Introduction In:
Constructions and Frames: Online-First Articles
Introduction

Constructionist views on Construction Grammar

| University of Texas at Austin
| University of Helsinki
ORCID logo | University of Gothenburg
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.C×G in the eyes of the community
    • 2.1Emergent views – a quantitative illustration
    • 2.2Themes and reflections – a qualitative illustration
    • 2.3Themes from the roundtable discussion at ICCG11 in Antwerp
  • 3.Construction grammar as a framework
  • 4.The papers in this theme issue
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (39)
References
Anthoniessen, L. (2020). Special passives across the lifespan. Cognitive and social mechanisms [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Antwerp/LMU Munich.
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.) (2012). Sign-based Construction Grammar. CSLI.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2022). Debunking some myths about the role and relevance of (restricted) semantic role sets: Some thoughts on Ágel & Höllein 2021. In F. Gallez & M. Hermann (Eds.), Cognition and Contrast. Festschrift for Sabine De Knop (pp. 65–96). Saint-Louis University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Busso, L. (2018). Coercing Italian: Psycholinguistic Investigations on Valency Coercion in Italian [Doctoral dissertation]. Pisa University.
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring functional-cognitive space. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Morphosyntax. Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desagulier, G. (2022). Changes in the midst of a construction network: a diachronic construction grammar approach to complex prepositions denoting internal location. Cognitive Linguistics, 33 (2), 339–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (111–38). Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 (2), 222–254.Google Scholar
(1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. The Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14 1, 35–55. DOI logoGoogle 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). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1995). Construction Grammar Coursebook. University of California, Berkeley. [Unpublished manuscript].Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Nikiforidou, K. (Eds.) (in press). The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Constructionist Approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 14–31). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2022). On, or, against?, (just) frequency? In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and teaching (with) constructions (pp. 47–72). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. (2018). Grammatiktheorien im Vintage-Look – viel Ideologie, wenig Ertrag. In A. Wöllstein, P. Gallmann, M. Habermann & M. Krifka (Eds.), Grammatiktheorie und Empirie in der germanistischen Linguistik (pp. 47–92). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (in press). Frequency: psychological and methodological considerations. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar. The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.) (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language, 75 (1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, J.-B., & Michaelis, L. A. (2022). Syntactic constructions in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (1), 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 1–63). CSLI.Google Scholar
Leiss, E. (2009). Konstruktionsgrammatik versus Universalgrammatik. In E. Wieland & F. Schmöe (Eds.), Wie wir sprechen und schreiben.: Festschrift für Helmut Glück zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 17–28). Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Lester, N. (2018). The syntactic bits of nouns: How prior syntactic distributions affect comprehension, production, and acquisition [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California at Santa Barbara.
Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-based Construction Grammar. In Th. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 133–152). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moretti, L. (2021). On Multiple Constructions and Multiple Factors in Language Change. The Origin of Auxiliary do [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Manchester.
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp. 1–30). CSLI.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Boas, H. C., & Kay, P. (2012). Introducing Sign-based Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp. 69–202). CSLI.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Hartmann, S. (Eds.) (2023). 35 years of constructions [Special issue]. Constructions, 15 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E. (Eds.) (2020). Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2022). Structural priming in the grammatical network: A study of English Argument Structure Constructions [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Edinburgh.
(2024). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Two sides of the same coin? Constructions and Frames, 16 (1), 30–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches. Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willich, A. (2022). Konstruktionssemantik: Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar