Relative clause constructions express an event that functions as a modifier of a referent. As such, relative clause constructions share a participant with the matrix clause -- namely, the referent that they modify. Like other complex sentence constructions, relative clause constructions may be balanced or deranked. The primary differences in strategy involve the expression of the shared participant. The most common strategy is the externally headed strategy: the referent is expressed as a common noun phrase in the matrix clause, and in reduced or zero form in the relative clause. A small minority of languages use strategies that appear to form a continuum from internally headed to correlative to adjoined constructions. Events that function to modify a referent that is a very peripheral participant in the relative clause events form noun-modifying clause constructions; these constructions sometimes use a relative clause strategy. Relative clause construction strategies also systematically vary with respect to the semantic role of the referents in the relative clause event, which are ranked by the Accessibility Hierarchy. Relative clauses may have an anaphoric or indefinite head.

A predication prototypically predicates an event. Events have multiple participants in their semantic frame. Some participants are more central than others. The information packaging of event participants construes certain participants as core arguments and others as oblique arguments. Transitivity constructions are defined in terms of the prototypical expression of central participants as core argument phrases. ‘Subject’ and ‘object’ are defined crosslinguistically in terms of degree of topicality (salience) and force dynamics (subject acting on object). Basic argument encoding strategies are flagging, indexation, and word order. An exemplar approach to defining transitive constructions is taken, using the agentive change of state event of breaking as the exemplar event, following Haspelmath. Subject generally precedes verb and object in word order. Variation in alignment is based on the system of transitive and intransitive constructions, in terms of which core argument of the transitive construction the intransitive argument aligns with, including the rare case where the core arguments of intransitive constructions are split between transitive subject and object.

Speech act constructions bear a close functional relationship to modality and polarity, and also to the information packaging of clauses (Chapters 10–11). Declaratives are associated with the modal category of polarity: declaratives assert or deny the truth of a proposition. Interrogatives (questions, and also responses) are associated with identificational packaging: the information asked about is the focus. They are also associated with epistemic modality: they involve degrees of (un)certainty about an event. Imperative--hortative speech acts are associated with deontic modality: both express a future event that is being at least considered by an agent. Exclamations are associated with the mirative (expression of surprise), which in turn is associated with thetic information packaging. These functional relations between speech act, modality, and clausal information packaging are manifested in the sharing of morphosyntactic strategies between the related categories.

Complement clause constructions express an event that functions as a participant in another event -- expressed as the complement and the complement-taking predicate (CTP), respectively. Complement clause constructions often differ depending on the type of CTP, and sometimes by the factivity (epistemic stance) of the complement event. Semantic types of CTPs form a hierarchy, the Binding Hierarchy, in terms of whether their complement will be expressed by a balanced or deranked dependent clause construction. Balanced complement clause constructions may originate in independent clauses, particularly direct speech complements, and spread down the Binding Hierarchy; some deranked complement clauses originate in purpose adverbial clause constructions. Complement clauses may share participants with the CTP event; this is inherent to CTP meaning at the lower end of the Binding Hierarchy, which includes TAMP forms. The argument structure constructions associated with complement clause constructions may reflect sharing of participants through partially or fully merged argument structure strategies, or via logophoric constructions.

Reference can be done by words defined by type (common nouns), token or individual (proper nouns), or contextually (pronouns). Reference in these three ways is almost always to individuals. The animacy of common noun categories is often relevant for grammatical behavior. Personal pronouns and demonstrative pronouns are defined by properties of the speech act context. Contextual expressions may stand alone for reference or function as modifiers of nouns, i.e. attributives or articles. Articles are defined by two subtle contextual properties, referent status and identifiability. Referent status involves accessibility in discourse or shared knowledge, and, for non-accessible referents, whether they are real or not. Identifiability pertains to whether the referent’s identity is known, or is only identifiable by type. Distribution of pronoun/article uses can be represented as semantic maps on a crosslinguistic conceptual space of functions. Tracking of a referent in discourse is grammatically encoded as often as referent accessibility or identifiability. Finally, reference to a type (generic) reference is possible; strategies are typically recruited from reference to a token.

Morphosyntax describes the form and function of grammatical constructions in the world’s languages. The form of constructions includes both syntactic structure and relevant morphology. The function of constructions includes both information content (semantics) and information packaging of the content. The same semantic content can be packaged in different ways. The approach in this textbook is crosslinguistic and empirical: we compare grammatical constructions across languages and describe patterns of variation, universals constraining variation, and diachronic processes that give rise to the variation. Crosslinguistic comparison is done using crosslinguistically valid concepts (comparative concepts). Crosslinguistic constructions are defined as all grammatical forms expressing a particular function. Strategies are crosslinguistically defined formal means for expressing a function. The analysis of grammatical structure in a particular language is the categorization of constructions in the language by their form and their function. Language-particular analysis of constructions and crosslinguistic analysis of constructions can be united via the function of the construction.

In the first chapter, we learnt that the basic units of a Construction Grammar analysis are FORM-MEANING pairings of varying degrees of schematicity. In this chapter we will see that for most Construction Grammarians, constructions are not just descriptive tools for linguistic analysis. They also maintain that constructions are in fact the basic unit of our mental grammars. This obviously raises the question of how people in general, and children in particular, acquire constructions. The majority of constructionist approaches answer this question by claiming that people acquire constructions through actual language use and with the help of general cognitive processes. These approaches are therefore known as 'usage-based'. In this chapter, we will explore a Usage-based Construction Grammar account of language acquisition, survey the types of data sources used in such approaches and discuss how we have to refine our definition of constructions in light of the results of usage-based studies.

In the last chapter, we explored word constructions and the basic phrasal constructions that they appear in. In addition to that, we saw that English has a great number of schematic and substantive idioms that can best be described as constructions. In the present chapter, we continue this approach and investigate how syntactic phenomena, such as argument structure (which tells us what happened) and its interaction with active and passive voice (which represent different vantage points from which to construe events), as well as tense and aspect (when and how something happened), can be analysed within Usage-based Construction Grammar. Moreover, we also look at abstract constructions for the various clause types (e.g., declaratives, interrogatives and imperatives, all of which basically express speakers’ illocutions). Finally, we also look at how Information Structure constructions can be used to structure information in a way that is most beneficial for a specific hearer in a discourse context.

In this book, we have explored the view that there is ample empirical evidence to suggest that the full range of mental grammatical knowledge, from morphemes to abstract syntactic patterns, can best be described as constructions. We have seen that Construction Grammar can explain how children acquire English and that it provides a cognitively plausible account of the synchronic variation of Englishes across the globe as well as the diachronic changes that affected the English language over the centuries. In this final chapter, I will show you how we can bring together everything that we have learnt so far to analyse authentic constructs. As you know, outside of textbooks, constructs are often going to be fairly complex and will involve the activation of a multitude of constructions. I will, therefore, introduce you to a representation system (Constructional Approach to Syntactic Analysis; Herbst and Hoffmann 2018) that allows us to illustrate the various constructions that combine to produce complex utterances. Then, I will conclude the book by briefly discussing some phenomena that I, personally, think are currently emerging as ‘hot topics’ in constructionist research.

All Construction Grammar approaches consider constructions to be the central units of language. On top of that, virtually all approaches subscribe to Goldberg’s (2013) four tenets of (i) the lexicon–syntax continuum, (ii) the taxonomic network of organization of the constructicon, (iii) surface structure-orientation and (iv) cross-linguistic variability and generalization. Nevertheless, the various Construction Grammar approaches also differ on a couple of crucial points that result in a wide range of representational formats. In this chapter, I will outline the major differences between non-usage-based (such as Berkley Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar) and usage-based approaches (Parallel Architecture, Cognitive Construction Grammar, Embodied Construction Grammar, Fluid Construction Grammar and Radical Construction Grammar). Finally, the chapter will also address the question as to how the meaning pole of constructions is analysed in the various approaches – which ranges from semantic paraphrases (Cognitive Construction Grammar) over first-order predicate logic (Fluid Construction Grammar) to Frame-based approaches (Sign-based Construction Grammar).

In the previous chapter, we have seen how constructional templates can be used to license new words. But what actually is a word? I know that this might seem like a very trivial question, yet as we will see, this is one of those issues that the more you think about, the less straightforward the answer becomes. In this chapter, we will therefore take a closer look at word constructions as well as the larger compositional constructions that they can occur in (phrasal constructions). On top of that, we will also focus on constructions that appear to consist of more than one word and yet have a single non-compositional MEANING that clearly goes beyond the meaning of all its elements – idioms. In fact, since the very first Construction Grammar publications dealt with the analytic problems that idioms posed for the dominant syntactic theories of the time, this will also enable us to trace the historical development “from idioms to construction grammar” (Croft and Cruse 2004: 225).