Word Grammar and Construction Grammar

Richard Hudson

last changed 22 May 2011

Bibliographical information

This is a chapter in: Nik Gisborne and Graeme Trousdale (eds.) 2008. Constructional Approaches to English Grammar (Mouton), pp 257-302.

Abstract

Construction Grammar (CG) as defined by Adele Goldberg’s recent work and Word Grammar (WG) are very similar to each other, and together form a bridge between cognitive and generative approaches to language structure. For example, like other cognitive theories CG and WG claim that language is usage-based, but like generative theories they recognise a separate level of syntax. However, I also recognise four general differences between CG and WG, all illustrated from the analysis of ditransitives. First, sentence structure consists of dependency structure in WG, whereas CG is somewhat agnostic. Second, CG appears to assume a rather simple kind of semantic structure whereas WG offers a rich network analysis of the entire semantic frame. Third, CG appears to recognise a single level of ‘form’ which includes phonology, morphology and syntax, whereas these are related hierarchically in WG. The fourth difference is that WG spells out a theory of processing somewhat more fully than CG does. In each case, I show that the extra structure and theory available in WG would improve the CG analysis. Finally, I suggest that the notion of ‘construction’ is problematic.