Article published in:
On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Kiki Nikiforidou
[Constructions and Frames 7:2] 2015
► pp. 137147
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Enghels, Renata & María Sol Sansiñena
2021. Discourse-level phenomena in construction grammars. Constructions and Frames 13:1  pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Finkbeiner, Rita
2019. Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 11:2  pp. 171 ff. Crossref logo
Fried, Mirjam
2021. Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. Constructions and Frames 13:1  pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
Groom, Nicholas
2019. Construction Grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3  pp. 291 ff. Crossref logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2018. Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3  pp. 543 ff. Crossref logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2021. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in ‘stage directions’. Journal of Pragmatics 173  pp. 189 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 september 2021. 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.



Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K.
(2011) Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2594–2609. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(Eds.) (2009) Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H.
(1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2014) What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, A.
(2009) Re-fusing form in genre study. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres in the Internet (pp. 27–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drummen, A.
(2015)  Dramatic pragmatics. A discourse approach to particle use in ancient Greek tragedy and comedy . Ph.D. Thesis, University of Heidelberg.
Fillmore, C.J.
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & Connor, M.C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64, 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K.
(2010) Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Recipient design, alignment and interaction: The role of the addressee in so-called ‘simplified registers’. Habilitation Thesis, University of Bremen.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(2004) A thumbnail sketch of construction grammar. In M. Fried & J-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S., Scheidt, L.A., Bonus, S., & Wright, E.
(2004) Bridging the gap: A genre analysis of weblogs. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Hawaii.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(2001) Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P.
(2009) Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 97–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., & Londen, A.-M.
(2008) Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 105–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
(2010) Interactional frames and grammatical descriptions: The case of Japanese noun-modifying constructions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 136–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L., & Lambrecht, K.
(1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K.
2016). ‘Genre knowledge’ in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in the folk tales. In N. Stukker, W. Spooren, & G. Steen (Eds.) Genre in language, discourse and cognition Berlin/New York Mouton de Gruyter Crossref
Östman, J.-O.
(2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Puschmann, C.
(2009) Lies at Wal-Mart: Style and the subversion of genre in the Life at Wal-Mart blog. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres in the Internet (pp. 49–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L.
(2010) A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 158–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M.
(2009) On de-limiting context. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 17–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wide, C.
(2009) Interactional construction grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.111–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar