Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar

Experimental and corpus-based perspectives

Florent Perek

| University of Basel

Hardbound – Available

ISBN 9789027204394 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00

e-Book –

ISBN 9789027268754 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00

The argument structure of verbs, defined as the part of grammar that deals with how participants in verbal events are expressed in clauses, is a classical topic in linguistics that has received considerable attention in the literature. This book investigates argument structure in English from a usage-based perspective, taking the view that the cognitive representation of grammar is shaped by language use, and that crucial aspects of grammatical organization are tied to the frequency with which words and syntactic constructions are used. On the basis of several case studies combining quantitative corpus studies and psycholinguistic experiments, it is shown how a usage-based approach sheds new light on a number of issues in argument realization and offers frequency-based explanations for its organizing principles at three levels of generality: verbs, constructions, and argument structure alternations.

[Constructional Approaches to Language, 17] 2015. x, 246 pp.

Publishing status: Available

https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments	ix–x
Chapter 1. Introduction	1–12
Part I. Verbs
Chapter 2. Usage-based perspectives on verb valency	15–44
Chapter 3. Empirical evidence for usage-based valency	45–76
Part II. Constructions
Chapter 4. The usage basis of constructional meaning	79–104
Chapter 5. The importance of local generalizations	105–142
Part III. Alternations
Chapter 6. Alternations as units of linguistic knowledge	145–174
Chapter 7. The usage basis of alternation based productivity	175–210
Conclusion
Chapter 8. Summary and evaluation	211–218
References	219–234
Appendix	235–238
Constructions index	239–240
Name index	241–244
Subject index	245–246

“In this data-rich, theoretically sophisticated volume, Perek offers many new and intriguing insights into our usage-based knowledge of argument structure. Inspiring!”

Adele Goldberg, Princeton University

“This book offers a lucid and theoretically inspiring empirical study of argument structure in English from a usage-based perspective; an absolute must-read for anyone, regardless of theoretical inclination, working on verb valency, argument structure, and alternations.”

Maarten Lemmens, Université Lille 3

“Within the research program of Construction Grammar, the topic of argument structure has a central place. In this book, Florent Perek takes up existing constructional research and shows how corpus-linguistic studies and experimental methods can be combined to arrive at a truly usage-based understanding of how verbs and their arguments form part of speakers' linguistic knowledge. For anybody who is interested in current constructional theory and methodology, this is required reading.”

Martin Hilpert, University of Neuchâtel

References

Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M.

(1997) Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 952–965.

Albright, A., & Hayes, B.

(2003) Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161.

Allerton, D.

(1982) Valency and the English verb. London/New York: Academic Press.

Anderson, S.R.

(1971) On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7(3), 387–396.

Arnon, I., & Snider, N.

(2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82.

Baayen, H.

(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baayen, H., & Lieber, R.

(1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29, 801–844.

Baayen, H., & Milin, P.

(2010) Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.

Baayen, H., Davidson, D.J., & Bates, D.M.

(2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.

Baayen, R.H.

(1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G.E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Baker, C.F., & Ruppenhofer, J.

(2002) FrameNet’s Frames vs. Levin’s Verb Classes. In J. Larson & M. Paster (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 27–38). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Baker, C.L.

(1979) Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4), 533–581.

Bannard, C., & Matthews, D.

(2008) Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19(3), 241–248.

Barðdal, J.

(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.

(Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Barsalou, L.W.

(1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.

(1992) Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In E. Kittay & A. Lehrer (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 21–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L.

(1988) From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bencini, G.M.L., & Goldberg, A.E.

(2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651.

Biber, D.

(1993) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257.

Blumenthal-Dramé, A.

(2012) Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Boas, H.C.

(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

(2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144.

(2010) Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 54–82.

(2011a) A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations with build-verbs. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English (pp. 207–234). London: Equinox.

(2011b) Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303.

(2014) Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 89–112.

Bod, R.

(1998) Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Borer, H.

(2003) Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In J. Moore & M. Polinsky (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp. 31–67). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Bowerman, M.

(1982a) Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di Semantica, III, 5–66.

(1982b) Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In E. Wanner & L.R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319–346). New York: Academic Press.

(1988) The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73–101). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Boyd, J.K., & Goldberg, A.E.

(2011) Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87(1), 55–83.

Boyd, J.K., Gottschalk, E.A., & Goldberg, A.E.

(2009) Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 64–89.

Braine, M.D.S.

(1963) The ontogeny of English phrase structure: The first phase. Language, 39(1), 1–14.

Bresnan, J.

(1982) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

(2001) Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

(2007) Is knowledge of syntax probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In S. Featherston & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (pp. 75–96). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bresnan, J., & Ford, M.

(2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213.

Bresnan, J., & Nikitina, T.

(2009) The gradience of the dative alternation. In L. Uyechi & L.-H. Wee (Eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life (pp. 161–184). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H.

(2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.

Briscoe, T., & Copestake, A.

(1999) Lexical rules in constraint-based grammars. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 487–526.

Broccias, C.

(2001) Allative and ablative at-constructions. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), CLS 37: The main session. Papers from the 37th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 1, pp. 67–82). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Brooks, P.J., & Tomasello, M.

(1999) Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 29–44.

Bybee, J., & McClelland, J.L.

(2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. In N.A. Ritter (Ed.), The role of linguistics in cognitive science. Special issue of The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 381–410.

Bybee, J.

(1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455.

(2000) The phonology of the Lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 65–85). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.

(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.

(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355.

Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.

(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bybee, J., & Moder, C.L.

(1983) Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270.

Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J.

(1999) The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37, 575–596.

Bybee, J., & Slobin, D.I.

(1982) Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265–289.

Bybee, J., & Thompson, S.

(1997) Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23, 65–85.

Cappelle, B.

(2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions, Special Volume 1 , 1–28.

Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A.E.

(2005) Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8(6), 500–508.

Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A.E.

(2003) Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90, 29–49.

Chomsky, N.

(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

(1981) Lectures on government and binding: The pisa lectures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clahsen, H., & Rothweiler, M.

(1992) Inflectional rules in children’s grammars: Evidence from the development of participles in German. In Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp. 1–34).

Clark, E., & Clark, H.

(1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55(4), 767–811.

Clark, E.V.

(1978) Discovering what words can do. Chicago Linguistic Society, 14, 34–57.

Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Connine, C.

(1984) Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 696–708.

Colleman, T.

(2009) The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–221.

(2010) Beyond the dative alternation: The semantics of the Dutch aan-dative. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 271–303). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B.

(2009) ‘Caused motion?’ The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 5–42.

Collins, P.

(1995) The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33, 35–49.

Connine, C., Ferreira, F., Jones, C., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L.

(1984) Verb frame preferences: Descriptive norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(4), 307–319.

Conwell, E., & Demuth, K.

(2007) Early syntactic productivity: Evidence from dative shift. Cognition, 103, 163–179.

Croft, W.

(1998) Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 151–173.

(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

(2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Croft, W., Taoka, C., & Wood, E.J.

(2001) Argument linking and the commercial transaction frame in English, Russian and Japanese. Language Sciences, 23, 579–602.

Dang, T.H., Kipper, K., Palmer, M., & Rosenzweig, J.

(1998) Investigating regular sense extensions based on intersective Levin classes. Proceedings of COLING-ACL , Montréal (pp. 293–299).

Davies, M.

(2008) The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/

Desmet, T., & Gibson, E.

(2003) Disambiguation preferences and corpus frequencies in noun phrase conjunction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 353–374.

Desmet, T., De Baecke, C., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., & Vonk, W.

(2006) Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(4), 453–485.

Diessel, H.

(2007) Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127.

Dik, S.C.

(1989) The theory of functional grammar, Parts 1 & 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dixon, R.M.W.

(1991) A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dowty, D.R.

(1978) Lexically governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 393–426.

(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.

Eddington, D., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.

(2010) Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 213–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ellis, N.C., & O’Donnell, M.B.

(2011) Robust language acquisition – an emergent consequence of language as a complex adaptive system. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 3512–3517). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.

(2012) Statistical construction learning: Does a Zipfian problem space ensure robust language learning? In J. Rebuschat & J. Williams (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 265–304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ellis, N.C.

(1996) Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.

(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), 143–188.

Ellis, N.C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.

(2009) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(iii), 370–385.

Ellis, N.C., O’Donnell, M.B., & Römer, U.

(2014) The processing of verb-argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency and prototypicality. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(1), 55–98.

Emonds, J.

(1972) Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language, 8(4), 546–561.

Erman, B., & Warren, B.

(2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.

Erteschik-Shir, N.

(1979) Discourse constraints on dative movement. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 12. Discourse and syntax (pp. 441–467). New York: Academic Press.

Faber, P.B., & Mairal Usón, R.

(1999) Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Faulhaber, S.

(2011a) Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

(2011b) Idiosyncrasy in verb valency patterns. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346.

Fellbaum, C.

(Ed.) (1998) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J.

(1991) Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 725–745.

Ferretti, T.R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A.

(2001) Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516–547.

Fillmore, C.J., & Atkins, B.T.

(1992) Towards a frame-based Lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

(1994) Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. In B.T. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approaches to the Lexicon (pp. 349–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fillmore, C.J.

(1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

(1970) The grammar of hitting and breaking. In R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 120–133). Waltham, MA: Ginn.

(1977) Topics in lexical semantics. In R.W. Cole (Ed.) Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, VI(2), 222–254.

(1999) Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig, & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (pp. 113–128). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Fillmore, C.J., & Kay, P.

. (ms.). Construction grammar (course reader). Berkeley: University of California.

Fillmore, C.J., Lee-Goldman, R.R., & Rhodes, R.

(2012) The framenet constructicon. In H.C. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Forster, K.I.

(2010) Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 347–357.

Forster, K.I., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L.

(2009) The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 163–171.

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.

Gahl, S.

(2008) Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474–496.

Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S.M.

(2004) Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775.

Gahl, S., Jurafsky, D., & Roland, D.

(2004) Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behavior Research Methods, 36(3), 432–443.

García Velasco, D.

(2009) Innovative coinage: its place in the grammar. In C. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

García Velasco, D.

(2011) The causative/inchoative alternation in functional discourse grammar. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 115–136). London/Oakville: Equinox.

Garnsey, S.M., Pearlmutter, N.J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M.A.

(1997) The contribution of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93.

Gawron, J.-M.

(1983) Lexical representations and the semantics of complementation. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

Givón, T.

(1984) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

(1990) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Glynn, D.

(2010) Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In K. Fischer & D. Glynn (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–270). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Goldberg, A.E.

(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356.

(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 131–153.

(2013) Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28(4), 435–465.

(2014) Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 113–135.

Goldberg, A.E., & Casenhiser, D.M.

(2006) Learning argument structure constructions. In E.V. Clark & B. Kelly (Eds.), Constructions in acquisition (pp. 185–204). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Goldberg, A.E., Casenhiser, D.M., & Sethuraman, N.

(2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316.

Goldwater, M.B., Tomlinson, M.T., Echols, C.H., & Love, B.C.

(2011) Structural priming as structure-mapping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production. Cognitive Science, 35, 156–170.

Green, G.

(1974) Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Gregory, M.L., Raymond, W.D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D.

(1999) The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Chicago Linguistic Society, 35, 151–166.

Gries, S.T.

(2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.

(2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399.

(2007) New perspectives on old alternations. In J.E. Cihlar, A.L. Franklin, & D.W. Kaiser (Eds.), Papers from the 39th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Vol. II, the panels (pp. 274–292). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Gries, S.T., & Stefanowitsch, A.

(2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 97–129.

Gries, S.T., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D.

(2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676.

Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.

(1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65(2), 203–257.

Gruber, J.S.

(1965) Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

(1967) Look and See. Language, 43(4), 937–947.

Guerrero Medina, P.

(2011) An antipassive interpretation of the English “conative alternation”: Semantic and discourse-pragmatic dimensions. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives (pp. 182–203). London: Equinox.

Habert, B.

(2001) Des corpus représentatifs: De quoi, pour quoi, comment? In Linguistique sur corpus: Études et réflexions (pp. 11–58). Presses Universitaires de Perpignan.

Hall, B.C.

(1965) Subject and object in modern English. MIT.

Halliday, M.A.K.

(1994) Introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.

Hare, M.L., Ford, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D.

(2001) Ambiguity and frequency effects in regular verb inflection. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 181–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J.L.

(2003) Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 281–303.

Harris, C.L.

(1998) Psycholinguistic studies of entrenchment. In J.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap (pp. 55–70). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Hay, J.

(2001) Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39, 1041–1070.

Helbig, G.

(1992) Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Herbst, T., & Uhrig, P.

(2010) Erlangen valency patternbank. Available at: http://www.patternbank.uni-erlangen.de/

Herbst, T.

(1983) Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr.

(2009) Valency – item-specificity and idiom principle. In U. Römer & R. Schulze (Eds.), Exploring the lexis–grammar interface (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

(2010) Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino . In H.-J. Schmid & S. Handl, (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns: Empirical studies (pp. 225–255). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

(2011) The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346.

Herbst, T., & Schüller, S.

(2008) An introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency approach. Tübingen: Narr.

Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I.F., & Götz, D.

(2004) A valency dictionary of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hilpert, M.

(2008) New evidence against the modularity of grammar: Constructions, collocations, and speech perception. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 483–503.

(2010) The force dynamics of English complement clauses: A usage-based account. In K. Fischer & D. Glynn (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 155–178). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hooper, J.

(1976) Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In W. Christie (Ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics (pp. 96–105). Amsterdam: NorthHolland.

Hopper, P.

(1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 139–157.

Hopper, P., & Thompson, S.

(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299.

Hunn, E.S.

(1975) A measure of the degree of correspondence of folk to scientific biological classification. American Ethnologist, 2(2), 309–327.

Hunston, S., & Francis, G.

(2000) Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Iwata, S.

(2005) The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 101–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

(2008) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jackendoff, R.

(1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

(1975) Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671.

(1976) Towards an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 89–150.

(1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

(2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, K.

(2008) Quantitative methods in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W.D.

(2001) Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kaschak, M.P., & Glenberg, A.M.

(2000) Constructing Meaning: The Role of Affordances and Grammatical Constructions in Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 508–529.

Kay, P.

(2005) Argument-structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 71–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J.

(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33.

Kilgariff, A.

(1997) I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31(2), 91–113.

Klotz, M.

(2007) Valency rules? The case of verbs with propositional complements. In T. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues (pp. 117–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G., & Bienvenue, B.

(2003) Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89(2), 67–103.

Kuperman, V., & Bresnan, J.

(2012) The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 588–611.

Laffut, A.

(1997) The spray/load alternation: Some remarks on a textual and constructionist approach. Leuvense Bijdragen, 86, 457–487.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.

(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G.

(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R.W.

(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 225–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lapata, M., Keller, F., & Schulte im Walde, S

(2001) Verb frame frequency as a predictor of verb bias. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(4), 419–435.

Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.

(2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235.

Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A.

(2001) Word frequencies in written and spoken English. London: Longman.

Lemmens, M.

(1998) Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity: Causative constructions in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Levin, B.

(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.

(2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lieven, E.V.M., Pine, J.M., & Baldwin, G.

(1997) Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–220.

Luce, R.D.

(1986) Response times. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marcotte, J.-P.

(2005) Causative alternation errors in child language acquisition (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University). Retrieved from http://www.tc.umn.edu/~marco043/files/MarcotteThesis2005.pdf

(2006) Causative alternation errors as event-driven construction paradigm completions. In E.V. Clark & B. Kelly (Eds.), Constructions in acquisition (pp. 205–232). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Mazurkewich, I., & White, L.

(1984) The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning Overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16, 261–283.

McClure, K, Pine, J.M., & Lieven, E.V.M.

(2006) Investigating the abstractness of children’s early knowledge of argument structure. Journal of Child Language, 33, 693–720.

McRae, K., Ferretti, T., & Amyote, L.

(1997) Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3), 137–176.

Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M.

(1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.

Michaelis, L.A., & Ruppenhofer, J.

(2001) Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Michaelis, L.A.

(2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual Coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 1–67.

(2005) Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Miller, G.A.

(1995) WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41.

Müller, S., & Wechsler, S.

(2014) Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 1–76.

Müller, S.

(2006) Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language, 82(4), 850–883.

Nemoto, N.

(2005) Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in construction grammar: some observations about the locative alternation. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 119–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nosofsky, R.M.

(1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.

(1988) Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 54–65.

Nosofsky, R.M., Pothos, E.M., & Wills, A.J.

(2011) The generalized context model: An exemplar model of classification. In E.M. Pothos & A.J. Wills (Eds.), Formal approaches in categorization (pp. 18–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ogura, M.

(1993) The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica, 10(1), 51–85.

Payne, T.E.

(1997) Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perek, F., & Goldberg, A.E.

. (to appear). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter.

Perek, F.

(2010) Identification de constructions grammaticales en corpus : Une approche quantitative de l’augmentation de valence. In P. Cappeau, H. Chuquet, & F. Valetopoulos (Eds.), Travaux linguistiques du CerLiCO: Vol. 23. L’exemple et le corpus: Quel statut? (pp. 165–180). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

(2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635.

(2014a) Vector spaces for historical linguistics. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland USA, June 23–25 2014.

(2014b) Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and synonymy. Corpus methods and applications in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

. (to appear). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study.

Perek, F., & Lemmens, M.

(2010) Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes, 5. Retrieved from http://cognitextes.revues.org/331

Pickering, M.J., Traxler, M.J., & Crocker, M.W.

(2000) Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447–475.

Pierrehumbert, J.

(2001) Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pinker, S., & Prince, A.

(1994) Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In S.D. Lima, R.L. Corrigan, & G.K. Iverson (Eds.), The reality of linguistic rules (pp. 353–388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pinker, S.

(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

(1991) Rules of language. Science, 253, 530–535.

Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D.S., & Frost, L.A.

(1987) Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26, 195–267.

Plag, I.

(2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pollard, C., & Sag, I.A.

(1994) Head-Driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ramchand, G.C.

(2008) Verb meaning and the Lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Randall, J.M.

(2010) Linking: The geometry of argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer.

Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.

(1998) Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97–134). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

(2008) The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167.

Rappaport, M., & Levin, B.

(1988) What to do with θ-roles? In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 21. Thematic relations (pp. 7–36). San Diego: Academic Press.

Ratcliff, R.

(1993) Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.

Reali, F., & Christiansen, M.H.

(2007) Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 1–23.

Reddy, M.J.

(1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M., & Boyes-Braem, P.

(1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439.

Salkoff, M.

(1983) Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language, 59(2), 288–346.

Schlesinger, I.M.

(1995) On the semantics of the object. In B. Aarts & C.F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description (pp. 54–74). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Schmid, H.-J., & Küchenhoff, H.

(2013) Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577.

Schmid, H.-J.

(2010) Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment? In K. Fischer & D. Glynn (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–133). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sethuraman, N.

(2004) Influence of parental input on learning argument structure constructions. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, & C.E. Smith (Eds.), On-line Proceedings supplement of Boston University Child Development 28. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/bucld/proceedings/supplement/vol28/

Stefanowitsch, A.

(2011) Argument structure: Item-based or distributed? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346.

Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S.T.

(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.

(2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43.

Stemberger, J.P., & MacWhinney, B.

(1986) Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition, 14(1), 17–26.

(1988) Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics (pp. 101–116). San Diego: Academic Press.

Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A.

(2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269.

Szmrecsanyi, B.

(2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Talmy, L.

(1985) Lexicalisation patterns: Semantic structures in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 55–149). New York: Cambridge University Press.

(1996) The windowing of attention in language. In M. Shibatani & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 235–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tao, H.

(2001) Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember . In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 symposium (pp. 116–144). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

(2003) A usage-based approach to argument structure: ‘Remember’ and ‘forget’ in spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(1), 75–95.

Taylor, J.R.

(1995) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tenny, C.

(1994) Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Tesnière, L.

(1959) Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.

Theijssen, D., ten Bosch, L., Boves, L., Cranen, B., & van Halteren, H.

(2013) Choosing alternatives: Using Bayesian Networks and memory-based learning to study the dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(2), 227–262.

Thompson, S.A.

(1990) Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In J.A. Edmonson, C. Feagin, & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space (pp. 239–253). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.

Thompson, S.A., & Hopper, P.

(2001) Transitivity, clause, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 27–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tily, H., Gahl, S., Arnon, I., Snider, N., Kothari, A., & Bresnan, J.

(2009) Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 147–165.

Tomasello, M.

(1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tomasello, M., & Brooks, P.J.

(1998) Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(4), 379–395.

Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., & Libben, G.

(2009) Are lexical bundles stored and processed as single units? Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria, 19(1), 258–279.

Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C.

(2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61, 569–613.

Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Kello, C.

(1993) Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528–553.

Van der Leek, F.

(1996) The English conative construction: A compositional account. In L.Dobrin, K. Singer, & L. McNair (Eds.), CLS 32: The main session. Papers from the 32th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 363–378). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Van Valin, R.D., & LaPolla, R.J.

(1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Valin, R.D.

(2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Valin, R.D., & Wilkins, D.P.

(1993) Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations: Remember in English and its equivalents in Mpartntwe Arrernte. In R.D. Van Valin (Ed.), Advances in role and reference grammar (pp. 499–534). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Vasilyeva, M., & Waterfall, H.

(2011) Beyond syntactic priming: Evidence for activation of alternative syntactic structures. Journal of Child Language, 39(2), 1–26.

Wiechmann, D.

(2008) Initial parsing decisions and lexical bias: Corpus evidence from local NP/S-ambiguities. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 447–463.

Willems, D.

(1981) Syntaxe, lexique et sémantique: Les constructions verbales. Ghent: Publicaties van de Faculteit van de Letteren en Wijsbegeerte.

Wilson, M.P., & Garnsey, S.M.

(2009) Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368–392.

Wonnacott, E.

(2011) Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 1–14.

Wonnacott, E., Boyd, J., Thompson, J., & Goldberg, A.E.

(2012) Input effects on the acquisition of a novel phrasal construction in 5 year olds. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 458–478.

Wonnacott, E., Newport, E.L., & Tanenhaus, M.K.

(2008) Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 165–209.

Zeldes, A.

(2013) Productive argument selection: Is lexical semantics enough? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(2), 263–291.

Zeschel, A.

(2009) What’s (in) a construction? In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 185–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

(2012) Incipient productivity. A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Zwicky, A.M.

(1971) In a manner of speaking. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(2), 223–233.

Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given

2016. References. Language Learning 66:S1 ► pp. 313 ff.

No author info given

2019. Introduction. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3 ► pp. 263 ff.

No author info given

2020. In English Resultatives [Constructional Approaches to Language, 26],

Cappelle, Bert & Ilse Depraetere

2016. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions. Constructions and Frames 8:1 ► pp. 7 ff.

Condamines, Anne

2018. Is “to fish in a river” equivalent to “to fish a river”?. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 5:2 ► pp. 208 ff.

Diessel, Holger

2019. In The Grammar Network,

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco & Christopher S. Butler

2018. Situating Valency Theory in functional-cognitive space. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:2 ► pp. 348 ff.

Granvik, Anton

2018. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 205 ff.

Groom, Nicholas

2019. Construction Grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3 ► pp. 291 ff.

Hartmann, Stefan

2019. Compound worlds and metaphor landscapes: Affixoids, allostructions, and higher-order generalizations. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 297 ff.

Herbst, Thomas

2018. In Lexical Collocation Analysis [Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences, ], ► pp. 1 ff.

Hilpert, Martin

2018. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 21 ff.

Hilpert, Martin

2019. Higher-order schemas in morphology: What they are, how they work, and where to find them. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 261 ff.

Höder, Steffen

2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 334 ff.

Kolkmann, Julia

2019. Possessive interpretation at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 244 ff.

Matusevych, Yevgen, Afra Alishahi & Ad Backus

2018. Quantifying cross-linguistic influence with a computational model. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:5 ► pp. 561 ff.

Percillier, Michael

2020. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 214 ff.

Perek, Florent & Amanda L. Patten

2019. Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3 ► pp. 354 ff.

Perini, Mário A.

2019. In Thematic Relations, ► pp. 47 ff.

PIJPOPS, DIRK, DIRK SPEELMAN, STEFAN GRONDELAERS & FREEK VAN DE VELDE

2018. Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle: evidence from argument realization. Language and Cognition 10:3 ► pp. 514 ff.

Proost, Kristel

2017. In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 17 ff.

Romain, Laurence

2017. Measuring the alternation strength of causative verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31 ► pp. 219 ff.

Rostila, Jouni

2018. In Changing Structures [Studies in Language Companion Series, 195], ► pp. 55 ff.

Serrano, María José

2018. Managing subjectivity: Omission and expression of first-person singular object a mí in Spanish media discourse. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 63:3 ► pp. 423 ff.

Silvennoinen, Olli O.

2018. Constructional schemas in variation. Constructions and Frames 10:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer

2020. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 2 ff.

Szczesniak, Konrad

2019. Variation motivated by analogy with fixed chunks. Constructions and Frames 11:1 ► pp. 79 ff.

Tian, Zhen

2019. In Cognitive Linguistics and the Study of Chinese [Human Cognitive Processing, 67], ► pp. 73 ff.

Zehentner, Eva & Elizabeth Closs Traugott

2020. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 168 ff.

Zhan, Fangqiong & Elizabeth Closs Traugott

2020. A study of the development of the Chinese correlative comparative construction from the perspective of constructionalization. Diachronica 37:1 ► pp. 83 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 may 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.

Subjects

Linguistics

Corpus linguistics

Theoretical linguistics

Syntax

Cognition and language

BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax

BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General

U.S. Library of Congress Control Number: 2014048033