Discover the world's scientific knowledge

It seems that Construction Grammar generally assumes a rather strictly vertical/hierarchical structure, from more substantial to more schematic levels, such that a given item instantiates one (and only one) construction on the next higher level of abstraction.

Is there any formalization of 'horizontal links', such as a similarity in only form or only meaning, but not both?

And could there be a "constructional polygamy", e.g. for structurally ambiguous cases, which could instantiate more than one abstract construction? (To try an example: "All that money I have to spend" could be deontic 'have to V' as well as transitive 'have X' + to-infinitive, so it might 'activate' both constructions...)

I ve written a paper abt it, not done yet. Im working on gestures in classroom. I found only a small group of researchers/scholars has worked on it ( Langacker).

I'm currently working on a comparison between Cognitive Construction Grammar and Minimalist syntax as theories for modeling language variation and change. I've received some training in minimalism, but that's long time ago, so my knowledge on that topic is a bit rusty. My supervisors are cognitive linguists too, and about everybody I work with is a cognitive linguists, so no help there. Could someone revise sections 6 and 7 of this paper (about 5 pages, no more) in order to check if I got everything about right?

Grammar, syntax, and morphology can be seen as autonomous levels of language development from other cognitive domains or language is part of various cognitive nonlinguistic features such as auditory perception, general intelligence, hierarchical structuring abilities? So, language is embedded in more general cognitive abilities?

To this day, I have not been able to envisage a sound answer to this question and, to my mind, this is (one of) THE pending question(s) in linguistics. Any insights will be more than welcome.

I am working on non-finites forms in Turkish. Your suggestions will help me a lot

In Langacker's article "An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar" (1986), grammar is argued to be imagic in character as it "provides for the structuring and symbolization of conceptual content." Langacker further elaborates by saying "When we use a particular construction or grammatical morpheme, we thereby select a particular image to structure the conceived situation [...]" (p. 13) The term "image" is confusing to me.

This is a very fundamental question in linguistics. However, most linguists seem to repeat the dogmatic answers of the framework they work in. What do YOU think? Is grammar located in the brain? Is it innate? Or is it the construct of linguists? Any other suggestions?

Hi fellow researchers in cognitive lingustics. I am currently finishing my book on the teching of phrasal verbs from an Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar framework. In order to reach the widest audience possible, I would like to translate the book's one-page preface into several languages, starting with Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese) and Russian. If anyone is interested, please, download the attached file (other langauges are also welcome). It goes without saying that the sources of the selected translations will be included in the book (plus a big "thanks" in the acknowledgements section). In addition, I will send a free interactive PDF of the book to those who generously collaborate with me in this task. Thanks to those interested.

I know of some work by Stefan Gries and Bert Capelle on the variable placement of particles with particle verbs. I would be grateful for other references!