Chapter published in:
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 283302
References
Baayen, R. H.
2008Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
2015Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E.
2011Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87, 55–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
2008The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://​www​.americancorpus​.org.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V.
2002Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N.
2007The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
1995Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th
2015The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D.
2005Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A.
2004Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
2014Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
2015From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H.
2017Entrenchment in construction grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (57–74). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1999Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
2016Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F.
2018Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 269–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th
2005Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar