Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar

Experimental and corpus-based perspectives

| 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
© John Benjamins
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!”
“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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Albright, A., & Hayes, B.
(2003) Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allerton, D.
(1982) Valency and the English verb. London/New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S.R.
(1971) On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7(3), 387–396.Google Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N.
(2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., & Lieber, R.
(1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29, 801–844. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., & Milin, P.
(2010) Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Baker, C.L.
(1979) Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4), 533–581.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
(Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L.W.
(1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 211–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L.
(1988) From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(1993) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
(2012) Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H.C.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 54–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(2011b) Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 89–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bod, R.
(1998) Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M.
(1982a) Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di Semantica, III, 5–66.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J.K., Gottschalk, E.A., & Goldberg, A.E.
(2009) Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 64–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M.D.S.
(1963) The ontogeny of English phrase structure: The first phase. Language, 39(1), 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J.
(1982) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M.
(2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Briscoe, T., & Copestake, A.
(1999) Lexical rules in constraint-based grammars. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 487–526.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Brooks, P.J., & Tomasello, M.
(1999) Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 29–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.
(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Moder, C.L.
(1983) Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J.
(1999) The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37, 575–596. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Slobin, D.I.
(1982) Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Thompson, S.
(1997) Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23, 65–85.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions, Special Volume 1 , 1–28.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A.E.
(2005) Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8(6), 500–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A.E.
(2003) Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90, 29–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1981) Lectures on government and binding: The pisa lectures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Clark, E., & Clark, H.
(1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55(4), 767–811. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E.V.
(1978) Discovering what words can do. Chicago Linguistic Society, 14, 34–57.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Connine, C.
(1984) Lexical expectations in sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 696–708. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2009) The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P.
(1995) The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33, 35–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Connine, C., Ferreira, F., Jones, C., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L.
(1984) Verb frame preferences: Descriptive norms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 13(4), 307–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conwell, E., & Demuth, K.
(2007) Early syntactic productivity: Evidence from dative shift. Cognition, 103, 163–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(1998) Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 151–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2007) Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S.C.
(1989) The theory of functional grammar, Parts 1 & 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W.
(1991) A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D.R.
(1978) Lexically governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 393–426.Google Scholar
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C.
(1996) Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J.
(1972) Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language, 8(4), 546–561.Google Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B.
(2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Faber, P.B., & Mairal Usón, R.
(1999) Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faulhaber, S.
(2011a) Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Idiosyncrasy in verb valency patterns. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C.
(Ed.) (1998) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J.
(1991) Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(6), 725–745. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferretti, T.R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A.
(2001) Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(1977) Topics in lexical semantics. In R.W. Cole (Ed.) Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, VI(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Forster, K.I.
(2010) Using a maze task to track lexical and sentence processing. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 347–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K.I., Guerrera, C., & Elliot, L.
(2009) The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 163–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S.M.
(2004) Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 131–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28(4), 435–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 113–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E., Casenhiser, D.M., & Sethuraman, N.
(2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, G.
(1974) Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gries, S.T.
(2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Gries, S.T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J.S.
(1965) Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
(1967) Look and See. Language, 43(4), 937–947. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hall, B.C.
(1965) Subject and object in modern English. MIT.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1994) Introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hay, J.
(2001) Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39, 1041–1070. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, G.
(1992) Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2009) Valency – item-specificity and idiom principle. In U. Römer & R. Schulze (Eds.), Exploring the lexis–grammar interface (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., & Schüller, S.
(2008) An introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency approach. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I.F., & Götz, D.
(2004) A valency dictionary of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2008) New evidence against the modularity of grammar: Constructions, collocations, and speech perception. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 483–503. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.
(1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 139–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S.
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunn, E.S.
(1975) A measure of the degree of correspondence of folk to scientific biological classification. American Ethnologist, 2(2), 309–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
(2000) Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1975) Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1976) Towards an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 89–150.Google Scholar
(1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K.
(2008) Quantitative methods in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilgariff, A.
(1997) I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31(2), 91–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G., & Bienvenue, B.
(2003) Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89(2), 67–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laffut, A.
(1997) The spray/load alternation: Some remarks on a textual and constructionist approach. Leuvense Bijdragen, 86, 457–487.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 225–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.
(2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A.
(2001) Word frequencies in written and spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M.
(1998) Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity: Causative constructions in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E.V.M., Pine, J.M., & Baldwin, G.
(1997) Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R.D.
(1986) Response times. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I., & White, L.
(1984) The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning Overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16, 261–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., Ferretti, T., & Amyote, L.
(1997) Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3), 137–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M.
(1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L.A., & Ruppenhofer, J.
(2001) Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L.A.
(2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual Coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.A.
(1995) WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S., & Wechsler, S.
(2014) Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 1–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S.
(2006) Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language, 82(4), 850–883. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R.M.
(1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 54–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ogura, M.
(1993) The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica, 10(1), 51–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, T.E.
(1997) Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
. (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​/331Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
(1991) Rules of language. Science, 253, 530–535. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D.S., & Frost, L.A.
(1987) Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26, 195–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
(2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C., & Sag, I.A.
(1994) Head-Driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G.C.
(2008) Verb meaning and the Lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J.M.
(2010) Linking: The geometry of argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2008) The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R.
(1993) Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salkoff, M.
(1983) Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language, 59(2), 288–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S.T.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, J.P., & MacWhinney, B.
(1986) Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition, 14(1), 17–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A.
(2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2003) A usage-based approach to argument structure: ‘Remember’ and ‘forget’ in spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(1), 75–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.R.
(1995) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tenny, C.
(1994) Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, L.
(1959) Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Brooks, P.J.
(1998) Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(4), 379–395. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R.D., & LaPolla, R.J.
(1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.D.
(2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vasilyeva, M., & Waterfall, H.
(2011) Beyond syntactic priming: Evidence for activation of alternative syntactic structures. Journal of Child Language, 39(2), 1–26.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, D.
(2008) Initial parsing decisions and lexical bias: Corpus evidence from local NP/S-ambiguities. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 447–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, D.
(1981) Syntaxe, lexique et sémantique: Les constructions verbales. Ghent: Publicaties van de Faculteit van de Letteren en Wijsbegeerte.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, E.
(2011) Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeldes, A.
(2013) Productive argument selection: Is lexical semantics enough? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(2), 263–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Incipient productivity. A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A.M.
(1971) In a manner of speaking. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(2), 223–233.Google Scholar
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
No author info given
2020.  In Frame-Constructional Verb Classes [Constructional Approaches to Language, 28], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In Corpora, Constructions, New Englishes [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 100], Crossref logo
Busso, Lucia, Alessandro Lenci & Florent Perek
2020. Valency coercion in Italian. Constructions and Frames 12:2 ► pp. 171 ff. 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
Haugen, Tor Arne
2020. When complementation gets specific: A study of collocational preferences in verb–object combinations in Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 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 25 november 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
Syntax
Cognition and language
Theoretical linguistics
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014048033 | Marc record