Article published in:
On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar
Edited by Rita Finkbeiner
[Constructions and Frames 11:2] 2019
► pp. 193219
References

[ p. 218 ]References

Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O.
(1976) L’argumentation dans la langue. Langages, 42, 5–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M.
(2008) Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Higher-level category or constructions: When many is one. Studies in Pragmatics, 17, 42–60.Google Scholar
Ariel, M., & Mauri, C.
(2018) Why use or? Linguistics, 56, 939–994. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) An ‘alternative’ core for or . Journal of Pragmatics, 149, 40–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) 2015Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bod, R.
(2006) Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples? The Linguistic Review: Special issue on exemplar-based models of language, 23, 291–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2001) Phonology and language use [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dattner, E.
(2015) Mapping the Hebrew dative constructions. Ph.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N.
(2000–2005) Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1–4: Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, R.
(2015) The grammar and pragmatics of N hin, N her (‘N thither, N hither’) in German. Pragmatics & Society, 6, 89–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
(submitted). Defaultness vs. Constructionism: The case of default constructional sarcasm and default non-constructional literalness. In H. Colston, G. Steen, & T. Matlock Eds. Metaphor in language, cognition, and communication (MiLCC). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
(2015) Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30, 290–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1979) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic 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
Grice, H. P.
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 219 ]
Kuno, S.
(1972) Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 269–320.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2016) A geometric exemplar-based model of semantic structure: The Dutch causative construction with laten . In J. Yoon & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to construction grammar (pp. 241–262). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C.
(2008) Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., & Van der Auwera, J.
(2012) Connectives. In A. Keith & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 377–401). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F.
(1976) The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French. Language, 52, 404–426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1978) A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in discourse. Language, 54, 883–906. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1986/1995) Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A.
(2002) Constructions and conversation. Unpublished MS., UC Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
(2002) Regularity in semantic change [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

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. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 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.