Chapter published in:
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 1–13

Introduction

Investigating the constructicon

| University of La Rioja
| National Distance Education University, Madrid
| University of Birmingham
Article outline
  • 1.Motivation
  • 2.Aims and structure
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.01rui
References
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A.
2009 Motivation of construction meaning and form: The role of metonymy and inference. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N.
2005 Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (147–190). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Embodied Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (168–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
2005 The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics 16(1), 1–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H.
2003 A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H., & Gonzálvez, F.
(Eds.) 2014 Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C.
2003 The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez, F.
2014 Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Lexical Rules vs. Constructions: A False Dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Radical Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (211–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
Dixon, R. M. W.
1991 A new approach to English grammar. On semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.
1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
1988 The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [BLS 14], 35–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, C.
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M.
2007 Constructing grammatical meaning: Isomorphism and polysemy in Czech reflexivization. Studies in Language 31(4), 721–764. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O.
(Eds.) 2004 Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Del Giudice, A.
2005 Subject-auxiliary inversion: A natural category. The Linguistic Review, 22, 411–428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R.
2004 The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3), 532–568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
2009 The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis. Language Sciences, 31, 663–723. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics 49(6), 1305–1358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Gonzálvez, F., & Butler, C.
2006 Mapping functional cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Hilpert, M.
2014 Construction Grammar and its applications to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
(Eds.) 2013 The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S.
2008 The locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L.
1990 The radial network of grammatical category: Its genesis and dynamic structure. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3), 269–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. F.
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1), 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keller, R.
1995 Zeichentheorie. Zu einer Theorie semiotischen Wissens. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
1993 English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S.
2010 English prepositions explained. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luzondo, A.
2014 Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(1), 30–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M.
(Eds.) 2005 Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peña, M. S.
2009 Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences 31(6), 740–765. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs. Linguistics 53(6), 1247–1302.Google Scholar
Pérez, L.
2013 lllocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification link. Language & Communication 33(2), 128–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.
1975 Family resemblances. Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A.
2014 Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Searle, J. R.
1976 A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979 Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M.
1985 Passives and related constructions. Language 61(4), 821–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L.
2012 Design methods for Fluid Construction Grammar. In L. Steels (Ed.), Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar (3–36). Springer: Berlin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. L.
1994 Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torre, E.
2012 Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions. An Embodied Construction Grammar approach. Constructions, 1, 1–38.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
2007 The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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
Welke, K.
2011 Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
1955 Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar