Element contents
Series: Elements in World Englishes
The Cognitive Foundation of Post-colonial Englishes
Construction Grammar as the Cognitive Theory for the Dynamic Model
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2021
Summary
Varieties of English are spoken all over the world from Africa to Asia, from Europe to America. In addition to its use as a foreign language, English in many of these countries is a first or second language variety that initially arose in a colonial setting. Currently, the most influential sociolinguistic model for the evolution of these 'Post-Colonial Englishes' is the Dynamic Model. In this Element, I outline how Construction Grammar, the most prominent cognitive syntactic theory, can provide a cognitive foundation for the assumptions made by the Dynamic Model. As I shall argue, Construction Grammar naturally complements the Dynamic Model and, in addition to that, a 'Constructionist Grammar Approach to the Dynamic Model' approach generates new research questions concerning the productivity of syntactic patterns across Dynamic Model phases.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in World EnglishesOnline ISBN: 9781108909730Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 09 December 2021
References
Allen, Kachina, Pereira, Francisco, Matthew Botvinick, Adele E. Goldberg. 2012. Distinguishing grammatical constructions with fMRI pattern analysis. Brain and Language 123(3): 174–82.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Variation: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja, eds. Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 899–919.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul and Huber, Magnus. 2000. Constructing new pronominal systems from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In Jacques Arends, ed. Special Issue. Creoles, Pidgins, and Sundry Languages: Essays in Honor of Pieter Seuren. Linguistics 38(5): 833–66.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds. 2000. Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baroni, Marco and Evert, Stefan. 2014. The zipfR package for lexical statistics: A tutorial introduction. 3 October 2014. zipfR version 0.6–7. http://zipfr.r-forge.r-project.org/materials/zipfr-tutorial.pdf (last accessed 8 October 2018).Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic, Constructional Approaches to Language 8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2011. Lexical vs. structural case: A false dichotomy. Morphology 21(1): 619–54.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M. L. 2013. Psycholinguistics. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 379–96.Google Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M. L. and Adele E. Goldberg. 2000. The contribution of Argument Structure Constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43: 640–51.Google Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M. L. and Virginia Valian. 2008. Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7(2): 173–221.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 2008. Bastard Tongues: A Trailblazing Linguist Finds Clues to our Common Humanity in the World’s Lowliest Languages. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2017. Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg, ed. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Berlin: De Gruyter, 129–52.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2005. Determining the productivity of Resultative Constructions: A reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language 81(2): 448–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2011. Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In Engelberg, Stefan, Proost, Kristel and Holler, Anke, eds. Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 37–69.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 233–52.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. and Dux, Ryan. 2017. From the past into the present: From case frames to semantic frames. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Borlongan, Ariane Macalinga. 2016. Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model. Asian Englishes 18(3): 232–41.Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia and Tomasello, Michael. 1999a. Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology 35: 29–44.Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia and Tomasello, Michael. 1999b. How children constrain their Argument Structure Constructions. Language 75: 720–38.Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia, Tomasello, Michael, Dodson, Kelly and Lewis, Lawrence B.. 1999. Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70: 1325–37.Google Scholar
Bruckmaier, Elisabeth. 2017. Getting at Get in World Englishes. A Corpus-Based Semasiological-Syntactic Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brunner, Thomas and Hoffmann, Thomas. 2020. The way construction in World Englishes. English World-Wide 41(1): 1–32.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander. 2014. The evolution of Englishes: The dynamic model and beyond. In Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander, eds. The Evolution of Englishes, Varieties of English Around the World G49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–17.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, Sarah and Kautzsch, Alexander. 2017. Towards an integrated approach to postcolonial and non-postcolonial Englishes. World Englishes 36(1): 104–26.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, Sarah and Kautzsch, Alexander. 2020. Theoretical models of English as a world language. In Schreier, Daniel, Hundt, Marianne and Schneider, Edgar W., eds. Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 51–71.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, Sarah and Schneider, Edgar W.. 2020. World Englishes: Postcolonial Englishes and beyond. In Low, Ee Ling and Pakir, Anne, eds. World Englishes: Re-Thinking Paradigms. London: Routledge, 29–46.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study into the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–55.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711–33.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49–69.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert, Shtyrov, Yury and Friedemann, Pulvermüller. 2010. Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language 115(3): 189–201.Google Scholar
Chang, Franklin. 2002. Symbolically speaking: A connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science 26: 609–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Bock, J. Kathryn and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2003. Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition 90: 29–49.Google Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Gary S. Dell, J. Kathryn Bock and Griffin, Zenzi M.. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 217–29.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael, ed. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1987. The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In MacWhinney, Brian, ed. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1–33.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Cruse, Alan D.. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2003. English as a Global Language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2008. Two thousand million? English Today 24: 3–6. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078408000023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Eva. 2000. From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 83–102.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Eva and Lieven, Elena. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 437–74.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Eva, Rowland, Caroline and Theakston, Anna. 2009. The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 571–98.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2017. Cognitive linguistics and the study of textual meaning. In Dancygier, Barbara, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 607–22.Google Scholar
Desagulier, Guillaume. 2016. A lesson from associative learning: Asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(2): 173–219.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43(3): 449–79.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2009. On the role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of subject and non-subject relative clauses. In Givón, Talmy and Shibatani, Masayoshi, eds. Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 251–76.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Construction Grammar and first language acquisition. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 347–78.Google Scholar
Dominey, Peter and Hoen, Michael. 2006. Structure mapping and semantic integration in a construction-based neurolinguistic model of sentence processing. Cortex 42: 476–79.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 143–88.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2003. Constructions, chunking and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, Catherine and Long, Michael H., eds. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 63–103.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2006. Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative cognitive CREED. AILA Review 19: 100–21.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2013. Construction Grammar and second language acquisition. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 365–78.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. and Fernando Ferreira-Junior. 2009. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 188–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Stephan. 2009. The evolution of the English-language speech community in Hong Kong. English World-Wide 30(3): 278–301.Google Scholar
Evert, Stefan. 2004. A simple LNRE model for random character sequences. Proceedings of JADT 2004, 411–22.Google Scholar
Evert, Stefan and Baroni, Marco. 2007. zipfR: Word frequency distributions in R. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Posters and Demonstrations Sessions, 29–32.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Zampolli, Antonio, ed. Linguistics Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 55–81.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea, ed. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111–37.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2): 222–54.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2006. Frames semantics. In Brown, Keith, ed. Encyclopedia of Linguistics and Language, Vol. 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 613–20.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Baker, Collin F.. 2010. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 313–39.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Haiman, John, ed. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–219.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition and the Partial Pproductivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. and Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80: 532–68.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2004. HCFA 3.2 – A Program for Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis for R for Windows.www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/people/stefan-th-gries (program available on request; last accessed 8 April 2018).Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2009. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Data in Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 93–108.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Bernaisch, Tobias and Heller, Benedikt. 2018. A corpus-linguistic account of the history of the genitive alternation in Singapore English. In Deshors, Sandra C., ed. Modelling World Englishes: Assessing the Interplay of Emancipation and Globalization of ESL Varieties. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 245–79.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate and Doris, Schönefeld. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 635–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate and Doris, Schönefeld. 2010. Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In Rice, Sally and Newman, John, eds. Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 59–72.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Wulff, Stefanie. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 182–200.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Wulff, Stefanie. 2009. Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7(1): 163–86.Google Scholar
Haïk, Isabelle. 2012. The hell in English grammar. In Nicole, Le Querler, Neveu, Franck and Roussel, Emmanuelle, eds. Relations, Connexions, Dépendances: Hommage au Professeur Claude Guimier. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 101–26.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3): 515–40.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack and Napoli, Donna J.. 2008. Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics 44(2): 347–78.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2011. Preposition Placement in English: A Usage-based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2014. The cognitive evolution of Englishes: The role of constructions in the Dynamic Model. In Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander, eds. The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond, Varieties of English Around the World G49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 160–80.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2015. Cognitive sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-based Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 63(3): 273–94.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017a. From constructions to Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, Barbara, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 284–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017b. Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, Barbara, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 310–29.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2019. English Comparative Correlatives: Diachronic and Synchronic Variation at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2020. Marginal Argument Structure constructions: The [V the Ntaboo-word out of]-construction in post-colonial Englishes. Linguistics Vanguard 6.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2022. Construction Grammar: The Structure of English, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hollmann, Willem. 2013. Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 491–509.Google Scholar
Johnson, Matt A. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2013. Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(10): 1439–52.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B., ed. 1992. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 2nd ed. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Konopka, Agnieszka E. and Bock, Kathryn. 2008. Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology 58: 68–101.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, Matthew K. 2004. British colonial legacies and political development. World Development 32(6): 905–22.Google Scholar
Laporte, Samantha. 2019. The patterning of the high-frequency verb make in varieties of English: A Construction Grammar approach. PhD thesis, Catholic University: Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire. 2004. Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages, Studies in Language Companion Series 70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. B. and Andrée, Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Isabel Pefianco. 2014. Beyond nativization? Philippine English in Schneider’s Dynamic Model. In Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander, eds. The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond, Varieties of English Around the World G49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 70–85.Google Scholar
McDonough, Kim. 2006. Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of Dative Constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 179–207.Google Scholar
McDonough, Kim and Mackey, Alison. 2006. Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production and linguistic development. Language Learning 56: 693–720.Google Scholar
McDonough, Kim and Trofimovich, Pavel. 2008. Using Priming Methods in Second Language Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend. 2010. Socio-phonetics and social change: Deracialisation of the GOOSE vowel in South African English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(1): 3–33.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend. 2014. The sociophonetic effects of ‘Event X’: Post-apartheid Black South African English in multicultural contact with other South African Englishes. In Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander, eds. The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond, Varieties of English Around the World G49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 58–69.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend and Bhatt, Rakesh M.. 2008. World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties, Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend, Swann, Joan, Deumert, Ana and Leap, William L.. 2000. Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2004. Language birth and death. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 201–22.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2007. Steady states in the evolution of New Englishes: Present-day Indian English as an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics 35(2): 157–87.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato and Stefan, Th. Gries. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 30(1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald, Wallis, Sean and Aarts, Bas. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Patrick, Peter L. 2008. Jamaican Creole: Morphology and syntax. In Schneider, Edgar W., ed. Varieties of English 2: The Americas and the Caribbean. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 609–43.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar, Constructional Approaches to Language 17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2016. Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics 54(1): 149–88.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2006. Productivity. In Aarts, Bas and April, M. S. McMahon, eds. The Handbook of English Linguistics. Malden: Blackwell, 537–56.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 1993. On connecting syntax and the brain. In Aertsen, Ad, ed. Brain Theory: Spatio-temporal Aspects of Brain Function. New York: Elsevier, 131–45.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2003. The Neuroscience of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2010. Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar: Discrete combinatorial mechanisms spelt out in neuronal circuits. Brain and Language 112(3): 167–79.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Cappelle, Bert and Shtyrov, Yury. 2013. Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 397–416.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann and Knoblauch, Andreas. 2009. Discrete combinatorial circuits emerging in neural networks: A mechanism for rules of grammar in the human brain? Neural Networks 22(2): 161–72.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 1985. The English language in a global context. In Quirk, Randolph and Widdowson, Henry G., eds., English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–6.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rowland, Caroline F. 2007. Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition 104: 106–34.Google Scholar
Rowland, Caroline F. and Pine, Julian M.. 2000. Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: What children do know? Journal of Child Language 27: 157–81.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016. English Morphology and Word-Formation: An Introduction, 3rd ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020 The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2003. The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79(2): 233–81.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2012. Exploring the interface between World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition – and implications for English as a Lingua Franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1): 57–91.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2020. English Around the World, 2nd ed., Cambridge Introductions to the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Flach, Susanne. 2017. The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg, ed. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Berlin: De Gruyter, 101–27.Google Scholar
Steger, Maria and Schneider, Edgar W. 2012. Complexity as a function of iconicity. In Kortmann, Bernd and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, eds. Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact. Berlin: De Gruyter, 156–91.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Kortmann, Bernd. 2009. Between simplification and complexification: Nonstandard varieties of English around the world. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David and Trudgill, Peter, eds. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64–79.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thusat, Joshua, Anderson, Emily, Davis et al, Shante. 2009. Maltese English and the nativization phase of the dynamic model. English Today 97 25, 2: 25–32.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition: An Essay. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Construction Grammar for kids. Constructions Special Volume 1. www.constructions-journal.com.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael and Brooks, Patricia. 1998. Young children’s earliest Transitive and Intransitive Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 379–95.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes, Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bertus, Van Rooy. 2010. Social and linguistic perspectives on variability in World Englishes. World Englishes 29(1): 3–20.Google Scholar
Bertus, Van Rooy. 2014. Convergence and endonormativity at phase 4 of the Dynamic Model. In Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander, eds. The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond, Varieties of English Around the World G49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–38.Google Scholar
Veale, Tony. 2012. Exploding the Creativity Myth: The Computational Foundations of Linguistic Creativity. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2015. Pidgins, Creoles and Mixed Languages: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lane, Wardlow, Liane and Victor S. Ferreira. 2010. Abstract syntax in sentence production: Evidence from stem-exchange errors. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 151–65.Google Scholar
Weston, Daniel. 2011. Gibraltar’s position in the dynamic model of postcolonial English. English World-Wide 32(3): 338–67.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4: 253–90.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Ellis, Nick C., Römer, Ute et al. 2009. The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal 93: 354–69.Google Scholar
Zeldes, Amir. 2013. Productive argument selection: Is lexical semantics enough? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2): 263–91.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Jayden, Bencini, Giulia, Goldberg, Adele and Snedeker, Jesse. 2019. How abstract is syntax? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition 193: 104045.Google Scholar
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 HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 25
- Cited by