Chapter published in:
Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 30] 2021
► pp. 2–13

Widening the scope

Recent trends in constructional contact linguistics

| University of Texas at Austin
| Kiel University
Published online: 03 June 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.01boa
References

References

Backus, A.
(2014) A usage-based approach to borrowability. In E. Zenner, & G. Kristiansen (Eds.), New perspectives on lexical borrowing (pp. 19–40). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. et al.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Höder, S.
(2018a) Construction grammar and language contact. An introduction. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 5–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2018b) Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Zima, E.
(2014) Towards a dialogic construction grammar. Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics 25, 457–495. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2017) What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere, & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics. Drawing a line (pp. 115–151). Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. G.
(2003) Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2016) A reflection on constructionalization and constructional borrowing, inspired by an emerging Dutch replica of the ‘time’-away construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30, 91–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Distributional assimilation in constructional semantics. On contact-related semantic shifts in Afrikaans three-argument constructions. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 143–177). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J.
(Eds.) (2018) Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G.
(Eds.) (2016) Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2013) Construction Grammar and first language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 347–364). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.
(2013) Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faraclas, N., & Klein, T. B.
(2009) Simplicity and complexity in creoles and pidgins. Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Filipović, L. & Hawkins, J. A.
(2019) The Complex Adaptive System Principles model for bilingualism. Language interactions within and across bilingual minds. International Journal of Bilingualism 23, 1223–1248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. 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
(2019) Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F.
(2008) Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(Eds.) (2016) Constructions across grammars. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S.
(2012) Multilingual constructions. A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 241–258). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014a) Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Afarli, & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 6, 202–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: a diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12, 334–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Matras, Y.
(2009) Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S.
(2000) Creolization is a social, not structural, process. In I. Neumann-Holzschuh, & E. W. Schneider (Eds.), Degrees of restructuring in Creole languages (pp. 65–84). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P.
(2013) Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 709–730. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onysko, A.
(2019) Reconceptualizing language contact phenomena as cognitive processes. In E. Zenner, A. Backus, & E. Winter-Froemel (Eds.), Cognitive contact linguistics (pp. 23–50). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3, 3–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–35). Washington: De Gruyter Mouton/American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L.
(1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E.
(Eds.) (2020) Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2019) Precursors of work on grammaticalization and constructionalization in Directions for Historical Linguistics. In H. C. Boas, & M. Pierce (Eds.), New Directions for Historical Linguistics (pp. 132–152). Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. et al.
(Eds.) (2018) Category change from a constructional perspective (Constructional Approaches to Language 20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasserscheidt, P.
(2014) Constructions do not cross languages: On cross-linguistic generalizations of constructions. Constructions and Frames 6, 305–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U.
(1953) Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, E.
(2019) ‘no volver a repetir lo mismo pa’ tras’: [V para atrás] als Konstruktion im Sprachkontakt. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 94, 105–125.Google Scholar
Zenner, E., Backus, A., & Winter-Froemel, E.
(Eds.) (2019) Cognitive contact linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zenner, E., Heylen, K., & Van de Velde, F.
(2018) Most borrowable construction ever! A large-scale approach to contact-induced pragmatic change. Journal of Pragmatics 133, 134–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D.
(2015) Converging grammars. Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar