In this chapter, a central tenet of Construction Grammar is explored: the idea that linguistic knowledge on all levels (e.g., lexicon, morphosyntax, pragmatics) is related in a network fashion, with the building blocks of language (i.e., constructions) forming different types of connections (i.e., links). In general, we discuss the ingredients of constructional networks with our main focus on construction-external links (vertical and horizontal). Another aim of the chapter is to embed constructional networks into a larger domain-general theory of networks but also to demarcate constructional modeling from other network models in linguistics, like Connectionism or models of sociolinguistic propagation. We also glance at how diachronic network change is currently being conceptualized and end by a discussion of open issues.

Over the last four decades, Construction Grammar has developed into a rich, robust conceptual framework for analyzing language in its entirety, based on the crucial assumption that language by its nature is a complex and ever-adapting and adaptable system designed for communication. The starting point was Charles J. Fillmore’s vision for an approach that would allow us to analyze grammatical organization of (any) language in such a way that we could answer the broad question of what it means to know one’s language and to use its grammatical resources with native-like fluency by individual speakers within a given language community. Put differently, this framing aims for generalizations that will naturally include systematic observations about meaning and conditions of language use as integral parts of grammatical descriptions.

Ever since its conception in the 1980s, the scope of what is understood by ‘construction grammar’ has evolved to a point where the constructional enterprise has become a full branch of linguistics in its own right. It can therefore be a daunting challenge for newcomers to come to grips with different research directions that have been pursued under a constructional banner, and even seasoned construction grammarians are at risk of misunderstanding each other. The goal of this chapter is therefore to offer a comparative guide for navigating the constructional landscape and to show that the existence of different constructional flavors is a healthy and necessary response to the problem of analyzing complex linguistic structures, provided that the community maintains a consensus about its core concepts.

Many constructions have both metaphoric and non-metaphoric uses. For example, English transitives can either involve metaphor, as in she devoured the experience, or be non-metaphoric, as in she devoured the meat. On the other hand, constructions such as the idiom glutton for punishment or the compound verb greenlight can never be literal. This chapter argues that ‘optionally metaphoric’ constructions, such as transitives, show how metaphoric meaning is often based on non-metaphoric meaning, whereas ‘inherently metaphoric’ constructions, as in greenlight, demonstrate the role of conceptual metaphors in constructional semantics.

O’Grady’s chapter discusses a recurring theme in Derek Bickerton’s work on creoles which focused on his observation, now somewhat controversial, that their morphosyntactic properties are surprisingly similar, which he attributed to a ‘language bioprogram’ bearing a close resemblance to Universal Grammar. O’Grady’s chapter explores a different line of reasoning by considering the role that processing pressures play in the syntax of creoles – and of human language in general. Drawing on data from anaphora and negation, both of which are well-documented core syntactic phenomena in natural language, he argues that their signature properties are shaped by considerations of computational efficiency and economy that can be traced to the need to minimize the burden on working memory.

Déprez’s chapter argues that Derek Bickerton was amongst the first linguists to propose a list of properties hypothesised to be common to all creole languages in his groundbreaking Roots of Language (1981). While this list of properties has sometimes inspired research promoting creole languages as unique, Déprez argues that Bickerton’s original view should better be understood as a claim that these properties were possibly universal properties of language at least abstractly and as such instantiated the roots of all languages, not just creole ones. In her contribution she revisits and reassesses Bickerton’s observations about the generality of negative concord as a common property of creole languages and beyond, sorting out what remains of his legacy in this domain from what has been discovered since then about the nature of negation and negative dependencies in creole languages. She bases herself more specifically on a detailed comparison of the French-based creoles but appeals as well to other ones to confirm patterns discovered there or complete them with additional possibilities.

Roberge’s chapter presents Bickerton’s creolisation as a catastrophic single-generation process that obtains from first language acquisition in abnormal circumstances. In the ‘interesting’ cases, at least, a pidgin provides the primary linguistic data, and an innate biological program of linguistic competence shapes the result. On this view (i) the formation of these languages points directly to humankind’s biological capacity to create language should the normal generation-to-generation means of transmission be disrupted; and (ii) creoles provide the most direct window possible on the properties of the human language faculty. In his chapter Roberge chronicles the development and reception of Bickerton’s creole and pidgin windows on the origin and evolution of language in our species through their entire arc. While posterity has firmly rejected Bickerton’s creole window on early human language, Roberge argues that the pidgin window, at least, holds some heuristic potential, though a great deal of work remains to be done.

Mayeux’s chapter offers a new perspective on the notion of decreolisation which is also a possible path in the life cycle of a Creole language. Creoles in contact with their lexifiers are famously supposed to undergo decreolisation, a process Bickerton termed a “special case” (1980: 113) of contact-induced change. The proposition that Creoles undergo a “special” process of language change has been roundly critiqued by several scholars, not least because decreolisation has seldom been strictly defined or tested with diachronic data. Bickerton, however, sought a rigorous definition for what he critiqued as a “tinkertoy concept” (1980: 111), arguably providing the only specific model of the structural mechanisms supposedly underlying that process. This chapter takes earnestly his suggestion that linguists should strictly define and test the diachronic mechanisms shaping decreolisation. In so doing, this chapter presents evidence against his Creole-specific approach to language change which treats decreolisation as a “special case”.

“Syntax lies at the very heart of what it means to be human” (Bickerton & Szathmary 2009: xviii). It has been argued that no other species has been able to acquire a rudimentary syntax, thus reinforcing the view that acquiring syntax is a unique ability of humans (Bickerton & Szathmary 2009). The present volume describes the current state of the discussion on syntax with a special focus on Creole languages. It sheds light on the relevance of syntax in Language by bringing together scholars from the fields of language evolution, language acquisition and development of young languages, that is, Creoles.

Frame Semantics is foundational to Construction Grammar in both chronological and conceptual terms. Originally developed by Charles J. Fillmore in the late 1970s to 1980s as a theory of semantics that prioritizes language users’ human experience, it views the meaning of linguistic elements in terms of a network of empirical information, which, in turn, motivates the concept represented by the linguistic elements. The theory laid a rich foundation for a variety of approaches associated with Construction Grammar and remains an intellectual resource for further research developments. This chapter focuses on the seminal ideas of Frame Semantics, further advanced in relation to Construction Grammar and the FrameNet project. After an overview of the theory, a variety of frame concepts (e.g., cognitive frame, interactional frame, and linguistic frame) are discussed. We then turn to how frames can effectively explain grammatical ‘well-formedness’ as illustrated by two case studies that were conducted on the path from Frame Semantics to the establishment of Construction Grammar. The last section discusses implications and prospects for the theory of Frame Semantics.

Carstairs-McCarthy’s chapter explores Jackendoff’s suggestion that exuberant compounding of the kind that is possible in English may be a ‘coelacanth of language’, that is a relic of a pre-syntactic stage of linguistic evolution. In support of this view, he contrasts English compounding possibilities with those of other Germanic languages and French, where compounds typically involve more than mere juxtaposition. The peculiar characteristics of compounding help to explain the ambiguity of the term ‘lexical’, used to mean both ‘listed in the lexicon’ and ‘relating to words’.

This chapter provides an overview of empirical support for Construction Grammar in the form of behavioral evidence, that is, information derived from the behavior of language users on certain tasks, typically through controlled experiments. Three types of evidence are discussed in particular: (i) evidence from language comprehension tasks that syntactic patternsconvey meaning independently of individual lexical items, (ii) evidence that constructions prime each other both in form and in meaning, and (iii) evidence that grammar consists of a network of related constructions of varying degrees of generality. Many of the cited studies come from the psycholinguistic literature, and even though they were originally not necessarily framed in terms of constructions, their findings are largely in line with the constructional approach. Throughout the discussion, it will be shown how these findings provide evidence for some of the core tenets of Construction Grammar.