Can construction grammar be proven wrong?
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
Can construction grammar be proven wrong?
（Cambridge elements, . Elements in construction grammar / edited by Thomas Hoffmann,
Cambridge University Press, c2024
- pbk.
Available at / 2 libraries
-
No Libraries matched.
- Remove all filters.
Note
Includes bibliographical references
Description and Table of Contents
Description
Construction Grammar has gained prominence in linguistics, owing its popularity to its inclusive approach that considers language units of varying sizes and generality as potential constructions – mentally stored form-function units. This Element serves as a cautionary note against complacency and dogmatism. It emphasizes the enduring importance of falsifiability as a criterion for scientific hypotheses and theories. Can every postulated construction, in principle, be empirically demonstrated not to exist? As a case study, the author examines the schematic English transitive verb-particle construction, which defies experimental verification. He argues that we can still reject its non-existence using sound linguistic reasoning. But beyond individual constructions, what could be a crucial test for Construction Grammar itself, one that would falsify it as a theory? In making a proposal for such a test, designed to prove that speakers also exhibit pure-form knowledge, this Element contributes to ongoing discussions about Construction Grammar's theoretical foundations.
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction: The Stakes
- 2. Can't Touch This: Does CxG Have an Attitude Problem?
- 3. Falsificationism: A Still-Influential Approach to Scientific Inquiry
- 4. The Particular but Generalizable Problem Posed by Particle Verbs
- 5. How CxG could Play the Science Game Fairly
- 6. Keep Calm and Constructi-con.
by "Nielsen BookData"
