Part of
Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 6185
Boas, H
(2003)  A constructional approach to resultatives . Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Broccias, C
(2001) Allative and ablative at-constructions. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), CLS 37: The main session: Papers from the 37th meeting of the Chicago linguistic society. Volume 1 (pp. 67–82). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Croft, W
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter 
Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R
(1991)  A new approach to English grammar: On semantic principles . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C
(1998) (Ed.). WordNet: An electronic lexical database . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Kay, P
MS). Construction Grammar (course reader) . University of California, Berkeley.
Fillmore, C
(2001) Mini-grammars of some time-when expressions in English. In J. Bybee, & M. Noonan (Eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson (pp. 31–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D
(2004) Constructions at the crossroads: The place of construction grammar between field and frame. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics , 2, 197–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–270). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(1995)  Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006)  Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N
(2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics , 15(3), 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A
(1997) I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities , 31(2), 91–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B
(1993)  En glish verb classes and alternations . Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S
(1989)  Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 1(1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Leek, F
(1996) The English conative construction: A compositional account. In 
L. Dobrin, K. Singer, & L. McNair (Eds.), CLS 32: The main session: Papers from the 32th meeting of the Chicago linguistic society (pp. 363–378). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 18 other publications

Dattner, Elitzur
2019. The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions. Linguistics 57:5  pp. 1073 ff. DOI logo
Francis, Elaine J.
2021. Gradient Acceptability and Linguistic Theory, DOI logo
2023. New Technologies and Advances in Statistical Analysis in Recent Decades. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics,  pp. 561 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Jungsoo & Okgi Kim
2023. Diachronic Developments of the Concessive Though-Fronting Construction in American English: A Corpus-Based Perspective. English Studies 104:5  pp. 804 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Jungsoo & Rok Sim
2024.  A Collostructional and Constructional Approach to the Transitive out of - ing Construction . English Studies 105:2  pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Yingying & Kevin McManus
2023. Investigating the psychological reality of argument structure constructions and N1 of N2 constructions: a comparison between L1 and L2 speakers of English. Cognitive Linguistics 34:3-4  pp. 503 ff. DOI logo
2023. Construction Grammar and Usage‐Based Theory. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics,  pp. 215 ff. DOI logo
Perek, Florent & Amanda L. Patten
2019. Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3  pp. 354 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Freek Van de Velde & Stefan Grondelaers
2021. Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics 32:3  pp. 487 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman & Antal van den Bosch
2022. Generating hypotheses for alternations at low and intermediate levels of schematicity. The use of Memory-based Learning. Linguistics Vanguard 8:1  pp. 305 ff. DOI logo
Romain, Laurence
2022. Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1  pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Shan, Weijia & Zhengjun Lin
2023. Collostructional analysis on Chinese modal verb construction neng bu neng + VP. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:2  pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Suethanapornkul, Sakol & Sarut Supasiraprapa
2023. Usage events and constructional knowledge: A study of two variants of the introductory-it construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
2023. Functional idiosyncrasies of suggesting constructions in British English. English Language and Linguistics 27:2  pp. 321 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2024. 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.