Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Constructionist Approaches
  • Cited by 36
      • Show more authors
      • Open Access
      You have digital access to this book
    • Select format
    • Publisher:
      Cambridge University Press
      Publication date:
      22 June 2023
      20 July 2023
      ISBN:
      9781009308717
      9781009308731
      DOI:
      https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009308717
      Creative Commons:
      Creative Common License - CC Creative Common License - BY Creative Common License - NC
      This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.
      https://creativecommons.org/creativelicenses
      Dimensions:
      Weight & Pages:
      Dimensions:
      (229 x 152 mm)
      Weight & Pages:
      0.14kg, 86 Pages
      • Subjects:
      Grammar and Syntax, Language and Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics
      Series:
      Elements in Construction Grammar
    Open Access
    You have digital access to this book
    Selected: Digital
    View content
    Add to cart View cart Buy from Cambridge.org
    Subjects:
    Grammar and Syntax, Language and Linguistics, Semantics and Pragmatics
    Series:
    Elements in Construction Grammar
    Information

    Book description

    Construction Grammar (CxG) has developed into a broad and highly diverse family of approaches that have in common that they see constructions, i.e. form-meaning pairs at various levels of abstraction and complexity, as the basic units of language. This Element gives an overview of the origin and the current state of the art of constructionist approaches, focusing, on the one hand, on basic concepts like the notion of 'constructions', while at the same time offering an in-depth discussion of current research trends and open questions. It discusses the commonalities and differences between the major constructionist approaches, the organization of constructional networks as well as ongoing research on linguistic creativity, multimodality and individual differences. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

    Reviews

    ‘[A] very useful resource and a worthy piece of writing. One of the main aims of introductory-level publications is to attract and ease new potential scholars into the field by delineating and describing the main concepts and showing the pathways and methods for further research. With this book, I believe the authors have struck the right balance of scientific relevance and user-friendliness to achieve this aim.’

    Frane Malenica Source: LINGUIST List

    ‘The Element serves as an appetizer to broaden one's horizon, consider studies outside one's comfort zone, and seek input from researchers of other subdisciplines in Construction Grammar and from disciplines beyond. It excels at pointing at possible future areas of interest and analytical tools that concern all (construction) grammarians. This Element is thus an important contribution to contemplate what is important in linguistics.’

    Claudia Lehmann Source: English Language & Linguistics

    References

    References

    Abbot-Smith, K. & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995–1026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61.
    Ambridge, B. (2020). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language, 40(5–6), 509–559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719869731.
    Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. (2011). Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975073.
    Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261–295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90201-3.
    Anderson, S. E., Matlock, T. & Spivey, M. (2013). Grammatical aspect and temporal distance in motion descriptions. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, article no. 337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00337.
    Anthonissen, L., & Petré, P. (2019). Grammaticalization and the linguistic individual: New avenues in lifespan research. Linguistics Vanguard, 5(s2), article no. 20180037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0037
    Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0150.
    Baker, P. & Egbert, J. (eds.). (2016). Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus-Linguistic Research. New York: Routledge.
    Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Network Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8.
    Barðdal, J. & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic construction grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. & Gildea, S. (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar.
    Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.). (2000). Usage-Based Models of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    Barrès, V. (2017). Template Construction Grammar: A Schema-Theoretic Computational Construction Grammar. Papers from the 2017 AAAI Spring Symposia SS-17–02, pp. 139–146.
    Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99002149.
    Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486210.
    Beaman, K. V. & Buchstaller, I. (eds.). (2021). Language Variation and Language Change Across the Lifespan: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives from Panel Studies. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030314.
    Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J. et al. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59 Suppl. 1, 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x.
    Behrens, H. (2021). Constructivist approaches to first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 48(5), 959–983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000921000556.
    Bell, M. J., Ben Hedia, S. & Plag, I. (2021). How morphological structure affects phonetic realisation in English compound nouns. Morphology, 31(2), 87–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09346-6.
    Bencini, G. M. L. & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757.
    Bergen, B. (2007). Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M. J. (eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 277–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.19ber.
    Bergen, B. & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M. (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 147–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber.
    Bergen, B. & Chang, N. (2013). Embodied Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 168–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0010.
    Bergs, A. (2010). Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language & Linguistics, 14(2), 217–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000067.
    Bergs, A. (2018). Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist (Picasso): Linguistic aberrancy from a constructional perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 277–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0025.
    Bergs, A. (2019). What, if anything, is linguistic creativity? Gestalt Theory, 41(2), 173–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/gth-2019-0017.
    Beuls, K. (2017). An open-ended computational construction grammar for Spanish verb conjugation. Constructions and Frames, 9(2), 278–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00005.beu.
    Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal About the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002.
    Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0013.
    Boas, H. C. (2021). Construction Grammar and frame semantics. In Wen, X. & Taylor, J. R. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 43–77. New York: Routledge, pp. 43–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-5.
    Boas, H. C. (ed.). (2022). Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110746723.
    Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A. (eds.). (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6.
    Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum, 1, 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110815733.95.
    Booij, G. (2002). The balance between storage and computation in phonology. In Nooteboom, S., Weerman, F., & Wijnen, F. (eds.), Storage and Computation in the Language Faculty. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 133–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0355-1_5.
    Booij, G (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Booij, G. (2012). The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Booij, G. (2017). Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology. In Gisborne, N. & Hippisley, A. (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 18–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198712329.003.0002.
    Branigan, H. P. & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, E282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16002028.
    Brenier, J. M. & Michaelis, L. A. (2005). Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 45–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.45.
    Bryant, J. E. (2008). Best-fit constructional analysis. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
    Buchanan, M. (2002). Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks. New York: W. W. Norton.
    Budts, S. (2022). A connectionist approach to analogy: On the modal meaning of periphrastic DO in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 18(2), 337–364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2019-0080.
    Budts, S. & Petré, P. (2020). Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E. (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 317–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.09bud.
    Bülow, L., Merten, M.-L. & Johann, M. (2018). Internet-Memes als Zugang zu multimodalen Konstruktionen. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 2018(69), 1–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2018-0015.
    Busch, F. (2021). Digitale Schreibregister: Kontexte, Formen und metapragmatische Reflexionen. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110728835.
    Busso, L., Perek, F. & Lenci, A. (2021). Constructional associations trump lexical associations in processing valency coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(2), 287–318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0050.
    Bybee, J. (1998). The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society, 34, 421–435.
    Bybee, J. (2000). The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 65–85.
    Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526.
    Bybee, J. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004.
    Bybee, J. L. & Hopper, P. J. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.
    Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions, Special Volume 1, 1–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-381.
    Cappelle, B. (2017). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In Depraetere, I. & Salkie, R. (eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Cham: Springer, pp. 115–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_8.
    Cappelle, B. & Depraetere, I. (eds.). (2016). Modal meaning in Construction Grammar [Special issue]. Constructions and Frames, 8(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.
    Casenhiser, D. & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8(6), 500–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00441.x.
    Cienki, A. (2013). Cognitive linguistics: Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E. et al. (eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 182–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.182.
    Cienki, A. (2017). Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), article no. 20160048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0048.
    Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    Christensen, P., Fusaroli, R. & Tylén, K. (2016). Environmental constraints shaping constituent order in emerging communication systems: Structural iconicity, interactive alignment and conventionalization. Cognition, 146, 67–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.004.
    Christiansen, M. H. & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning, 59(s1), 126–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00538.x.
    Colleman, T. (2020). The emergence of the dative alternation in Dutch: Towards the establishment of a horizontal link. In Fedriani, C. & Napoli, M. (eds.), The Diachrony of Ditransitives. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 137–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110701371-005.
    Colleman, T. & Noël, D. (2012). The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.13.1.01col.
    Collins, A. M. & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407.
    Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J. (eds.). (2018). Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.
    Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Cuyckens, H., Berg, T., Dirven, R., & Panther, K.-U. (eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro.
    Croft, W. (2007). Construction Grammar. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 463–508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0018.
    Croft, W. (2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0012.
    Croft, W. (2020). Ten Lectures on Construction Grammar and Typology. Leiden: Brill.
    Croft, W. (2022). On two mathematical representations for “semantic maps.” Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 41(1), 67–87.
    Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864.
    Cummins, C. (2019). Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474440042.
    Dąbrowska, E. (2008). Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 391–425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.015.
    Dąbrowska, E. (2009). Words as constructions. In Evans, V. & Pourcel, S. (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 201–223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.16dab.
    Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab.
    Daelemans, W., De Smedt, K., & Gazdar, G. (1992). Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 18(2), 205–218.
    Dancygier, B. & Vandelanotte, L. (2017). Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(3), 565–598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074.
    Davies, M. (2016–). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). www.english-corpora.org/now/.
    Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention. New York: Viking.
    De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G. (eds.). (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268.
    Deuchar, M. & Vihman, M. (2005). A radical approach to early mixed utterances. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(2), 137–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090020201.
    Diessel, H. (2013). Construction Grammar and first language acquisition. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 346–364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0019.
    Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 296–322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015.
    Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040.
    Diessel, H. (2023). The Constructicon: Taxonomies and Networks (Elements in Construction Grammar). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009327848
    Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81(4), 882–906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0169.
    Diewald, G. (2020). Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E. (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 278–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die
    Di Sciullo, A. M. & Williams, E. (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084410.
    Dodge, E. K. & Petruck, M. R. L. (2014). Representing caused motion in Embodied Construction Grammar. In Artzi, Y., Kwiatkowski, T., & Berant, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the ACL 2014 Workshop on Semantic Parsing. Baltimore: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 39–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-2408.
    Dominey, P. F., Mealier, A.-L., Pointeau, G., Mirliaz, S., & Finlayson, M. (2017). Dynamic Construction Grammar and Steps Towards the Narrative Construction of Meaning. Papers from the 2017 AAAI Spring Symposia SS-17–02, pp. 163–170.
    Ellis, N. C. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml028.
    Ellis, N. C., Römer, U. & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(90)90002-E.
    Eppe, M., Trott, S., Raghuram, V., Feldman, J., & Janin, A. (2016). Application-independent and integration-friendly natural language understanding. In Benzmüller, C., Sutcliffe, G., & Rojas, R. (eds.),), Global Conference on Artificial Intelligence (GCAI 2016). EasyChair, pp. 340–352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29007/npsn.
    Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X.
    Feldman, J. A. (2006). From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Feldman, J. A. (2020). Advances in Embodied Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 12(1), 149–169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00038.fel.
    Feldman, J., Dodge, E. & Bryant, J. (2015). Embodied Construction Grammar. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.013.0006.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.). (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Ferrer i Cancho, R. & Solé, R. V. (2001). The small world of human language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1482), 2261–2265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1800.
    Ferrer i Cancho, R., Solé, R. V., & Köhler, R. (2004). Patterns in syntactic dependency networks. Physical Review E, 69(5), 051915. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.051915.
    Feyaerts, K., Brône, G., & Oben, B. (2017). Multimodality in interaction. In Dancygier, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.010.
    Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E., Harms, R. T., & Fillmore, C. J. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 1–88.
    Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 35–55.
    Fillmore, C. J. (2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 110–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0007.
    Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar Coursebook. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
    Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/414531
    Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet constructicon. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 283–322.
    Fischer, K., & Alm, M. (2013). A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In Degand, L., Cornillie, B., & Pietrandrea, P. (eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–88.
    Flach, S., Kopf, K. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2018). Skandale und Skandälchen kontrastiv: Das Konfix -gate im Deutschen und Englischen. In Heuser, R. & Schmuck, M. (eds.), Sonstige Namenarten: Stiefkinder der Onomastik. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 239–268.
    Fried, M. (2021). Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. Constructions and Frames, 13(1), 21–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00046.fri.
    Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri.
    Gahl, S. & Plag, I. (2019). Spelling errors in English derivational suffixes reflect morphological boundary strength: A case study. The Mental Lexicon, 14(1), 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.19002.gah.
    Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. K., & Sag, I. A. (1985). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Geyer, K., Bick, E., & Kleene, A. (2022). “I am no racist but …”: A corpus-based analysis of xenophobic hate speech constructions in Danish and German social media discourse. In Knoblock, N. (ed.), The Grammar of Hate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 241–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108991841.013.
    Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M. (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.03gol.
    Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002.
    Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Goldin-Meadow, S., So, W. C., Ozyurek, A., & Mylander, C. (2008). The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(27), 9163–9168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710060105.
    Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 501–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90009-0.
    Gries, S. T. (2008). Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 403–437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.02gri.
    Gries, S. T. (2011). Corpus data in usage-based linguistics: What’s the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument structure constructions? In Brdar, M., Gries, S. T., & Fuchs, M. Ž. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 237–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.15gri.
    Gries, S. T. (2015). More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 505–536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0092.
    Gries, S. T. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri.
    Gries, S. T. & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 163–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.07gri.
    Harris, R. A. (2021). The Linguistics Wars, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Hartmann, S. (2019). Compound worlds and metaphor landscapes: Affixoids, allostructions, and higher-order generalizations. Word Structure, 12(3), 297–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0151.
    Hartmann, S. (2021). Diachronic Cognitive Linguistics: Past, present, and future. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 9(1), 1–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2021-0001.
    Hartmann, S. & Ungerer, T. (2023). Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226723000117.
    Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37(6), 1043–1068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043.
    Haspelmath, M. (2011). The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica, 45(1), pp. 31–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2011.002.
    Hay, J. (2003). Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. New York: Routledge.
    Hay, J. & Baayen, H. (2002). Parsing and productivity. In Booij, G. E. & van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 203–235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_8.
    Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), pp. 61–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.
    Herbst, T. (2007). Valency complements or valency patterns? In Herbst, T. & Götz-Votteler, K. (eds.), Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 15–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198775.1.15.
    Herbst, T. (2011). The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 347–367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0406.
    Herbst, T. (2019). Constructicons – a new type of reference work? Lexicographica, 35(2019), 3–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2019-0001.
    Herbst, T. & Uhrig, P. (2020). The issue of specifying slots in argument structure constructions in terms of form and meaning. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 135–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00041.her.
    Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206.
    Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001.
    Hilpert, M. (2016). Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.05hil.
    Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J. (eds.), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2.
    Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    Hilpert, M. (2021). Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.
    Hilpert, M. & Diessel, H. (2017). Entrenchment in construction grammar. In Schmid, H.-J. (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Boston: APA & De Gruyter, pp. 57–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-004.
    Hilpert, M., & Perek, F. (2015). Meaning change in a petri dish: Constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 339–350.
    Hilpert, M., & Perek, F. (2022). You don’t get to see that every day: On the development of permissive get. Constructions and Frames, 14(1), 13–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00056.hil.
    Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In Braunmüller, K. & Gabriel, C. (eds.), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.13.17hod.
    Höder, S. (2014). Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6(2), 202–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.04hod.
    Hoffmann, T. (2011). Preposition Placement in English: A Usage-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511933868.
    Hoffmann, T. (2017a). Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 310–329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.020.
    Hoffmann, T. (2017b). From constructions to Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.019.
    Hoffmann, T. (2018). Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 259–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0024.
    Hoffmann, T. (2020). What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar? Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the constructionist enterprise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 148–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00042.hof.
    Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001.
    Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (2022). On multiple paths and change in the language network. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 70(3), 359–382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2022-2071.
    Hölzl, A. (2018). Constructionalization areas: The case of negation in Manchu. In Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J. (eds.), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c9.
    Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 139–157.
    Hudson, R. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Hudson, R. (2015). Review of Rolf Kreyer, The nature of rules, regularities and units in language: A network model of the language system and of language use. Journal of Linguistics, 51(3), 692–696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671500016X.
    Ibbotson, P., Salnikov, V., & Walker, R. (2019). A dynamic network analysis of emergent grammar. First Language, 39(6), 652–680. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719869562.
    Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, A. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 217–230.
    Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2020). The Texture of the Lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Janda, L. A. (2013). Quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics: An introduction. In Janda, L. A. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics – The Quantitative Turn: The Essential Reader. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255.1.
    Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Typers, F. M. (2018). A constructicon for Russian: Filling in the gaps. In Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 165–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.06jan.
    Jespersen, O. (1917). Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Høst.
    Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(1), 59–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630517
    Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/417472.
    Keller, R. (1994). Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.
    Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572.
    Knight, K. (1989). Unification: A multidisciplinary survey. ACM Computer Surveys, 21(1), 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1145/62029.62030.
    Küchenhoff, H. & Schmid, H.-J. (2015). Reply to “More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff” by Stefan Th. Gries. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 537–547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0053.
    Kuiper, K. & Haggo, D. (1984). Livestock auctions, oral poetry, and ordinary language. Language in Society, 13(2), 205–234.
    Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    Lambrecht, K. (2004). On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions: The case of French right-detached comme-N. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.05lam
    Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 127–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan.
    Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction Grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Peña Cervel, M. S. & de Ruiz Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 101–159.
    Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Langacker, R. W. (2017). Entrenchment in cognitive grammar. In Schmid, H.-J. (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Boston: APA & De Gruyter, pp. 39–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-003.
    Langacker, R. W. (2019). Construal. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics – Foundations of Language. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 140–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626476-007.
    Lanwer, J. P. (2017). Apposition: A multimodal construction? The multimodality of linguistic constructions in the light of usage-based theory. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0071.
    Leclercq, B. (2020). Semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 225–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00048.lec.
    Lenci, A. (2018). Distributional models of word meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4(1), 151–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125254.
    Lepic, R. & Occhino., C. 2018. A construction morphology approach to sign language analysis. In Booij, G. E. (ed.), The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Berlin: Springer, pp. 141–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_6.
    Lorenz, D. (2020). Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: To-contraction in American English. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E. (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.07lor.
    Losiewicz, B. (1992). The effect of duration on linguistic morphology. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.)
    Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (eds.). (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.
    MacWhinney, B. (2019). Emergentism. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Key Topics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 275–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626438-014.
    Manning, C. D., Clark, K., Hewitt, J., Khandelwal, U., & Levy, O. (2020). Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48), 30046–30054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907367117.
    Matlock, T. & Winter, B. (2015). Experimental semantics. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 771–790. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.013.0037.
    McNeill, D. (2011). Gesture. In Hogan, P. C. (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 344–346.
    McNeill, D. (2016). Why We Gesture: The Surprising Role of Hand Movements in Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316480526.
    Meletis, D. (2020). The Nature of Writing a Theory of Grapholinguistics. Brest: Fluxus Editions. https://doi.org/10.36824/2020-meletis.
    Meletis, D. & Dürscheid, C. (2022). Writing Systems and Their Use: An Overview of Grapholinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110757835.
    Meyer, D. E. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031564.
    Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Ruddy, M. G. (1974). Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word-recognition. Memory & Cognition, 2(2), 309–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209002.
    Michaelis, L. A. (1993). Toward a grammar of aspect: The case of the English perfect construction. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.)
    Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-based Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0008
    Michaelis, L. A. (2015). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.013.0007.
    Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/416650.
    Mok, E. H. (2009). Contextual bootstrapping for grammar learning. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.)
    Mosegaard Hansen, M.-B. (2011). Negative cycles and grammaticalization. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 570–579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0046.
    Neef, M. (2015). Writing systems as modular objects: Proposals for theory design in grapholinguistics. Open Linguistics, 1(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0026.
    Neels, J. (2020). Lifespan change in grammaticalisation as frequency-sensitive automation: William Faulkner and the let alone construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 339–365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0020.
    Nevens, J., Eecke, P. V., & Beuls, K. (2019). Computational construction grammar for visual question answering. Linguistics Vanguard, 5(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0070.
    Nölle, J. & Galantucci, B. (2023). Experimental semiotics: Past, present, and future. In García, A. M. & Ibáñez, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Semiosis and the Brain. New York: Routledge, pp. 66–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003051817-6.
    Norde, M. & Sippach, S. (2019). Nerdalicious scientainment: A network analysis of English libfixes. Word Structure, 12(3), 353–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0153.
    Pawley, A. (1985). On speech formulas and linguistic competence. Lenguas Modernas, 12, 84–104.
    Percillier, M. (2020). Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family? Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E. (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per.
    Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018.
    Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17.
    Perek, F. (2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043.
    Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.006.
    Perek, F., & Patten, A. L. (2019). Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 354–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00016.per.
    Petré, P., & Anthonissen, L. (2020). Individuality in complex systems: A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 185–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0033.
    Petruck, M. R. L. (2022). Frame semantics. In Verschueren, J. & Östman, J.-O. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 592–601. https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m2.fra1.
    Pijpops, D. (2020). What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 283–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij.
    Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020.
    Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Morrow.
    Pleyer, M, Lepic, R., & Hartmann, S. (2022). Compositionality in different modalities: A view from usage-based linguistics. International Journal of Primatology. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-022-00330-x.
    Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1987). Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    Pulvermüller, F. (2010). Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar: Discrete combinatorial mechanisms spelt out in neuronal circuits. Brain and Language, 112(3), 167–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.08.002.
    Pulvermüller, F., Cappelle, B., & Shtyrov, Y. (2013). Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0022.
    Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 216–271.
    Sag, I. A. (2010). English filler-gap constructions. Language, 86(3), 486–545.
    Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 61–188.
    Sampson, G. (2016). Two ideas of creativity. In Hinton, M., ed., Evidence, Experiment and Argument in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 15–26.
    Schmid, H.-J. (2017a). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Schmid, H.-J. (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Boston: APA & De Gruyter, pp. 9–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002.
    Schmid, H.-J. (ed.). (2017b). Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Boston: APA & De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-000.
    Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Schmid, H.-J., & Mantlik, A. (2015). Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia, 133(4), 583–623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2015-0056.
    Schmid, H.-J. & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0018.
    Schneider, N. (2010). Computational cognitive morphosemantics: Modeling morphological compositionality in Hebrew verbs with Embodied Construction Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 36(1), 353–367.
    Schönefeld, D. (2011). On evidence and the convergence of evidence in linguistic research. In Schönefeld, D. (ed.), Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.33.03sch.
    Schoonjans, S. (2017). Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0050.
    Shieber, S. (1986). An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    Siew, C. S. Q. (2018). The orthographic similarity structure of English words: Insights from network science. Applied Network Science, 3(1), 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-018-0068-1.
    Smirnova, E. (2021). Horizontal links within and between paradigms: The constructional network of reported directives in German. In Hilpert, M., Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I. (eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 185–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.32.07smi.
    Smirnova, E. & Sommerer, L. (2020). Introduction: The nature of the node and the network: Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E. (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int.
    Sommerer, L. (2018). Article Emergence in Old English: A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110541052.
    Sommerer, L. (2020). Constructionalization, constructional competition and constructional death: Investigating the demise of Old English POSS DEM constructions. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E. (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.02som.
    Sommerer, L. & Baumann, A. (2021). Of absent mothers, strong sisters and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 97–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0013.
    Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E. (eds.). (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.
    Standing, W. & Petré, P. (2021). Exploiting convention: Lifespan change and generational incrementation in the development of cleft constructions. In Beaman, K. V. & Buchstaller, I. (eds.), Language Variation and Language Change across the Lifespan: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives from Panel Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 141–163.
    Steels, L. (2011). Introducing Fluid Construction Grammar. In Steels, L. (ed.), Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.03ste.
    Steels, L. (2012). Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.3.
    Steels, L. (2013). Fluid Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 155–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0009.
    Steels, L. (2017). Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 9(2), 178–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00002.ste.
    Steels, L., & Hild, M. (eds.). (2012). Language grounding in robots. New York: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3064-3.
    Steels, L., & Szathmáry, E. (2016). Fluid Construction Grammar as a biological system. Linguistics Vanguard, 2(1),1–19.
    Stefanowitsch, A. (2011). Argument structure: Item-based or distributed? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 369–386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0407.
    Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Collostructional analysis. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0016.
    Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste.
    Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1.
    Steyvers, M. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29(1), 41–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2901_3.
    Szcześniak, K. & Pachoł, M. (2015). What? Me, lie? The form and reading of the incredulity response construction. Constructions, 10, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24338/CONS-470.
    Talmy, L. (2007). Foreword. In Gonzales-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M. J. (eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. xi–xxi. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.03tal.
    Taylor, J. R. (2012). The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Tesnière, L. (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
    Tomasello, M. (1992). First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527678.
    Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Tomasello, M. & Lieven, E. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. J. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 168–196.
    Torrent, T. T. (2015). The constructional convergence and the construction network reconfiguration hypotheses: On the relation between inheritance and change. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S. (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 173–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.06tor.
    Torrent, T. T., da Silva Matos, E. E., Lage, L. et al. (2018). Towards continuity between the lexicon and the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil. In Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.04tor.
    Traugott, E. C. (2022). Discourse Structuring Markers in English: A Historical Constructionalist Perspective on Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.33.
    Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Trousdale, G. (2012). Theory and data in diachronic Construction Grammar: The case of the what with construction. Studies in Language, 36(3), 576–602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.05tro.
    Turner, M. (2019). Blending in language and communication. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics – Foundations of Language. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626476-011.
    Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0016.
    Ungerer, T. (2022). Structural priming in the grammatical network: A study of English argument structure construction. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.)
    Ungerer, T. (2023). A gradient notion of constructionhood. Constructions, Special Issue “35 Years of Constructions,” 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-543
    Ungerer, T. (in press). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin? Constructions and Frames.
    Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2020). Delineating extravagance: Assessing speakers’ perceptions of imaginative constructional patterns. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 345–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00058.ung.
    Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G. (eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 141–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141.
    Van Eecke, P. (2017). Robust processing of the Dutch verb phrase. Constructions and Frames, 9(2), 226–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.106.cf.00003.van.
    Van Trijp, R. (2014). Long-distance dependencies without filler−gaps: A cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar. Language and Cognition, 6(2), 242–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.8.
    Van Trijp, R. (2017). How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary controversy. Constructions and Frames, 9(2), 251–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00004.van.
    Van Trijp, R. (2020). Making good on a promise: Multidimensional constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 357–370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00059.tri.
    Van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P. (2022). The FCG Editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLOS ONE, 17(6), e0269708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269708.
    Vihman, M. & Croft, W. (2007). Phonological development: Toward a “radical” templatic phonology. Linguistics, 45(4), 683–725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.021.
    Vitevitch, M. S. (2008). What can graph theory tell us about word learning and lexical retrieval? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(2), 408–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/030).
    Walsh, O. (2021). Introduction: In the shadow of the standard. Standard language ideology and attitudes towards “non-standard” varieties and usages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(9), 773–782. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1813146.
    Wasserscheidt, P. (2015). Bilinguales Sprechen: Ein konstruktionsgrammatischer Ansatz. (Ph.D. dissertation, Free University of Berlin.)
    Wasserscheidt, P. (2021). A usage-based approach to “language” in language contact. Applied Linguistics Review, 12(2), 279–298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2019-0032.
    Willaert, T., Van Eecke, P., Beuls, K., & Steels, L. (2020). Building social media observatories for monitoring online opinion dynamics. Social Media + Society, 6(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119898778.
    Willems, K. (2012). Intuition, introspection and observation in linguistic inquiry. Language Sciences, 34(6), 665–681. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.008.
    Willich, A. (2022). Konstruktionssemantik: Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762341.
    Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-Based Approach. London: Continuum.
    Wulff, S. (2013). Words and idioms. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 274–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0015.
    Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110633856.
    Zeschel, A. (2009). What’s (in) a construction? Complete inheritance vs. full-entry models. In Evans, V. & Pourcel, S. (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 185–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.15zes.
    Ziegler, J. & Snedeker, J. (2018). How broad are thematic roles? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 179, 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.019.
    Ziem, A. (2017). Do we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar? Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0095.
    Ziem, A., Flick, J., & Sandkühler, P. (2019). The German Constructicon Project: Framework, methodology, resources. Lexicographica, 35(2019), 15–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2019-0003.
    Ziem, A. & Lasch, A. (2013). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295641.
    Zima, E. (2014). Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studie zu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way from X PREP Y]. Gesprächsforschung, 15, 1–48.

    Metrics

    Altmetric attention score

    Full text views

    Total number of HTML views: 0
    Total number of PDF views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    Book summary page views

    Total views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    * Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

    Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

    Accessibility standard: Unknown

    Why this information is here

    This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

    Accessibility Information

    Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.