Article published in:
Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
[Constructional Approaches to Language 15] 2014
► pp. 135
References

References

Aarts, B.
(1992) Small clauses in English: The non-verbal types. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J.H., & Greenough, J.B.
(1980) Allen and Greenough’s new Latin grammar. New Rochelle, NY: Caratzas Brothers, Publishers. [Revision of the 1883 edition.]Google Scholar
Báez Montero, I.C.
(1988) La construcción con predicativo del complemento directo en castellano medieval. Vigo: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2004) The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Focus on Germanic typology [Studia Typologica, 6] (pp. 101–130). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
(2008) Productivity. Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 438–457). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Eythórsson, Th
(2012) Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the comparative method. In H.C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp. 257–308). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bassols de Climent, M.
(1945) Sintaxis histórica de la lengua latina. Barcelona: CSIC.Google Scholar
Bergen, B.K., & Plauché, M.
(2001)  Voilà voilà: Extensions of deictic constructions in French. In A. Cienki, B. Luka, & M. Smith (Eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (pp. 238–249). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2005) The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 1–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and language change. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, W.
(2008) Precategoriality and argument structure in Late Archaic Chinese. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 5] (pp. 55–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H.C.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2005) Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language, 81(2), 448–464. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning. In P. Steiner, H.C. Boas, & S. Schierholz (Eds.), Contrastive studies and valency. Studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas (pp. 119–149). Frankfurt & New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010a) Comparing constructions across languages. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2010b) Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Coercion and leaking argument structure in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolkestein, A.M.
(1976) A.c.i.- and ut-clauses with verba dicendi in Latin. Glotta, 54, 263–291.Google Scholar
Borkin, A.
(1973)  To be or not to be . Proceedings of the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , 44–56.
(1984) Problems in form and function. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Bouveret, M., & Legallois, D.
(Eds.) (2012) Constructions in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L.
(1995) The semantic development of past tense modals in English. In J.L. Bybee, & S. Fleischman (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 503–517). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L., & Eddington, D.
(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L., & Hopper, P.J.
(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure [Typological Studies in Language, 45]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cano Aguilar, R.
(1988) El español a través de los tiempos. Madrid: Arco Libros S.A.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., & Guasti, M.T.
(Eds.) (1995) Small clauses. Syntax and Semantics, 28. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Contreras, H.
(1987) Small clauses in English and Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 225–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2000) Explaining language change. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C.
(2010) Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 201–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., Mollica, F., & Kuhn, J.
(2013) Konstruktionsgrammatik und Romanische Sprachen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Deulofeu, J., & Debaisioux, J.M.
(2009) Constructions and context: When a construction constructs the context. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 43–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demonte, V., & Masullo, P.
(1999) La predicación: Los complementos predicativos. In I. Bosque, & V. Demonte (Dirs.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 2461–2523). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Dik, S.C.
(1978) Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ernout, A., & Thomas, F.
(1972) Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
FerraresiG., & Goldbach, M.
(2003) Some reflections on inertia: Infinitive complements in Latin. In B. Baumgarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz, & M.J. Probst (Eds.), Übersetzen, interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60. Geburtstag. Zeitschrift für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 8(2/3), 240–251. Retrieved from http://​zif​.spz​.tu​-darmstadt​.de​/jg​-08​-2​-3​/docs​/FerraresiGoldbach​.pdf.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J.
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
(1986) Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In V. Nikiforidou, M. VanClay, M. Niepokuj, & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 95–107). Berkeley: UC Berkeley Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., & Kay, P.
(1993) Construction Grammar. Manuscript. UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64, 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fiol, V.
(1987) Sintaxis latina. Barcelona: Bosch.Google Scholar
Fox, B.A.
(2007) Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language, 31, 293–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M.
(2004) Predicate semantics and event construal in Czech case marking. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 87–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005a) A frame-based approach to case alternations: The swarm-class verbs in Czech. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(3), 475–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005b) The stability of meaning-form associations across time. In P. Nejedlý, & M. Vajdlová (Eds.), Verba et historia (pp. 77–85). Praha: Ústav pro jazyk český AV ČR.Google Scholar
(2009) Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames, 1(2), 261–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Principles of constructional change. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 417–437). Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J-O.
(2004) Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, S.
(2004) Lexically (un)filled constructional schemes and construction types: The case of Japanese modal conditional constructions. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 2] (pp. 121–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garachana Camarero, M.
(2008) En los límites de la gramaticalización. La evolución de “encima (de que)” como marcador del discurso. Revista de Filología Española, LXXXVIII(1), 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1980) The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language, 4, 333–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F.
(2006a) Passives without actives: Evidence from verbless complement constructions in Spanish. Constructions, SV1-5/2006.Google Scholar
(2006b) The fortunes of the competition between the accusative and infinitive and the NP + PRED complement constructions after “verba cogitandi” in English: A Construction Grammar view. In J.G. Vázquez González, M. Martínez Vázquez, & P. Ron Vaz (Eds.), The historical linguistics-cognitive linguistics interface (pp. 75–145). Huelva: Grupo de Gramática Contrastiva.Google Scholar
(2007) Saved by the reflexive: Evidence from coercion via reflexives in verbless complement clauses in English and Spanish. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 193–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based, constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31(5), 663–723. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Contrasting constructions in English and Spanish: The influence of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 43–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1305–1358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurevich, O.
(2010) Conditional constructions in English and Russian. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 87–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gurevich, O., Johnson, M., & Goldberg, A.E.
(2010) Incidental verbatim memory for language. Language and Cognition, 2(1), 45–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L.
(1995) The syntax of negation [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 75]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1985) An introduction to functional grammar (1st ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
(1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Han, Ch
(2000) The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. New York: Garland Publications.Google Scholar
Hartmann, K.
(2000) Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R., Ohara, K.H., Fujii, S., & Fillmore, C.J.
(2010) On expressing measurement and comparison in English and Japanese. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp.169–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hens, G.W.
(1995) Ditransitive constructions in German. (Ph.D. dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Heycock, C.
(1994) The internal structure of small clauses. In J. Beckman (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 25 (Vol. 1, pp. 223–238). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hilferty, J., & Valenzuela, J.
(2001) Maximality and idealized cognitive models: The complementation of Spanish “tener”. Language Sciences, 23, 629–637. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2006) A synchronic perspective on the grammaticalization of Swedish future constructions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 151–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Germanic future constructions A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Comparing comparatives: A corpus-based study of comparative constructions in English and Swedish. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 458–475). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ionescu, D.C.
(1998) Small clauses in English and Romanian. Bucureşti: Editura Universitatii Bucuresti.Google Scholar
Iwata, S.
(2008) Locative alternation. A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R.
(1992) Italian negative infinitival imperatives and clitic climbing. In L. Tasmowski (Ed.), Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet: De la musique à la linguistique (pp. 300–312). Ghent: Communication & Cognition.Google Scholar
Kenniston, H.
(1937) The syntax of Castilian prose. The sixteenth century. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1986) Topic, focus, and the grammar of spoken French. (Ph.D. dissertation). The University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
(1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K., & Lemoine, K.
(2005) Definite null objects in (spoken) French: A construction-grammar account. In M. Fried, & H.C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions – Back to the roots [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 4] (pp. 13–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lapesa, R.
(1957) La obra literaria del Marqués de Santillana. Madrid: Ínsula.Google Scholar
(1964) Los casos latinos: Restos sintácticos y sustitutos en español. Boletín de la Real Academia Española, 44, 76–82.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Tobback, E.
(2011) The rise of subjective meanings in the development of reflexive copulas in French. Paper delivered at the 10th International Conference on Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality . Aston University, Birmingham, UK, April 2011.
Ledgeway, A.
(2012) From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leino, J.
(2010) Results, cases, and constructions: Argument structure constructions in English and Finnish. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 103–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leino, J., & Östman, J.-O.
(2005) Constructions and variability. In M. Fried, & H.C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions – Back to the roots [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 4] (pp. 191–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leino, P., & Östman, J.-O.
(2008) Language change, variability, and functional load: Finnish genericity from a constructional point of view. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 5] (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., & Londen, A.-M.
(2008) Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 5] (pp. 105–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
López Muñoz, M.
(2002) Delenda est machina? Informática y Filología Latina. Revista de Estudios Latinos, 2, 235–250.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y.
(1978) The classification of Romance languages. Romance Philology, 31, 467–500.Google Scholar
Martínez Vázquez, M.
(2003) Gramática de construcciones (Contrastes entre el inglés y el español). Huelva: Grupo de Gramática Contrastiva.Google Scholar
(2004) Learning argument structure generalizations in a foreign language. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 151–165.Google Scholar
Masini, F.
(2005) Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: The case of Italian verb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18, 145–173.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
(2008) Variations in Japanese honorification – deviations or a change in the making? In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 5] (pp. 89–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L.A.
(2003) Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In E. Francis, & L.A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 259–310). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2004) Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Making the case for Construction Grammar. In H.C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp. 31–69). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L.A., & Ruppenhofer, J.
(2001) Beyond alternations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J.
(2010) What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson’s analysis of object complements. In K. Boye, & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. 3–44). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ohara, K.
(2005) From relativization to clause-linkage: Evidence from modern Japanese. In M. Fried, & H.C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions – Back to the roots [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 4] (pp. 57–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, J.
(1994) Introducing transformational grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Penny, R.
(1933) Gramática histórica del español. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Pinkster, H.
(1990) Latin syntax and semantics. Translated by Hotze Mulder. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pollard, C., & Sag, I.
(1994) Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pons, L.
(2008) Las construcciones imitativas del accusativus cum infinitivo: Modelos latinos y consecuencias romances. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española, 3, 118–148.Google Scholar
Pountain, C.
(1998) Learned syntax and the Romance languages: The “accusative and infinitive” construction with declarative verbs in Castilian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 96(2), 159–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rostila, J.
(2005) Zur Grammatikalisierung bei Präpositionalobjekten. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 135–166). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rytting, C.A.
(1999) Small clauses and indirect discourse in Latin prose. LACUS Forum, 25, 443–458.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.A.
(2002) Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26, 125–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Timnyam, N. & Bergen, B.K.
(2010) A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 137–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torre, E.
(2011) Grounding meaning in everyday experience in the world. An embodied Construction Grammar analysis of Italian caused-motion constructions. (Unpublished M.A. Thesis). University of Pavia, Italy.Google Scholar
(2012) Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions: An Embodied Construction Grammar approach. Constructions. Retrieved from http://​elanguage​.net​/journals​/constructions​/article​/view​/3438.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T.
(Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Traugott, E.C.
(Eds.) (2010) Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsujimura, N.
(2005) A constructional approach to mimetic verbs. In M. Fried, & H.C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions – Back to the roots [Constructional Approaches to Language Series, 4] (pp. 137–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Urrutia Cárdenas, H., & Álvarez Álvarez, M.
(1988) Morfosintaxis histórica del español. Bilbao: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, J., & Rojo, A.
(2008) What can language learners tell us about constructions?In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar – Volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 197–229). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Visser, F.T.
(1963/1973) An historical syntax of the English language. 3 parts; 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Boas, Hans C.
2020.  In The Handbook of English Linguistics,  pp. 277 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2020. 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.