This term paper is concerning Construction Grammar and the way it attempts to handle parts of speech categories like nouns, verbs and adjectives. The seminar this paper was written for proved in a manifold of ways that when we restrict ourselves to the categories provided by traditional grammar, we may face serious difficulties which call into question the fundamental categorizations of such grammar. These problems, or potential problems, are the subject matter of the first part of this paper.
In the second part, I will give an overview of Construction Grammar. Since the concept of construction is central to Construction Grammar, I will first clarify the notion of construction outside of the Construction Grammar framework in 2.1., before moving to an account in 2.2 of those features that can be seen as the smallest common denominator for defining constructions within different Construction Grammars.
One of my principal findings is the differing manners in which Construction Grammars in general, and a specific variant of Construction Grammar, namely Croft’s Radical Construction Grammar, address the issue of parts of speech. Part three will present Croft’s grammar as an answer to one of the central questions raised in this seminar, namely, which model is most adequate for categorising word classes in a single language like English but also in a cross-linguistic sense. This examination will be followed by some concluding remarks in part four.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. General problems involving parts of speech
2. What is Construction Grammar?
2.1 The concept of construction outside the Construction Grammar framework
2.2 The concept of construction within Construction Grammars
2.3 On Construction Grammar
3. Construction Grammar and parts of speech
3.1 The general approach of Construction Grammar towards parts of speech
3.2 The Radical Construction Grammar approach towards parts of speech
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Topics
This paper examines how Construction Grammar addresses parts of speech, contrasting its perspective with traditional grammatical categorizations. The research aims to determine whether Construction Grammar—and specifically William Croft's Radical Construction Grammar—provides a more adequate framework for defining word classes both within single languages and from a cross-linguistic perspective.
- Critique of traditional parts of speech and distributional methods.
- Definition of constructions as the fundamental units of language.
- Taxonomic hierarchy and the symbolic nature of constructions.
- Integration of idiosyncratic speech patterns (idioms) into grammatical models.
- The specific approach of Radical Construction Grammar regarding syntactic categories.
Excerpt from the Book
1. General problems involving parts of speech
“Word classes (also know as parts of speech) are essential for any grammatical description, even though we can never really be entirely sure what their nature is. The reason for this uncertainty is that world classes are not tangible three-dimensional entities, but mental concepts, i.e. they ‘exist’ only in our minds.” (Aarts & Haegeman: 2006, 117)
According to Bußmann (Bußmann: 2002, 750 f.), parts of speech emerge from a process of classification which takes into account formal and functional features of the words to be classified as parts of speech. Aarts and Haegeman point out that these parts of speech or word classes can be viewed as “[…] abstractions over sets of words displaying some common property or properties.” (Aarts & Haegeman: ibid.).
Bußmann (Bußmann: ibid.) further states that attempts to classify parts of speech go back to the ancient world of Plato and Aristotle. Plato developed a system which split up speech acts into two categories, namely ONOMA (name) and RHEMA (declaration). Together, these categories form the LOGOS, the speech or discourse.
(1.) The earth is flat.
In example (1.), The Earth would be the onoma, while is flat is the rhema of the sentence. Other related labels for onoma and rhema would be noun, subject, np, thing or argument for onoma and verb, predicate, vp, property or function for rhema. Aristotle later added the category of SYNDESMOS, which are those things that connect onoma and rhema into sentences. In traditional grammatical terminology, the category syndesmos might include such word classes as conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns and articles. But while Plato only made a logical division between parts of speech in terms of their discourse and meaning, Aristotle’s new category is grounded on a formal level. Aristotle hereby set an example for many others to follow; by adding more and more formal features to a model initially based solely on logical criteria, two different levels of categorisation were mixed which, under close scrutiny, turned out to not have been well combined indeed.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the limitations of traditional grammar in categorizing word classes and introduces Construction Grammar as an alternative perspective.
1. General problems involving parts of speech: Discusses historical attempts at classification and the persistent inconsistencies in defining parts of speech based on logical or distributional criteria.
2. What is Construction Grammar?: Provides a definition of constructions, explores their role as basic units of language, and examines their hierarchical organization.
3. Construction Grammar and parts of speech: Investigates how Construction Grammar views syntactic categories and presents the specific radical approach proposed by William Croft.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes the study’s findings, acknowledging the paper's focus on the critique of traditional definitions and the potential of the Constructionist approach.
Keywords
Construction Grammar, Radical Construction Grammar, Parts of Speech, Word Classes, Syntax, Semantics, Distributional Method, Croft, Goldberg, Schönefeld, Grammatical Categorization, Idioms, Taxonomic Hierarchy, Linguistic Theory, Morphosyntactic Behavior.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
This paper explores how the theoretical framework of Construction Grammar (CG) attempts to define and categorize parts of speech, contrasting this with the often inconsistent classifications found in traditional grammar.
What are the core thematic areas discussed?
The work covers the definitions of constructions, the critique of traditional word class classification, the use of distributional tests, and the unique perspective offered by Radical Construction Grammar.
What is the central research question?
The paper asks whether the Construction Grammar model, particularly Croft's Radical Construction Grammar, offers a more robust or adequate framework for classifying word classes in both a single-language and cross-linguistic context.
Which methodology is employed in this research?
The author employs a theoretical analysis and literature review, contrasting traditional and generative approaches with those of Construction Grammar, while using specific linguistic examples to test the applicability of these theories.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body examines the definitions of constructions, the concept of the syntax-lexicon continuum, the role of idioms as key evidence for CG, and the specific departure of Radical Construction Grammar from traditional syntactic categories.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Key terms include Construction Grammar, parts of speech, syntax, distributional method, and Radical Construction Grammar.
How does Radical Construction Grammar differ from other models?
Unlike other models that might retain atomic syntactic categories, Radical Construction Grammar posits that these categories do not have an independent existence but are derived solely from the constructions in which they function.
What role does the "distributional method" play in this study?
The study highlights how the distributional method is often used to define parts of speech but argues that it is prone to "methodological opportunism," as it frequently fails to handle complex cases of multiple word class membership consistently.
- Citation du texte
- Johannes Huhmann (Auteur), 2007, Parts of speech in Construction Grammar , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/87305
