Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-fc4h8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T08:45:31.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charles J. Fillmore

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Obituary
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 755 - 761
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Linguistic Society of America

References

Ackerman, Farrell, and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2013. Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A theory of predicates. (CSLI lecture notes 76.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K., and Chang, Nancy. 2005. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, ed. by Östman, Jan-Ola and Fried, Mirjam, 147–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C., and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.) 2012. Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4. 7. 543–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela, and Inkelas, Sharon. 2013. Word construction: Tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23. 2. 103–43.10.1007/s11525-013-9220-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 4. 543–71.10.1162/002438999554200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1962. A system for characterizing phonological theories. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1963. The position of embedding transformations in a grammar. Word 19. 2. 208–31.10.1080/00437956.1963.11659796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1966. Toward a modern theory of case. Toward a modern theory of case: The Ohio State University Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1973. May we come in? Semiotica 9. 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975a. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975b. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkeley Linguistics Society 1. 123–31. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/bls/issue/view/304.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, ed. by Jarvella, Robert J. and Klein, Wolfgang, 31–59. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1984. Lexical semantics and text semantics. New directions in linguistics and semiotics, ed. by Copeland, James E., 123–47. Houston: Rice University.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6. 2. 222–54.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Varieties of conditional sentences. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 3. 163–82.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1990. Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. Chicago Linguistic Society 26. 137–62.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1997. Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2012. Encounters with language. Computational Linguistics 38. 4. 701–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Atkins, Beryl T.. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, ed. by Lehrer, Adrienne and Kittay, Eva Feder, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles j., Johnson, Christopher R.; and Petruck, Miriam R. L.. 2003. Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography 16. 3. 297–333.10.1093/ijl/16.3.297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul; and O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 3. 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Lily Wong, and Fillmore, Charles J.. 2012. What does text complexity mean for English learners and language minority students? Understanding language: Language, literacy, and learning in the content areas, 64–74. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Online: http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/what-does-text-complexity-mean-english-learners-and-language-minority-students.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam, and Östman, Jan-Ola (eds.) 2004. Construction grammar in a crosslanguage perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gurevich, Olga I. 2006. Constructional morphology: The Georgian version. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2002. Nominal head-marking constructions: Two case studies from Luiseño. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2001), 189–201. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/HPSG/2001/.10.21248/hpsg.2001.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Martin. 1984. Functional unification grammar: A formalism for machine translation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’84) 10. 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What'sXdoing Y? construction. Language 75. 1. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2012. Cleaning up the big mess: Discontinuous dependencies and complex determiners. In Boas & Sag, 229–56.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1990. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Malouf, Robert P. 1998. Mixed categories in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2012. Making the case for construction grammar. In Boas & Sag, 31–68.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1944. Linguistic interludes. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank, and Sailer, Manfred. 2009. Phraseological clauses in constructional HPSG. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2009), 297–317. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/HpSG/2009/.10.21248/hpsg.2009.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33. 431–84.10.1017/S002222679700652XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86. 3. 486–545.10.1353/lan.2010.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas & Sag, 69–202.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2004. Constructivist development of grounded construction grammars. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9–16.Google Scholar
TesniÈre, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar