Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar

Experimental and corpus-based perspectives

| University of Basel
HardboundAvailable
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
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!”
“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.”
“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.”
References

References

Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M.
(1997) Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 952–965. Crossref link
Albright, A., & Hayes, B.
(2003) Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Baayen, H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Baayen, H., & Lieber, R.
(1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29, 801–844. Crossref link
Baayen, H., & Milin, P.
(2010) Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
Biber, D.
(1993) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. Crossref link
Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
(2012) Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(2010) Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 54–82. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2014) Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 89–112. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Boyd, J.K., Gottschalk, E.A., & Goldberg, A.E.
(2009) Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 64–89. Crossref link
Braine, M.D.S.
(1963) The ontogeny of English phrase structure: The first phase. Language, 39(1), 1–14. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Bybee, J.
(1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.
(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Bybee, J., & Moder, C.L.
(1983) Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270. Crossref link
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J.
(1999) The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37, 575–596. Crossref link
Bybee, J., & Slobin, D.I.
(1982) Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265–289. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A.E.
(2003) Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90, 29–49. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Colleman, T.
(2009) The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–221. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Collins, P.
(1995) The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33, 35–49. Crossref link
Connine, C., Ferreira, F., Jones, C., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L.
(1984) Verb frame preferences: Descriptive norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(4), 307–319. Crossref link
Conwell, E., & Demuth, K.
(2007) Early syntactic productivity: Evidence from dative shift. Cognition, 103, 163–179. Crossref link
Croft, W.
(1998) Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 151–173. Crossref link
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Diessel, H.
(2007) Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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.Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Faulhaber, S.
(2011a) Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
(2011b) Idiosyncrasy in verb valency patterns. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Ferretti, T.R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A.
(2001) Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516–547. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Forster, K.I., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L.
(2009) The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 163–171. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S.M.
(2004) Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(1990) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2013) Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28(4), 435–465. Crossref link
(2014) Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 113–135. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Gruber, J.S.
(1965) Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
(1967) Look and See. Language, 43(4), 937–947. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Helbig, G.
(1992) Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2011) The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Hilpert, M.
(2008) New evidence against the modularity of grammar: Constructions, collocations, and speech perception. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 483–503. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S.
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. Crossref link
Hunn, E.S.
(1975) A measure of the degree of correspondence of folk to scientific biological classification. American Ethnologist, 2(2), 309–327. Crossref link
Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
(2000) Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(2008) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. Crossref link
Kilgariff, A.
(1997) I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31(2), 91–113. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 225–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.
(2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Lieven, E.V.M., Pine, J.M., & Baldwin, G.
(1997) Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–220. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
McRae, K., Ferretti, T., & Amyote, L.
(1997) Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3), 137–176. Crossref link
Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M.
(1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
Miller, G.A.
(1995) WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41. Crossref link
Müller, S., & Wechsler, S.
(2014) Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 1–76. Crossref link
Müller, S.
(2006) Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language, 82(4), 850–883. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Nosofsky, R.M.
(1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57. Crossref link
(1988) Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 54–65. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Ogura, M.
(1993) The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica, 10(1), 51–85. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
. (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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D.S., & Frost, L.A.
(1987) Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26, 195–267. Crossref link
Plag, I.
(2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Randall, J.M.
(2010) Linking: The geometry of argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Salkoff, M.
(1983) Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language, 59(2), 288–346. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S.T.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. Crossref link
(2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. Crossref link
Stemberger, J.P., & MacWhinney, B.
(1986) Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition, 14(1), 17–26. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Taylor, J.R.
(1995) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tenny, C.
(1994) Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Tomasello, M.
(1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Van Valin, R.D.
(2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Wonnacott, E.
(2011) Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 1–14. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Zeldes, A.
(2013) Productive argument selection: Is lexical semantics enough? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(2), 263–291. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
(2012) Incipient productivity. A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Crossref link
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. Crossref logo
No author info given
2019. Introduction. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3  pp. 263 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2020.  In English Resultatives [Constructional Approaches to Language, 26], Crossref logo
Cappelle, Bert & Ilse Depraetere
2016. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions. Constructions and Frames 8:1  pp. 7 ff. Crossref logo
Condamines, Anne
2018. Is “to fish in a river” equivalent to “to fish a river”?. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 5:2  pp. 208 ff. Crossref logo
Diessel, Holger
2019.  In The Grammar Network, Crossref logo
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco & Christopher S. Butler
2018. Situating Valency Theory in functional-cognitive space. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:2  pp. 348 ff. Crossref logo
Granvik, Anton
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 205 ff. Crossref logo
Groom, Nicholas
2019. Construction Grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3  pp. 291 ff. Crossref logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2019. Compound worlds and metaphor landscapes: Affixoids, allostructions, and higher-order generalizations. Word Structure 12:3  pp. 297 ff. Crossref logo
Herbst, Thomas
2018.  In Lexical Collocation Analysis [Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences, ],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Hilpert, Martin
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo
Höder, Steffen
2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3  pp. 334 ff. Crossref logo
Kolkmann, Julia
2019. Possessive interpretation at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Constructions and Frames 11:2  pp. 244 ff. Crossref logo
Matusevych, Yevgen, Afra Alishahi & Ad Backus
2018. Quantifying cross-linguistic influence with a computational model. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8:5  pp. 561 ff. Crossref logo
Percillier, Michael
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 214 ff. Crossref logo
Perek, Florent & Amanda L. Patten
2019. Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3  pp. 354 ff. Crossref logo
Perini, Mário A.
2019.  In Thematic Relations,  pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo
Proost, Kristel
2017.  In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58],  pp. 17 ff. Crossref logo
Romain, Laurence
2017. Measuring the alternation strength of causative verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31  pp. 219 ff. Crossref logo
Rostila, Jouni
2018.  In Changing Structures [Studies in Language Companion Series, 195],  pp. 55 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo
Silvennoinen, Olli O.
2018. Constructional schemas in variation. Constructions and Frames 10:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Szczesniak, Konrad
2019. Variation motivated by analogy with fixed chunks. Constructions and Frames 11:1  pp. 79 ff. Crossref logo
Tian, Zhen
2019.  In Cognitive Linguistics and the Study of Chinese [Human Cognitive Processing, 67],  pp. 73 ff. Crossref logo
Zehentner, Eva & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 168 ff. Crossref logo
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. Crossref logo

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
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014048033