Article published in:
Constructions in Applied Linguistics
Edited by Susan Hunston and Florent Perek
[International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3] 2019
► pp. 354384
References

[ p. 384 ]References

Boas, H. C.
(2003) A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6 , 113–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82 (2), 323–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, VI (2), 222–254.Google Scholar
(1999) Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation (pp. 113–128). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T.
(1992) Towards a frame-based Lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64 (3), 501–538.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhomieux, R.
(2012) The FrameNet Constructicon. In I. A. Sag & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 283–322). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Francis, G.
(1993) A corpus-driven approach to grammar – principles, methods and examples. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp. 137–156). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S. & Manning, E.
(1996) Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
(1998) Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C.
(2014) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th Edition). London & New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Healy, A. & Miller, G.
(1970) The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 20 (6), 372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 385 ]
Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
(2000) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. & Su, H.
(2017) Patterns, Constructions, and Local Grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N.
(2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (3), 289–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S.
(2008) Locative Alternation: A Lexical-constructional Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75 (1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R., & Petruck, M. R. L.
(2018) The FrameNet Constructicon in action. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages (pp. 19–40). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. Crossref
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Sköldberg, E., & Tingsell, S.
(2012) Adding a Constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of KONVENS 2012 (LexSem 2012 workshop) (pp. 452–461). Vienna. Retrieved from http://​www​.oegai​.at​/konvens2012​/proceedings​/66​_lyngfelt12w​/66​_lyngfelt12w​.pdf (last accessed April 2019).
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T.
(Eds.) (2018) Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohara, K. H.
(2013) Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas, 17 (1), 11–27.Google Scholar
Perek, F.
(2014) Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and Synonymy: Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-based Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F., & Lemmens, M.
(2010) Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes, 5 . Retrieved from http://​cognitextes​.revues​.org​/331 (last accessed April 2019). Crossref
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J.
(2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: ICSI. Retrieved from https://​framenet2​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/docs​/r1​.7​/book​.pdf (last accessed April 2019).
Sinclair, J. et al.
(Eds.) (1995) Collins COBUILD English Dictionary 2nd Edition. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
[ p. 386 ]
Talmy, L.
(1996) The windowing of attention in language. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (pp. 235–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., Tavares, T. S., & Matos, E. E. S.
(2014) Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 6 (1), 34–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Liu, Yingying & Xiaofei Lu
2020. N1 of N2 constructions in academic written discourse: A pattern grammar analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 47  pp. 100893 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 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.