36.150, Books: Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong?: Bert Cappelle

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-150. Tue Jan 14 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.150, Books: Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong?: Bert Cappelle

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Joel Jenkins, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Joel Jenkins <joel at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 14-Jan-2025
From: Ellena Moriarty [ellena.moriarty at cambridge.org]
Subject: Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong?: Bert Cappelle


Title: Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong?
Series Title: Elements in Construction Grammar
Publication Year: 2024

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
           http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics
Book URL: https://cambridge.org/9781009343206

Author(s): Bert Cappelle

Paperback 9781009343206: £17.00 / $22.00 / 19.84 EURO
Hardback 9781009478786: £49.99 / $64.99 / 58.34 EURO

Abstract:

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.

Written In: English (eng)



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Brill http://www.brill.com

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-150
----------------------------------------------------------