Introduction
Investigating the constructicon
Article outline
- 1.Motivation
- 2.Aims and structure
-
References
References (65)
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A.
2010 Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology.
Corpora 5(1), 1–27.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A.
2011 West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction.
Linguistics 49(1), 53–104.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergen, B., & Chang, N.
2013 Embodied Construction Grammar. In
T. Hoffmann, &
G. Trousdale (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (168–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergen, B., & Plauché, M.
2001 Extensions of deictic and existential constructions in French: Voilà, voici and Il y a. In
A. Cienki,
B. Luka, &
M. Smith (Eds.),
Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (45–61). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergen, B., & Plauché, M.
2005 The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials.
Cognitive Linguistics 16(1), 1–42.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boas, H.
2003 A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boas, H., & Gonzálvez, F.
Broccias, C.
2003 The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez, F.
Croft, W.
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W.
2013 Radical Construction Grammar. In
T. Hoffmann, &
G. Trousdale (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (211–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
2010 Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In
E. Tabakowska,
M. Choiński, &
L. Wiraszka (Eds.),
Cognitive Linguistics in action. From theory to application and back (13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, R. M. W.
1991 A new approach to English grammar. On semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C.
1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding.
Quaderni di Semantica 6(2), 222–254.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C.
1988 The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [BLS 14], 35–55.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, C.
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone.
Language, 64, 501–538.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O.
Geeraerts, D.
1998/2006 The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In
W. Van Langendonck, &
W. Van Belle (Eds.),
The Dative II (185–210). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Geeraerts, D. 2006
Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics (175–197). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N., & Russle, K.
2004 Contrastive focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper).
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 307–357.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
1996 Making one’s way through the data. In
A. Alsina,
J. Bresnan, &
P. Sells (Eds.),
Complex predicates (151–173). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
2013 Constructionist approaches. In
T. Hoffmann, &
G. Trousdale (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A., & Del Giudice, A.
2005 Subject-auxiliary inversion: A natural category.
The Linguistic Review, 22, 411–428.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R.
2004 The English resultative as a family of constructions.
Language 80(3), 532–568.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gonzálvez, F.
2008 Towards a constructionist, usage-based reappraisal of interpersonal manipulation: Evidence from secondary predication in English and Spanish.
Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57, 109–136.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gonzálvez, F.
2009 The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis.
Language Sciences, 31, 663–723.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gonzálvez, F.
2011 Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction.
Linguistics 49(6), 1305–1358.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gonzálvez, F.
2014 “That’s so a construction!”. Some reflections on innovative uses of “so” in Present-day English. In
M. A. Gómez,
F. Ruiz de Mendoza, &
F. Gonzálvez (Eds.),
Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space (271–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gonzálvez, F., & Butler, C.
Herbst, T.
2014 The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In
T. Herbst,
H.-J. Schmid, &
S. Faulhaber (Eds.),
Constructions – collocations – patterns (167–216). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, M.
2014 Construction Grammar and its applications to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
(Eds.) 2013 The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, P.
2001 Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In
M. Pütz,
S. Niemeier, &
R. Dirven (Eds.),
Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory and language acquisition (109–129). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Janda, L.
1990 The radial network of grammatical category: Its genesis and dynamic structure.
Cognitive Linguistics 1(3), 269–288.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. F.
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction.
Language 75(1), 1–33.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keller, R.
1995 Zeichentheorie. Zu einer Theorie semiotischen Wissens. Tübingen: Francke.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levin, B.
1993 English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M.
Peña, M. S.
2009 Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction.
Language Sciences 31(6), 740–765.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peña, M. S.
2015 A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs.
Linguistics 53(6), 1247–1302.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pérez, L.
2013 lllocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification link.
Language & Communication 33(2), 128–149.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.
1975 Family resemblances. Studies in the internal structure of categories.
Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Baicchi, A.
2007 Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In
I. Kecskes, &
L. R. Horn (Eds.),
Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (95–127). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A.
Sag, I., Boas, C., & Kay. P.
2012 Introducing sign-based construction grammar. In
H. C. Boas, &
I. Sag (Eds.),
Sign-Based Construction Grammar (1–29). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R.
1976 A classification of illocutionary acts.
Language in Society, 5, 1–23.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R.
1979 Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shibatani, M.
1985 Passives and related constructions.
Language 61(4), 821–48.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steels, L.
2012 Design methods for Fluid Construction Grammar. In
L. Steels (Ed.),
Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar (3–36). Springer: Berlin.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tenny, C. L.
1994 Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Torre, E.
2012 Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions. An Embodied Construction Grammar approach.
Constructions, 1, 1–38.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
2007 The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van der Leek, F.
1996 The English conative construction: A compositional account.
Papers from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 32, 363–378.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Welke, K.
2011 Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wittgenstein, L.
1955 Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
Olguín Martínez, Jesús
2024.
Semantically negative adverbial clause-linkage: ‘let alone’ constructions, expletive negation, and theoretical implications.
Linguistic Typology 28:1
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Olguín Martínez, Jesús & Alonso Vásquez Aguilar
2024.
Counterfactual conditional strategies in some Amazonian languages.
LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas 24
► pp. e024010 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Penadés Martínez, Inmaculada
2020.
Consecutive intensifying constructional idioms.
Romanica Olomucensia 32:1
► pp. 127 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 july 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.