Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 24] 2018
► pp. 5–36

Construction Grammar and language contact

An introduction

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical approaches to language contact phenomena
  • 3.Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics
  • 4.Constructions in contact
  • 5.Overview of the chapters
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.01boa
References (103)
References
Ackerman, F., & Webelhuth, G. (1998). A theory of predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2007). Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic typology (Explorations in linguistic typology 4) (pp.1–66). Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bäckstrom, L., Lyngfelt, B., & Sköldberg, E. (2018). Towards interlingual constructicography. On correspondence between construction resources for English and Swedish. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. Torrent (Eds.), Interlingual Constructicography. (pp.41–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Blevins, M. (This volume). A constructional account to progressive aspect in Texas German.
Boas, H. C. (2001). Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie, & S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001 (pp.64–73). Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language Technical Papers.Google Scholar
(2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2005a). From Theory to Practice: Frame Semantics and the Design of FrameNet. In S. Langer, & D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im Lexikon (pp.129–160). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2005b). Semantic Frames as Interlingual Representations for Multilingual Lexical Databases. International Journal of Lexicography, 18(4), 445–478.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). From the field to the web: implementing best-practice recommendations in documentary linguistics. Language Resources and Evaluation, 40(2), 153–174.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2009). Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a). Comparing constructions across languages. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp.1–20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 54–82.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In S. Engelberg, K. Proost, & A. Holler (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp.37–69). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013a). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013b). Wie viel Wissen steckt in Wörterbüchern? Eine frame-semantische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 57, 75–97.Google Scholar
(2014). Zur Architektur einer konstruktionsbasierten Grammatik des Deutschen. In A. Lasch, & A. Ziem (Eds.), Grammatik als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen. Sprachwissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik. (Sprache und Wissen 15) (pp.37–63). Berlin: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Computational Resources: FrameNet and Constructicon. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.549–573). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Dux, R. J. (2017) From the past into the present: From case frames to semantic frames. Linguistics Vanguard, 1–14.DOI: DOI logo
Boas, H. C., & Pierce, M. (2011). Lexical developments in Texas German. In M. Putnam (Ed.), Studies on German language islands (pp.129–150). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Pierce, M., Roesch, K., Halder, G., & Weilbacher, H. (2010). The Texas German Dialect Archive: A Multimedia Resource for Research, Teaching, and Outreach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 22.3, 277–296.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Burridge, K. (1995). Evidence of grammaticalization in Pennsylvania German. In H. Andersen (Ed.), Historical linguistics 1993. Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993 (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4: Current issues in linguistic theory 124) (pp.59–75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. press.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (1991). Community languages: The Australian Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle 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 Honor of Günther Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.211–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dux, R. (2016). A usage-based approach to verb classes in English and German. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). The University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
(This volume). The effects of verb borrowing on word order constructions in Texas German.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
(1986). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107.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
(2007). Valency issues in FrameNet. In T. Herbst, & K. Götz-Vetteler (Eds.), Valency: theoretical, descriptive, and cognitive issues (pp.129–160). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX international congress (Vol. 4968).Google Scholar
(2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.111–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. S. (1992). Toward 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
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (pp.313–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone.’ Language, 64, 501–538.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar Course Book. UC Berkeley: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp.309–372). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Flick, J., & Kuhmichel, K. (2013). Der am-Progressiv in Dialekt und Standardsprache. In H. U. Schmid, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Jahrbuch für germanistische Sprachgeschichte, 4(1), 52–76.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: a thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp.11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, K. (2017). Word order in dependent clauses in Texas German. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 84, 1–19.
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, V., & van der Auwera, J. (2012). What is ‘contact-induced grammaticalization’? Examples from Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean languages. In B. Wiemer, B. Wälchli, & B. Hansen (Eds.), Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact (pp.383–429). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, G. (1972). The Linguistic Atlas of Texas German. Austin: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Constructionist Approaches. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guion, S. (1996). The death of Texas German in Gillespie County. In S. Ureland, & I. Clarkson (Eds.), Language Contact across the North Atlantic: Proceedings of the Working Group held at University College, Galway, August 29- September 3, 1992 and the University of Göteburg, August 16–21, 1993 (pp.443–463). Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. (1950a). Problems of bilingualism. Lingua, 2, 271–290.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1950b). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210–231.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1953). The Norwegian language in America. A study in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, R. (Ed.). 2010. The handbook of language contact. Malden etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013) Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.458–475). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2016). Constructions across grammars. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: a diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp.241–257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli, & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp.137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6, 202–231.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Niederdeutsche Form, unspezifische Struktur. Diasystematische Konstruktionen in der deutsch-dänischen Kontaktzone. In H. Spiekermann et al. (Eds.), Niederdeutsch: Grenzen, Strukturen, Variation (pp.293–309). Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
(This volume). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar.
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S. (2008). Locative alternation: a lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L. (2002). Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In M. C. Jones, & E. Esch (Eds.), Language change. The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors (Contributions to the sociology of language 86) (pp.285–313). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.32–48 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krause, O. (2002). Progressiv im Deutschen: Eine empirische Untersuchung im Kontrast mit Niederländisch und Englisch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In S. Kemmer, & M. Barlow (Eds.), Usage-based methods of language (pp.1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lasch, A. (2016). Nonagentive Konstruktionen des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviola, A., Lage, L., Marção, N., Tavares, T., Almeida, V., Matos, E., & Torrent, T. (2017). The Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon: Modeling Constructional Inheritance, Frame Evocation and Constraints in FrameNet Brasil. The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding – Technical Report, 277.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. (2012). Re-thinking FNI. On null instantiation and control in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 4(1), 1–23.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Introduction: Constructicons and constructicography.In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages (pp.1–18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Sköldberg, E., & Tingsell, S. (2012). Adding a constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. Proceedings of KONVENS 2012, 452–461.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2012). Making the case for Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp.31–68). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech. A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages. Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Contact linguistics. Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2006). Constructions in cross-linguistic research: Verbs as pragmatic particles in Solv. In K. Aijmer, & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic markers in contrast (pp.237–257). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ohara, K. (2013). Toward Constructicon Building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas, 17(1), 11–27.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W. (1979). Constraints on language mixing. Intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in Spanish/English. Language, 55, 291–318.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, L. (2010). What has changed in Hiberno-English: Constructions and their role in contact-induced change. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 63, 118–145.Google Scholar
Ponelis, F. (1993). The Development of Afrikaans. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español. Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth. M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C., & Scheffczyk, J. (2010). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Boas, H. C., & Baker, C. (2013). The FrameNet approach to relating syntax and semantics. In R. H. Gouws, U. Heid, W. Schweickard, & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Dictionaries. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography (pp.1320–1329). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter/Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. (2010). English filler-gap constructions. Language 86, 486–545.Google Scholar
(2012). Sign-based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp.69–202). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sakel, J. (2007). Types of loan: matter and pattern. In Y. Matras, & J. Sakel (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (Empirical approaches to language typology 38) (pp.15–29). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T., Edison da Silva Matos, E., Lage, L., Laviola, A., Tavares, T., Gomes de Almeida, V., & Sigiliano, N. (2018). Towards continuity between the lexicon and constructicon in FrameNet Brasil. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages (pp.107–140). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology. Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Pottelberge, J. (2004). Der am-Progressiv. Struktur und parallele Entwicklung in den kontinentalwestgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wasserscheidt, P. (2014). Constructions do not cross languages: On cross-linguistic generalizations of constructions. Constructions and frames, 6, 305–337.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. Findings and problems. With a preface by André Martinet (Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York 1). New York.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (2005). An introduction to contact linguistics (Language in society 33). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ziegler, D. (2015). Converging Grammars. Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A. & Boas, H. C. (2017). Towards a Constructicon for German. In Proceedings of The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding, Technical Report SS-17-02, 274–277.Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3 volumes. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Barking, Marie, Ad Backus & Maria Mos
2022. Similarity in Language Transfer – Investigating Transfer of Light Verb Constructions From Dutch to German. Journal of Language Contact 15:1 ► pp. 198 ff. DOI logo
Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2021. Widening the scope. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Höder, Steffen, Julia Prentice & Sofia Tingsell
2021. Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Urban, Aileen
2021. Idioconstructions in conflict. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
van Rooy, Bertus
2021. A Diasystematic Construction Grammar analysis of language change in the Afrikaans and English finite verb complement clause construction. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Höder, Steffen
2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 334 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 2024. 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.