Article published in:
Frames, constructions, and computation
Edited by Lars Borin, Gerard de Melo, Karin Friberg Heppin and Tiago Timponi Torrent
[Constructions and Frames 6:1] 2014
► pp. 114135
References

References

Biemann, C., & Giesbrecht, G.. (
2011) Distributional semantics and compositionality 2011: Shared task description and results. In Proceedings of the workshop on distributional semantics and compositionality (pp. 21–28). Portland: ACL. Google Scholar
Boas, H. C.. (
in press). Zur architektur einer konstruktionsbasierten grammatik der deutchen. In A. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Grammatik als Netzwerk von konstruktionen? Sprachliches wissen im fokus der konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Borin, L., Dannélls, D., Forsberg, M., Gronostaj, M.T., & Kokkinakis, D.. (
2010) The past meets the present in Swedish FrameNet++. In 14th EURALEX international congress (pp. 269–281). Leeuwarden: EURALEX.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.. (
2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations. In Hoffmann & Trousdale (Eds.), pp. 49–69.
Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Lyngfelt, B., Prentice, J., & Sköldberg, E.. (
2013) Automatic identification of construction candidates for a Swedish constructicon. In Proceedings of the workshop on lexical semantic resources for NLP at NODALIDA 2013 (pp. 2–12 ). NEALT Proceedings Series 19.Google Scholar
Bäckström, L., Lyngfelt, B., & Sköldberg, E.. (
this issue). Towards interlingual constructicography. On correspondence between constructicon resources for English and Swedish.
Church, K. W., & Hanks, P.. (
1990) Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22–29.Google Scholar
Croft, W.. (
2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.. (
2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evert, S.. (
2005) The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Dissertation, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Fano, R. M.. (
1961) Transmission of information: A statistical theory of communications. New York: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.. (
2008) Border conflicts: FrameNet meets construction grammar. In E. Bernal & J. DeCesaris (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX international congress (pp. 49–68). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R.. (
2012) The FrameNet constructicon. In H. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 309–372). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Friberg Heppin, K., & Toporowska Gronostaj, M.. (
this issue). Exploiting FrameNet for Swedish: Mismatch?
Goldberg, A. E.. (
2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013) Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann & Trousdale (Eds.), pp. 15–31.
Gustafson-Čapková, S., & Hartmann, B.. (
2006) Manual of the Stockholm Umeå corpus version 2.0. Stockholm University.
Halácsy, P., Kornai, A., & Oravecz, C.. (
2007) HunPos – an open source trigram tagger. In Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics companion volume: Proceedings of the demo and poster sessions (pp. 209–212). Prague: ACL.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.. (
2013) Constructional change in English. developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
to appear). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.. (
Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, L. G.. (
1974) Grammar as theory. In D. Cohen (Ed.), Explaining linguistic phenomena (pp. 43–73). New York, etc.: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.. (
2002) Foundations of language. Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, C., Coenen, F., & Zito, M.. (
2013) A survey of frequent subgraph mining algorithms. The Knowledge Engineering Review 28, 75–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P.. (
2013) The limits of (construction) grammar. In Hoffmann & Trousdale (Eds.), pp. 32–48.
Kilgarriff, A., & Tugwell, D.. (
2002) Sketching words. In M.-H. Corréard (Ed.), Lexicography and natural language processing: A Festschrift in honour of B. T. S. Atkins (pp. 125–137). EURALEX.Google Scholar
Nivre, J., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., Chanev, A., Eryiğit, G., Kübler, S., Marinov, S., & Marsi, E.. (
2007) MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 13(2), 95–135.Google Scholar
Nivre, J., Megyesi, B., Gustafson-Čapková, S., Salomonsson, F., & Dahlqvist, B.. (
2008) Cultivating a Swedish treebank. In J. Nivre, M. Dahllöf & B. Megyesi (Eds.), Resourceful language technology: Festschrift in honor of Anna Sågvall Hein (pp. 111–120). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 7.Google Scholar
Ohara, K.. (
2013) Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas, 17(1), 11–27.Google Scholar
Pecina, P.. (
2010) Lexical association measures and collocation extraction. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44, 137–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svanlund, J.. (
2002) Lexikalisering [Lexicalization]. Språk och stil, 12, 7–45.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., Tavares, T., & Matos, E.. (
this issue). Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and construction grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon.
Van de Cruys, T.. (
2011) Two multivariate generalizations of pointwise mutual information. In Proceedings of the workshop on distributional semantics and compositionality (pp. 16–20). Portland: ACL.Google Scholar
Wible, D., & Tsao, N.-L.. (
2010) StringNet as a computational resource for discovering and investigating linguistic constructions. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT workshop on extracting and using constructions in computational linguistics (pp. 25–31). Los Angeles: ACL.Google Scholar
Wray, A.. (
2008) Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ziem A., Boas. H. C., & Ruppenhofer J.. (
in press). Semantische frames und grammatische konstruktionen für die textanalyse. In J. Hagemann & S. Staffeld (Eds.), Syntaxtheorien. Vergleichende analysen. Tübingen: Staffenburg.
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Antònia Martí, Maria, Mariona Taulé, Venelin Kovatchev & Maria Salamó
2019. DISCOver: DIStributional approach based on syntactic dependencies for discovering COnstructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 Crossref logo
Boas, Hans C. & Alexander Ziem
2018.  In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22],  pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo
Borin, Lars, Dana Dannélls & Normunds Grūzītis
2018.  In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22],  pp. 229 ff. Crossref logo
Cappelle, Bert & Ilse Depraetere
2016. Response to Hilpert. Constructions and Frames 8:1  pp. 86 ff. Crossref logo
Cappelle, Bert & Ilse Depraetere
2016. Response to Hilpert. Constructions and Frames 8:1  pp. 86 ff. Crossref logo
DUNN, JONATHAN
2017. Computational learning of construction grammars. Language and Cognition 9:2  pp. 254 ff. Crossref logo
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2018.  In Speaking in a Second Language [AILA Applied Linguistics Series, 17],  pp. 127 ff. Crossref logo
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Linnéa Bäckström, Lars Borin, Anna Ehrlemark & Rudolf Rydstedt
2018.  In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22],  pp. 41 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 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.