Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar

Cited by other publications

Cappelle, Bert & Ilse Depraetere

2016. Modal meaning in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Cappelle, Bert, Ilse Depraetere & Mégane Lesuisse

2019. The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should . Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 220 ff.

Daugs, Robert

2020.  In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 17 ff.

Drummen, Annemieke

2013. A constructionist approach to the potential optative in classical Greek drama. Glotta 89:1-4 ► pp. 68 ff.

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata

2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1 ► pp. 27 ff.

Hennemann, Anja

2020. Tal vez es X vs. Tal vez sea X. Probability constructions and the use of mood. Romanica Olomucensia 32:1 ► pp. 51 ff.

Hilpert, Martin

2016. Change in modal meanings. Constructions and Frames 8:1 ► pp. 66 ff.

Konvička, Martin

2017.  In De opkomst van de Nederlandse grammatica. Over grammaticalisatie en andere verwante ontwikkelingen in de geschiedenis van het Nederlands,

Melis, Chantal

2020.  In Changes in Meaning and Function [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 25], ► pp. 174 ff.

Rocci, Andrea

2017.  In Modality in Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 29], ► pp. 371 ff.

Trousdale, Graeme

2016. Response to Wärnsby. Constructions and Frames 8:1 ► pp. 54 ff.

Wärnsby, Anna

2016. On the adequacy of a constructionist approach to modality. Constructions and Frames 8:1 ► pp. 40 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 december 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.