Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-gtgcz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T09:19:09.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Construction Grammar

The Meaning of Constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2025

Benoît Leclercq  and
Cameron Morin
Benoît Leclercq
Affiliation:
University of Lille
Cameron Morin
Affiliation:
University of Paris-Cité

Summary

This Element offers a primer for the study of meaning in a Construction Grammar approach. It reviews the main principles of meaning shared across constructionist frameworks, including its ubiquity in grammatical structure, its usage-based formation, and its nature as the output of cognitive representations. It also reviews the importance given to meaning in construction-based explanations of sentence composition, innovative language use, and language change. Paradoxically, the Element shows that there is no systematic framework delineating the rich structure of constructional meaning, which has led to theoretical disagreements and inconsistencies. It therefore proposes an operational model of meaning for practitioners of Construction Grammar. It details the characteristics of a complex interface of semantic, pragmatic, and social meaning, and shows how this framework sheds light on recent theoretical issues. The Element concludes by considering ways in which this framework can be used for future descriptive and theoretical research questions.
Get access

Keywords

Construction Grammarmeaningsemanticspragmaticssociolinguistics
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Construction Grammar
Online ISBN: 9781009499620
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 22 May 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, S. (1971). On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7(3), 387–396.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (2010). Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (2023). A usage-based analysis of the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Li, T., ed., Handbook of Cognitive Semantics. Leiden: Brill, pp. 269–297.Google Scholar
Auf der Strasse, A. (2017). Constructions in Use. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How To Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D. & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex-adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80(2), 290–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. (2016). Embodiment, simulation and meaning. In Riemer, N., ed., Routledge Handbook of Semantics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 142–157.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. (2019). What, if anything, is linguistic creativity? Gestalt Theory, 41(2), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. & Kompa, N. A. (2020). Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics, 13, 20202025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, Genre, and Style, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johannsson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. & Quirk, R. (2021). Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasi, D., Wichmann, W., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. & Christiansen, M. (2016). Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10818–10823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blasiman, R. N. & Was, C. A. (2018). Why is working memory performance unstable? A review of 21 factors. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 188–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boas, H. C. (2011). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
Boas, H. (2021). Construction grammar and frame semantics. In Wen, X. & Taylor, J., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. (in press). What happened to Frame Semantics? English LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
Boas, H., Leino, J. & Lyngfelt, B. (2024). Constructionist views on construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 16(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2, 119–127.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical pre-emption and categorization in “a”-adjective production. Language, 81, 1–29.Google Scholar
Boye, K. & Harder, P. (2012). A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. (2018). Novel metonymies, wine and wineskins, old and new ones. In Gudurić, S. & Radić-Bojanić, B., eds., Jezici i kulture u vremenu i prostoru VII/1. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet/Pedagoško društvo Vojvodine, pp. 123–134.Google Scholar
Breban, T. (2014). What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 469–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. (2011). The Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. (2012). The establishment of quantifier constructions for size nouns: A diachronic study of heap(s) and lot(s). Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13, 202–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G. (2017). Cognitive linguistics and humor research. In Attardo, S., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor. New York: Routledge, pp. 250–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budts, S. & Petré, P. (2016). Reading the intentions of be going to: On the subjectification of future markers. Folia Linguistica, 50, 1–32.Google Scholar
Busso, L., Perek, F. & Lenci, A. (2021). Constructional associations trump lexical associations in processing valency coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(2), 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006a). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006b). Language change and universals. In Mairal, R. & Gil, J., eds., Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Cai, Y. & De Smet, H. (2024). Are categories’ cores more isomorphic than their peripheries? Frontiers in Communication, 9, 1310234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2009). Can we factor out free choice? In Dufte, A., Fleischer, J. & Seiler, G. eds., Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2017). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In Depraetere, I. & Salkie, R., eds., Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Berlin: Springer, pp. 115–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2020). Playing by/with the rules: Creativity in language, games, and art. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1), 1–8. doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2024). Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. & Depraetere, I. (2016). Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., Depraetere, I. & Lesuisse, M. (2019). The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 220–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2010). Truth-conditional semantics. In Östman, J.-O., Sbisà, M. & Verschueren, J., eds., Philosophical Perspectives for Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 280–288.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, D. & Jacobovits, L., eds., Semantics. London: London University Press, pp. 183–216.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B., ed., Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J. (2018a). Grammaticalization meets construction grammar: Opportunities, challenges and potential incompatibilities. In Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J., eds., Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J. (2018b). Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Evans, V. & Pourcel, S., eds., New Directions in Cognitive Science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 395–420.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2021). Sociopragmatics. In Haugh, M., Kadar, D. & Terkourafi, M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., Crawshaw, R. & Harrison, J. (2008). ‘Activity types’ and ‘discourse types’: Mediating ‘advice’ in interactions between foreign language assistants and their supervisors in schools in France and England. Multilingua, 27, 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H. (2018). Reconciling older and newer approaches to grammaticalization. Yearbook of the Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugs, R. (2023). Modality, usage and diachrony: Constructional changes in the modal domain in American English. PhD thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Google Scholar
Dawson, H. C. & Phelan, M. (2016). The Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desagulier, G. & Monneret, P. (2023). Cognitive linguistics and a usage-based approach to the study of semantics and pragmatics. In Díaz-Campos, M. & Balasch, S., eds., The Handbook of Usage-Based Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2019). The motivated unmotivated: Variation, function and context. In Bech, K. & Möhlig-Falke, R., eds., Grammar – Discourse – Context: Grammar and Usage in Language Variation and Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019a). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019b). Usage-based construction grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Cognitive Linguistics: A Survey of Linguistic Subfields. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2023). The Constructicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (2011). Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics, 49(2), 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., Milin, P. & Medimorec, S. (2020). Construal in language: A visual-world approach to the effects of linguistic alternations on event perception and conception. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(1), 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., Milin, P., Medimorec, S. & Borowski, M. (2022). Behavioral signatures of memory resources for language: Looking beyond the lexicon/grammar divide. Cognitive Science, 46, e13206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckert, P. (2004). Adolescent language. In Finnegan, E. & Rickford, J., eds., Language in the USA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 251–289.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3(2), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (2001). Conceptual blending and analogy. In Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J. & Kokinov, B. N., eds., The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 255–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a Central Process of Grammar. In Goldberg, A. E., ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 113–129.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2008). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–253.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame semantics. In Geeraerts, D., ed., Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, R. (2019). Reflections on the role of pragmatics in construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A. (2023). Construction pragmatics in a wider context: An addition to Wen (2022). Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, 8(1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fort, M. & Schwartz, J-L. (2022). Resolving the bouba-kiki effect by rotting iconic sound symbolism in physical properties of round and spiky objects. Scientific Reports, 12, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, P. (2021). Phonological variation: A global perspective. In Aarts, B., McMahon, A. & Hinrichs, L., eds., The Handbook of English Linguistics, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 625–669.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1999). Some tenets of cognitive semantics. In Allwood, J. S. & Gärdenfors, P., eds., Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M. H., Uffing, E., Van Vaeck, N. & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2021). Variation isn’t that hard: Morphosyntactic choice does not predict production difficulty. PLoS ONE, 16(6), e0252602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H., eds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gildea, S. & Barðdal, J. (2023). From grammaticalization to diachronic construction grammar: A natural evolution of the paradigm. Studies in Language, 47(4), 743–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1991). The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in biblical Hebrew. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 2, Types of Grammatical Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 257–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D. (2022). Emergent categories: Quantifying analogically derived similarity in usage. In Krawczak, K., Grygiel, M. & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., eds., Analogy and Contrast in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 246–282.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2002). Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2004). Pragmatics and argument structure. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. L., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 427–441.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–31.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2014). The information structure of ditransitives: informing scope properties and long-distance dependency constraints. In Bourns, S. Katz & Myers, L. L., eds., Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in Honour of Knud Lambrecht, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8(3), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Ferreira, F. (2022). Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(4), 300–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. & Shirtz, S. (in press). The English phrase-as-lemma construction: When a phrase masquerades as a word, people play along. Language.Google Scholar
Gonzalves-Garcia, F. (2020). Maximizing the explanatory power of constructions in cognitive construction grammar(s). Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1–3, 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T. & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In Steen, G. & Gibbs, R., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. (2013). Data in construction grammar. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–108.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D. (2015). Use-Conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall-Lew, L., Moore, E. & Podesva, R. (2021). Social meaning and linguistic variation: Theoretical foundations. In Hall-Lew, L., Moore, E. & Podesva, R., eds., Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation: Theorizing the Third Wave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. A. (1993). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. A. (2022). The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. & Ungerer, T. (2023). Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics, 30(3), 599–634. doi.org/10.1017/S0022226723000117.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37(6), 1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. & Hoffmann, T. (2018). Construction grammar for students: A constructionist approach to syntactic analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6(1), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. & Hoffmann, T. (2024). A Construction Grammar of the English Language: CASA – A Constructionist Approach to Syntactic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2016). Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and its Application to English, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden & Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Flach, S. (2023). Modals in the network model of construction grammar. In Depraetere, I., Cappelle, B., Hilpert, M. et al., eds., Models of Modals: From Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics to Machine Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M, Correia Saavedra, D. & Rains, J. (2023). Meaning differences between English clippings and their source words: a corpus-based study. ICAME Journal, 47(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2014). Phonological Elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6(2), 202–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2020a). Construction grammar and creativity: evolution, psychology, and cognitive science. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2020b). Speakers are creative, within limits: A response to Peter Uhrig. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2021). Multimodal construction grammar: From multimodal constructs to multimodal constructions. In Wen, X. & Taylor, J., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (in press). Cognitive approaches to linguistic creativity. In Wen, X. & Sinha, C., eds., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huck, G. & Goldsmith, J. (1996). Ideology and Linguistic Theory: Noam Chomsky and the Deep Structure Debates. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hugues, A. & Trudgill, P. (1996). English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to the Social and Regional Varieties of English in the British Isles, 3rd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, A. E., ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 217–230.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, B. (1992). Yet more on -gate words: a perspective from Greece. American Speech, 67(2), 222–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, B. (1998). Diachronic morphology. In Spencer, A. & Zwicky, A., eds., The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 349–373.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1992). An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, V. (2023). Understanding the roles of type and token frequency in usage-based linguistics. In Díaz-Campos, M. & Balasch, S., eds., The Handbook of Usage-Based Linguistics. Wiley: New Jersey, pp. 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, S. & Purschke, C. (2023). Whatever happened to the scene-encoding hypothesis? Salience and pertinence as the missing links between the usage-based model and scene encoding. Constructions, 15, 1–22.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Postal, P. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2004). Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 675–700.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. & Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Maienborn, C., Heusinger, K. & Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 2271–2296.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Michaelis, L. A. (2019). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Maienborn, C., Heusinger, K. & Portner, P., e ds., Semantics – Interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 293–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, R. (1994). Sprachwandel: Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen & Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, Mind and Culture: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kranich, S. (2008). Subjective progressives in seventeenth and eighteenth century English: Secondary grammaticalization as a process of objectification. In Gotti, M., Dossena, M. & Dury, R., eds., English Historical Linguistics 2006, vol. I, Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranich, S. (2010). Grammaticalization, subjectification and objectification. In Stathi, K., Gehweiler, E. & König, E., eds., Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, M. G. (2000). Emerging English Modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. (1965). The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes, 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzai, E. (2020). Pragmatic information in constructions: What do speakers generalize? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in the meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive semantics. In Eco, U., Santambrogio, M. & Violi, P., eds., Meaning and Mental Representations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 119–154.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S., eds., Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 1–63.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. Ruiz & Sandra Peña Cervel, M., eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2010). Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2011). Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In Narrog, H. & Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 79–91.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2016). Working towards a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 465–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2019). Coercion: A case of saturation. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 270–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2020). Semantics and pragmatics in construction crammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2023a). Ad hoc concepts and the relevance heuristics: A false paradox? Pragmatics, 33(3), 324–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2023b). Modality revisited: Combining insights from construction grammar and relevance theory. In Depraetere, I., Cappelle, B. & Hilpert, M. et al., eds., Models of Modals: From Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics to Machine Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2024a). Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use: Bridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2024b). The post-modal grammaticalisation of concessive may and might. Constructions and Frames, 16(1), 130–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2024c). The semantics–pragmatics interface in construction grammar. In Nesi, H. & Milin, P., eds., International Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 3rd ed. Online First, pp. 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, B. & Depraetere, I. (2022). Making meaning with be able to: modality and actualisation. English Language and Linguistics, 26(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, B. & Morin, C. (2023). No equivalence: a new principle of no synonymy. Constructions, 15, 1–16.Google Scholar
Leclercq, B., & Morin, C. (2024). Taxonomy of constructional meanings. [Research project on OSF]. doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/USRWY.Google Scholar
Leclercq, B., & Morin, C. (2025). The TDD construction. [Research project on OSF]. doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WTVA3.Google Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R. R. (2011). Context in constructions. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lehar, S. (2002). The World in Your Head: A Gestalt View of the Mechanism of Conscious Experience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Leino, J. (2013). Information structure. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 329–344.Google Scholar
Leino, J. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Constructions and variability. In Fried, M. & Boas, H., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M. (2016). Cognitive semantics. In Riemer, N., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 90–105.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M. (2017). A cognitive, usage-based view on lexical pragmatics: Response to Hall. In Depraetere, I. & Salkie, R., eds., Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Berlin: Springer International Publishing, pp. 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66100, [1979].Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2022). Communicative Efficiency: Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N. & Lorenz, D. (2022). Communicative efficiency and the principle of no synonymy: Predictability effects and the variation of want to and wanna. Language and Cognition, 14(2), 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Thought, Language, and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2022). On the creative use of metonymy. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 104–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2013). Contractions of English semi-modals: the emancipating effect of frequency. PhD thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K. & Torrent, T., eds. (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1989). Competition and lexical categorization. In Corrigan, R., Eckman, F. & Noonan, M., eds., Linguistic Categorization, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 195–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Muenchen: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, O. & Morin, C. (in press). Register as a source of non-equivalent constructions: be going to and gonna in British English. English Language and Linguistics, 29(3).Google Scholar
Moore, R. L. (2004). We’re cool, mom and dad are swell: Basic slang and generational shifts in values. American Speech, 79(1), 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, C. (in press). Are phonemes constructions? A plea for distinguishing function and meaning. Constructions and Frames.Google Scholar
Morin, C. (2023). Social meaning in construction grammar: Double modals in dialects of English. PhD thesis, Université Paris-Cité, Paris.Google Scholar
Morin, C. & Leclercq, B. (in press). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Wen, X. & Sinha, C., eds., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Cognitive Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morin, C., Desagulier, G. & Grieve, J. (2024). A social turn for construction grammar: double modals on British Twitter. English Language and Linguistics, 8(2), 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H. (2012). Beyond intersubjectification: Textual usages of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech orientation. English Text Construction, 5(1), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H. (2015). (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences, 47, 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H. (2017). Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. In Van Olmen, D., Cuyckens, H. & Ghesquière, L., eds., Aspects of Grammaticalization: (Inter)Subjectification and Directionality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 19–46.Google Scholar
Nathan, G. (2006). Is the phoneme usage-based? Some issues. International Journal of English Studies, 6(2), 173–194.Google Scholar
Nesset, T. (2008). Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model: Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology-Phonology Interface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2009). Constructional analysis. In Brisard, F., Östman, J.-O. & Verschueren, J., eds., Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. (2012). Lehmann’s parameters revisited. In Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L. & Mortelmans, T., eds., Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2005). Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In Frawley, W., ed., The Expression of Modality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1995). Lexical semantics and compositionality. In Gleitman, L. & Liberman, M., eds., Language: An Invitation to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 311–360.Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 601–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2023). Construction grammar and usage-based theory. In Diaz-Campos, M. & Balasch, S., eds., The Handbook of Usage-Based Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2020). What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisciotta, F. (2024). When constructional choice is a matter of context: Sembrare-constructions across a continuum of text genres. CogniTextes, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. (1984). The modals story retold. Studies in Language, 8, 305–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. (1998). A non-syntactic account of some asymmetries in the double object construction. In Koenig, J.-P., ed., Conceptual Structure and Language: Bridging the Gap, Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 402–423.Google Scholar
Rambelli, G. (2025). Constructions and Compositionality: Cognitive and Computational Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P. & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111(1), 159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Recanati, F. (2004). Pragmatics and semantics. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 442–462.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–324.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. (1994). Aural images. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. & Ohala, J., eds., Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 276–92.Google Scholar
Riemer, N. (2010). Introducing Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2012). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–138.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2014). Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. In Herbst, T., Schmid, H.-J. & Faulhaber, S., eds., Constructions, Collocations, Patterns. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 239–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewirska, A. & Hollmann, W. (2007). Ditransitive clauses with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Hannay, M. & Steen, G., eds., Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvennoinen, O. (2023). Is construction grammar cognitive? Constructions, 15, 1–17.Google Scholar
Smirnova, E. (2015). When secondary grammaticalization starts: A look from the constructional perspective. Language Sciences, 47(2), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. (2014). The phonaesthetics of blends: A lexicographic study of cognitive blends in the OED. ExELL – Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 12–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2020). Why we avoid the ‘multiple inheritance’ issue in usage-based cognitive construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 320–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., & Pabst, K. (2020). A cool comparison: Adjectives of positive evaluation in Toronto, Canada and York, England. Journal of English Linguistics, 48(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Koide, Y. (1987). Iconicity and ‘indirect objects’ in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(3), 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Wright, S. & Stein, D., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2002). From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Minkova, D. & Stockwell, R., eds., Studying the History of the English Language: Millennial Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, R., ed., Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–43.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L. & Cuyckens, H., eds., Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 29–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2015). Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. & Gildea, S., eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2024). Rethinking the relationship between subjectification, intersubjectification, and textualization from a constructionalist perspective. Cognitive Semantics, 10(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trips, C. (2009). Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology: The Development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2008a). Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from a composite predicate in the history of English. In Trousdale, G. & Gisborne, N., eds., Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2008b). Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In Fitzmaurice, S. M. & Minkova, D., eds., Studies in the History of the English Language IV: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2010). Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization. In Stathi, K., Gehweiler, E. & König, E., eds., Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2012). Grammaticalization, constructions, and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L. & Mortelmans, T., eds., Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. (1991). Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2015). Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistic, 63(3), 323–37.Google Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2020). Creative intentions: The fine line between “creative” and “wrong.” Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2023). A gradient notion of constructionhood. Constructions, 15(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist Approaches: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Välimaa-Blum, R. (2005) Cognitive Phonology in Construction Grammar: Analytic Tools for Students of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, T. & Kopf, K. (2023). Free variation, unexplained variation? In Kopf, K. & Weber, T., eds., Free Variation in Grammar: Empirical and Theoretical Approaches, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Wen, X. (2022). Construction pragmatics: A brief sketch. In Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, 7(1), 249–266.Google Scholar
Willich, A. (2022). Introducing construction semantics (CxS): a frame-semantic extension of construction grammar and constructicography. Linguistics Vanguard, 8(1). 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. & Perek, F. (2023). Cognitive linguistics. In Wei, L., Hua, Z. & Simpson, J., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, S. (2012). Constructions, semantic compatibility, and coercion: An empirical usage-based approach. Ph.D. thesis, Rice University, Houston.Google Scholar
Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Meaning of Constructions
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Meaning of Constructions
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Meaning of Constructions
Available formats
×