systematicities that emerge from…”
Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions (2010, background): “In (4)-(7), the manner is expressed by the main verb (in boldface), and the path is expressed by an element other than a verb (in italics), which Talmy calls a satellite of the main verb (Talmy 1975:184, 1985:102; see §1.3 for more on the definition of a satellite).”
Language as a Tool for Interacting Minds (2010, background): “Some approaches emphasise language as a special kind of knowledge (Chomsky, 1986; Croft, 2001), others its dynamic process properties (Clark, 1996; Raczaszek-Leonardi and Kelso, 2008), while yet others conceive of language as an object (Clark, 2006a; Roepstorff, 2008), or a bodily skill (Arbib, 2005”
Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change* (2009, methodology): “…the following two features seem to be shared among the various approaches (Langacker, 1987, 1991, 1995; Fillmore et al., 1988; Nunberg, Sag and Wasow, 1994; Croft, 2001; Wray, 2002; Croft and Cruse, 2004; Goldberg, 2006), and will also be assumed in the present study: (i) CONVENTIONALITY.”