Cover not available
Part of
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. 1–13

Widening the scope

Recent trends in constructional contact linguistics

| University of Texas at Austin
| Kiel University
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The diasystematic approach in a nutshell
  • 3.Structure and chapters of the volume
  • References
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.01boa
References (46)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2018b). Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Zima, E. (2014). Towards a dialogic construction grammar. Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics 25, 457–495. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. G. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J. (Eds.). (2018). Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G. (Eds.). (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (Eds.). (2016). Constructions across grammars. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: 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. 241–258). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 6, 202–231. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: a diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12, 334–352. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. (2013). Language contact outcomes as the result of bilingual optimization strategies. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 709–730. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E. (Eds.) (2020). Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. et al. (Eds.). (2018). Category change from a constructional perspective (Constructional Approaches to Language 20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2015). Converging grammars. Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Beyer, Klaus
2024. A Diasystematic Approach to Multilingual Ecology: The Case of Mbum Speakers in Ngaoundéré, Cameroon. In Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions [Working Title], DOI logo
Coussé, Evie, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Julia Prentice
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.