Croft: Radical Construction Grammar (2001), ch. 1

I read the first chapter's of William Croft's textbook on "radical" construction grammar with a vague sense that he was repeating himself a lot. Then I came across the two quotes below, and the penny finally dropped.

First, pages 32–33:

Dryer suggests that the following four things might be proposed to exist in the domain of grammar (adapted from Dryer 1997b: 116–17):

(23)	categories and relations in particular languages similarities among these language-particular categories and relations functional, cognitive and semantic explanations for these similarities categories and relations in a cross-linguistic sense

Syntactic theorists, including many functionalist theorists, assume the existence of (23d), that is universal categories and relations. These universal categories and relations are then instantiated in the grammars of particular languages. In other words, (23a) is just an instantiation of (23d). In this view, (23b)—the fact that categories across languages are similar, not identical—is due to language-particular peculiarities that do not affect the overall architecture of Universal Grammar.

But in fact there is a wide range of cross-linguistic variation in syntactic categories and roles and other basic syntactic phenomena, as we have already seen, and will see in later chapters.

Then, page 45:

In this section, I argue that the same solution offered by Dryer for cross-linguistic categories should be applied to categories within a language. The following four things might be proposed to exist in a particular language grammar:

(55)	categories and relations defined by particular constructions similarities among these construction-particular categories and relations functional, cognitive and semantic explanations for these similarities categories and relations in a cross-constructional sense

All of the syntactic theories referred to in §1.1 assume the existence of (55d), which I will call global categories and relations. These global categories and relations are then instantiated in particular constructions in a particular language. In other words, (55a) is just an instantiation of (55d). In this view, the fact that categories across constructions are similar, not identical, is due to construction-specific peculiarities that do not affect the overall architecture of the language's grammar.

But in fact distributional criteria in general do not match, within or across languages.

So, it's the book as performance art: He forces us to notice an analogy between two things by pasting the same text into the chapter twice.

That's an efficient rhetorical strategy (and good zen-buddhist practice). It's a pity that it's so boring to read.