Article published in:
Computational Construction Grammar and Constructional Change
Edited by Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30] 2016
► pp. 1–13

Computational construction grammar and constructional change

| Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
| Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris, France
Published online: 10 January 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.01beu
References

References

Arbib, Michael
2012 How the Brain Got Language: The Mirror System Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea
(eds) 2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, and Tom Schoenemann
2009 “Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper.” Language Learning 59(s1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. and Nancy Chang
2005 “Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding.” In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried, 147–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beuls, Katrien and Luc Steels
2013 “Agent-Based Models of Strategies for the Emergence and Evolution of Grammatical Agreement.” PLoS ONE 8 (3): e58960. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. and Ivan A. Sag
(eds) 2012 Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens
2009 “Constructions at Work or at Rest?.” Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1): 129–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985 Morphology: A Study on the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, Cognition, and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, Evie and Ferdinand von Mengden
(eds) 2014 Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1991 Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, Antal van den Bosch, and Jakub Zavrel
1999 “Forgetting Exceptions is Harmful in Language Learning.” Machine Learning 34 (1/3): 1143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daems, Jocelyne, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman, and Hubert Cuyckens
(eds) 2015 Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
[ p. 10 ]
Diessel, Holger
2015 “Usage-Based Construction Grammar.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Ewa Dabrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C.
1980 Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Simon J. Greenhill, C. Levinson, Stephen, and Russel D. Gray
2011 “Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals.” Nature 473: 79–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley, and Stephen C. Levinson
2005 “Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history.” Science 309 (5743): 2072–2075. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1988 “The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”.” In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.” Language 64 (3): 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2009 “Construction Grammar as a Tool for Diachronic Analysis.” Constructions and Frames 1 (2): 261–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
1985 Paradigm and Paradox: Explorations Into a Paradigmatic Theory of Meaning and its Epistemological Background. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979 On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan and Kerstin Fischer
(eds) 2010 Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Devin M. Casenhiser, and Nitya Sethuraman
2004 “Learning Argument Structure Generalizations.” Cognitive Linguistics 15 (3): 289–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Russel D. and Quentin D. Atkinson
2003 “Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin.” Nature 426: 435–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.
2015 “The Role of Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus and Experimental Data on (Relative) Frequency and Contingency of Words and Constructions.” In Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics, ed. by Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman, and Hubert Cuyckens, 311–325. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hale, John T.
2003 “The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32 (2): 101–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall, David and Dan Klein
2010 “Finding Cognate Groups Using Phylogenies.” In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1030–1039. Uppsala: ACL.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan
1985 Language, Context and Text: Aspects ofLanguage in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Harnad, Stevan
1990 “The Symbol Grounding Problem.” Physica D 42: 335–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
2004 Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 11 ]
Heggarty, Paul, Warren Maguire, and April McMahon
2010 “Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel language histories.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 365: 38293843.Google Scholar
Holland, John
2006 “Studying Complex Adaptive Systems.” Journal ofSystems Science and Complexity 19 (1): 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem B. and Anna Siewierska
2011 “The Status of Frequency, Schemas, and Identity in Cognitive Sociolinguistics: A Case Study on Definite Article Reduction.” Cognitive Linguistics 22: 25–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987 “Emergent grammar.” In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip, 139–157. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, James
1989 “Biological Evolution of the Saussurean Sign as a Component of the Language Acquisition Device.” Lingua 77 (2): 187–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian and Harry Tily
2011 “On Language ‘Utility’: Processing Complexity and Communicative Efficiency.” WIREs: Cognitive Science 2 (3): 323–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, Mark K. and Thomas J. Palmeri
2002 “Are There Representational Shifts During Category Learning?.” Cognitive Psychology 45: 482–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Dan
1996 “A Probabilistic Model of Lexical and Syntactic Access and Disambiguation.” Cognitive Science 20: 137–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore
1999 “Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction.” Language 75: 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, Simon
2002 “Natural Language from Artificial Life.” Artificial Life 8 (2): 185–215. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kondrak, Grzegorz
2002 Algorithms for Language Reconstruction. Ph. D. thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Labov, William
2000 Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 “A Dynamic Usage-Based Model.” In Usage-Based Models ofLanguage, ed. by Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer, 1–63. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena
2009 “Developing Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1): 191–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nurnberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow
1994 “Idioms.” Language 70: 491–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent
2015 Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar, Volume 17 of Constructional Approaches to Language. John Benjamins: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Katrien Beuls, and Freek Van de Velde
2015 “The Rise of the Verbal Weak Inflection in Germanic: An agent-Based Model.” Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 5: 81–102.Google Scholar
Pleyer, Michael and Nicolas Lindner
2014 “Constructions, Construal and Cooperation in the Evolution of Language.” In The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference, ed. by Erica A. Cartmill, Sean Roberts, Heidi Lyn, and Hannah Cornish, 244–251. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 12 ]
Rice, Sally and John Newman
(eds) 2010 Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor and Barbara B. Lloyd
(eds) 1978 Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schneider, Nathan and Reut Tsarfaty
2013 “Book Review: Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar.” Computational Linguistics 39 (2): 447–453. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Andrew D.M.
2014 “Models of Language Evolution and Change.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 5 (3): 281–293.Google Scholar
Spranger, Michael
2013 “Evolving Grounded Spatial Language Strategies.” KI – Künstliche Intelligenz 27 (2): 97–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc
1995 “A Self-Organizing Spatial Vocabulary.” Artificial Life 2 (2): 319–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “Language as a Complex Adaptive System.” In Proceedings of PPSN VI: Lecture notes in Computer Science, ed. by Mark Schoenauer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 17–26. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
2004 “Constructivist Development of Grounded Construction Grammars.” In Proceedings 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ed. by Walter Daelemans, 9–19. Barcelona: ACL.Google Scholar
(ed) 2011 Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed) 2012a Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012b “Self-Organization and Selection in Cultural Language Evolution.” In Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution, ed. by Luc Steels, 1–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 The Talking Heads Experiment: Origins of Words and Meanings, Volume 1 of Computational Models of Language Evolution. Berlin: Language Science Press. Open access at http://​langsci​-press​.org/​/catalog​/book​/49.
Steels, Luc and Eörs Szathmáry
2016 “Fluid Construction Grammar as a Biological System.” Linguistics Vanguard 2 (1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Lydia, Peter F. Stadler, and Michael Cysouw
2011 “A Pipeline for Computational Historical Linguistics.” Language Dynamics and Change 1 (1): 89127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003 Constructing a Language. A Usage Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek
2014 “Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks.” In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman, and Gijsbert Rutten, Volume 1, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Trijp, Remi
2010a “Grammaticalization and Semantic Maps: Evidence from Artificial Language Evolution.” Linguistic Discovery 8 (1): 310–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b “Strategy Competition in the Evolution of Pronouns: A Case-Study of Spanish Leísmo, Laísmo and Loísmo.” In The Evolution of Language (EVOLANG 8), ed. by Andrew D.M. Smith, Marieke Schouwstra, Bart de Boer, and Kenny Smith, 336–343. Singapore: World Scientific. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 13 ]
2013a “A Comparison Between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames 5 (1): 88–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b “Linguistic Assessment Criteria for Explaining Language Change: A Case Study on Syncretism in German Definite Articles.” Language Dynamics and Change 3 (1): 105–132.Google Scholar
2015 “Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The Case of Coercion and Argument Structure.” Cognitive Linguistics 26: 613–632. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog
1968 “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change.” In Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium, ed. by Winfred P. Lehman and Yakov Malkiel, 97–195. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren, André Müller, and Viveka Velupillai
2010 “Homelands of the world’s language families: A quantitative approach.” Diachronica 27 (2): 247276.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Noël, Dirk
2019. The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1 ► pp. 22 ff. Crossref logo
Pijpops, Dirk
2017. Jiyoung Yoon & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.). 2016. Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar . Constructions and Frames 9:2 ► pp. 329 ff. Crossref logo
Pijpops, Dirk, Isabeau De Smet & Freek Van de Velde
2018. Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Constructions and Frames 10:2 ► pp. 269 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 march 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.