The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective
Abstract
This book presents a profound critique of syntactic theory and syntactic argumentation. Recent syntactic theories are essentially formal models for the representation of grammatical knowledge. These theories posit complex syntactic structures in the analysis of sentences, consisting of atomic primitive syntactic categories and relations. The result of this approach to syntax has been an endless cycle of new and revised theories of syntactic representation. The book argues that these types of syntactic theories are incompatible with the grammatical variation found within and across languages. The extent of grammatical variation demonstrates that no scheme of atomic primitive syntactic categories and relations can form the basis of an empirically adequate syntactic theory. This book defends three theses: (i) constructions are the primitive units of syntactic representation, and grammatical categories are derivative; (ii) the only syntactic structures are the relations between a construction and the elements that make it up (that is, there is no need to posit syntactic relations); and (iii) constructions are language-specific. Constructions are complex units pairing form and meaning. Grammatical categories within and across languages are mapped onto a universal conceptual space, following the semantic map model in typology. The structure of conceptual space constrains how meaning is encoded in linguistic form, and reflects the structure of the human mind.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718
Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts
Searle, J. R. (1979) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609213 · Cited by 3,502
Corbett, G. G. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139166119 · Cited by 1,385
Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980) · Language · doi:10.2307/413757 · Cited by 1,204
Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
Lucy, J. A. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511620843 · Cited by 793
Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category
PINE, J. M., LIEVEN, E. V. M., & ROWLAND, C. F. (1998) · Linguistics · doi:10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.807 · Cited by 214
Cited by
(2006) · Cited by 3,931
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803864 · Cited by 3,316
Self-citationConstructions: A new theoretical approach to language
Goldberg, A. E. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00080-9 · Cited by 1,812
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.2.234 · Cited by 984
The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1500031x · Cited by 733
Metadata
- Authors
- Croft, W.
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2001-10-25
- OpenAlex
- W2337762945
- Cited by
- 2,910
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 38.08
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
- The paper
- Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780198299554.001.0001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.