Cover not available

Article In: Comparing Constructions in Romance and Germanic Languages
Edited by Carmen Mellado Blanco and Pedro Ivorra Ordines
[Languages in Contrast 26:2] 2026
► pp. 182–213

Towards a contrastive usage-based constructionist methodology for a cross-linguistic comparison of constructions

 | The University of Texas at Austin, USA
ORCiD logo with link | University of Almería, Spain
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This paper presents a programmatic outline of a systematic approach to contrastive linguistic research within Construction Grammar(s) (CxG(s)). We address a number of theoretical and applied problems in Contrastive Construction Grammar, including the following: (1) Defining and empirically and reliably determining constructions across languages, (2) granularity and scope questions with special focus on different levels of abstraction and/or complexity, (3) methodological issues involving reliance on comparable datasets for efficient comparison and contrast, and (4) constructional polysemy and meaning extensions across languages. Drawing on data from different languages we discuss several options for solving the problems raised above. More specifically, we adapt Boas’s (2010) proposal to use semantic frames (modelling the meaning side of constructions) as a tertium comparationis to show how different layers between forms, meanings and/or functions interact with each other across different types of constructions in their respective constructicons (Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., and Rhodes, R. 2012. The FrameNet constructicon. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas and I. Sag (eds.), 309–372. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), thus setting up the basis for a roadmap for future studies in Contrastive Construction Grammar.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The emergence of contrastive construction grammar
  • 3.Theoretical and empirical issues in contrastive construction grammar
    • 3.1Continuum of constructional correspondences
    • 3.2Granularity issue(s)
  • 4.Towards a more systematic methodology for contrastive construction grammar
  • 5.Conclusions and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (124)
References
Altenberg, B. and Granger, S. 2002. Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies. In Lexis in Contrast, B. Altenberg and S. Granger (eds), 3–50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bender, E. M. and Kathol, A. 2001. Constructional Effects of “Just Because… Doesn’t Mean…”. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, California, USA, 16–18 February 2001. 13–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. and Chang, N. 2013. Embodied Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds), 168–190. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Bilingual FrameNet Dictionaries for Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, M. González Rodríguez and C. P. Suárez Araujo (eds), Las Palmas, Spain, 27 May-2 June, 2002. Vol. IV1. 1364–1371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008b. Towards a Frame-Constructional Approach to Verb Classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 571: 17–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010b. Comparing Constructions across Languages. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas (ed.), 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, S. Engelberg, K. Proost and A. Holler (eds.), 37–69. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds.), 233–254. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Computational Resources: FrameNet and Constructicon. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, B. Dancygier (ed.), Cambridge: CUP. 549–573. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2020. A roadmap for determining the universal status of semantic frames. In R. Enghels, B. Defrancq, and M. Jansegers (Eds.), New Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics, 21–52. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2021. Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. In The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, X. Wen and R. J. Taylor (eds.), 43–77. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2022. From Construction Grammar(s) to Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions, H. C. Boas (ed.), 3–43. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2025a. Constructional Syntax. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, M. Fried and K. Nikiforidou (eds.), 44–70. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2025b. What happened to Frame Semantics? English Linguistics 411: 1–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. and Gonzálvez-García, F. (eds). 2014. Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Leino, J. and Lyngfelt, B. 2024. Constructionist Views on Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 16(2): 169–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., and Torrent, T. T. 2019. Framing Constructicography. Lexicographica 35(1): 15–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Ruppenhofer, J. and Baker, C. F. 2024. FrameNet at 25: Results and Applications. International Journal of Lexicography 38(2): 159–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., and Sag, I. A. (eds). 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. and Ziem, A. 2018a. Approaching German Syntax from a Constructionist Perspective. In Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German, H. C. Boas and A. Ziem (eds.), 1–46. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018b. Constructing a Constructicon for German: Empirical, Theoretical, and Methodological issues. In Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages, B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara and T. Timponi Torrent (eds.), 183–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borin, L. and Lyngfelt, B. 2025. Framenets and ConstructiCons. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, M. Fried and K. Nikiforidou (eds.), 71–100. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. and Gonzálvez-García, F. 2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. and Beckner, C. 2010. Usage-Based Theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, B. Heine and H. Narrog (eds.), 827–855. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2024. Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong? Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, U. and Moreno, A. I. (2005). Tertium Comparationis: A Vital Component in Contrastive Rhetoric Research. In Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan, P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe and V. Ramanathan (eds.), 153–164. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Lexical Rules vs. Constructions: A False Dichotomy. In Motivation in Language: Studies in Honour of Günter Radden, H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven and K-U Panther (eds.), 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Radical Construction Grammar. In The Handbook of Construction Grammar, G. Trousdale and T. Hoffmann (eds.), 211–232. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2022. Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s Languages. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Avis, F. 2013. Construction Grammar and Spoken Language: The Performance of Constructions in Everyday Conversation. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas and I. A. Sag (eds.), 135–162. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Knop, S. 2024. The Integration of Frequency Dimensions and Lexicalisation Preferences in Contrastive Analysis. In Constructional and Cognitive Explorations of Contrastive Linguistics, A. Baicchi and C. Broccias (eds.), 891–09. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2025. Construction-Based Language Teaching and Learning. In The Handbook of Construction Grammar M. Fried and K. Nikiforidou (eds.), 596–622. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2023. The Constructicon: Taxonomies and Networks. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellsworth, M., Ohara, K., Subirats, C., and Schmidt, T. 2006. Frame-semantic analysis of motion scenarios in English, German, Spanish, and Japanese. Talk presented at the 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar, Tokyo, 1–3 September, 2006.
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1985. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2): 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1987. The Case for Case Reopened. In Linguistic Categorization, R. Dirven and G. Radden (eds.), 137–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Inversion and Constructional Inheritance. In Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig and A. Kathol (eds.), 113–128. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. A Private History of the Concept “Frame”. In The Legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and Information into the 21st Century. Volume 11: Philosophy of Science, Syntax and Semantics, M. C. Cummings (ed.), 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Traditional Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffman and G. Trousdale (eds.), 111–132. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., and Atkins, B. T. S. 2000. Describing Polysemy: The Case of ‘Crawl’. In Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, Y. Ravin and C. Leacock (eds.), 91–110. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., and Baker, C. F. 2010. A Frames Approach to Semantic Description. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, B. Heine and H. Narrog (eds.), 313–340. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R. and Petruck, M. R. L. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., and Rhodes, R. 2012. The FrameNet constructicon. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas and I. Sag (eds.), 309–372. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M. C. 1988 [2003]. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language 64(3): 501–538. Reprinted in The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 21, M. Tomasello (ed.), 243–270. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., and Kay, P. 1993. Construction Grammar Coursebook. Ms, University of California at Berkeley Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franceschi, D. 2024. From the Reflexive to the Middle Construction: What is ‘In-Between’? a Comparison Between English and Italian. In Constructional and Cognitive Explorations of Contrastive Linguistics, A. Baicchi and C. Broccias (eds.), 71–88. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2015. Contrastive Collostructional Analysis: Causative Constructions in English and French. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 63(3): 253–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. and Gries, S. Th. 2025. Collostructional Analysis. In International Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, H. Nesi and P. Milin (eds.). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds.), 15–31. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Production, A. L. Cohn, C. Fougeron and M. K. Huffman (eds.), 467–478. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
González Romero, L. 2022. Sobre la Expresión del Movimiento en el Español Actual: La Construcción de CAMINO. In La Interfaz Léxico-Gramática: Contrastes entre el Español y las Lenguas Germánicas, J. Cuartero Otal, R. Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. P. Larreta Zulategui and M. Martínez Vázquez (eds.), 101–135. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. 2010. Contrasting Constructions in English and Spanish: The Influence of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse factors. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas (ed.), 43–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Exploring Inter-Constructional Relations in the Constructicon: A View from Contrastive (Cognitive) Construction Grammar. In Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical Perspectives and Theoretical Challenges, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, A. Luzondo Oyón and P. Pérez-Sobrino (eds.), 135–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Exploring the Pedagogical Potential of Vertical and Horizontal Relations in the Constructicon: The Case of the Family of Subjective-Transitive Constructions with decir in Spanish. IRAL — International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 57(1): 121–145.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gurevich, O. 2010. Conditional Constructions in English and Russian. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas (ed.), 87–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1993. Deutsche Syntax, Generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einer Projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S., and Steiner, E. 2012. Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English — German. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Ohara, K. H., and Boas, H. C. 2010. On Expressing Measurement and Comparison in English and Japanese. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas (ed.), 103–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2010. Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T. 2016. Foreign Language Learning is Construction Learning: Principles of Pedagogic Construction Grammar. In Applied Construction Grammar, T. Herbst and S. Schmid (eds.), 21–51. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Collostructional Analysis: Measuring Associations between Constructions and Lexical Elements. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas (ed.), 123–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirose, Y. 1991. On Certain Nominal Use of Because-Clauses. English Linguistics 81: 16–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. 2022. Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horsch, J. and Boas, H. C. 2025. Construction Grammar-Based Research on Slovak, in Slovakia: A Case Study and a Road Map. Slovenská Reč 90(2): 11–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, M. 1996. The Way Constructions Grow. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, A. Goldberg (ed.), 217–230. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. J., and Audring, J. 2020. The Texture of the Lexicon. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
James, C. 1980. Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kanetani, M. 2011. Because-Constructions in English and Kara-Constructions in Japanese: A Contrastive Construction Grammar Approach. Tsukuba English Studies 261: 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ke, P. 2019. Contrastive Linguistics. Singapore: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. P. 1990. Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Usage-Based Models of Language, M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.), 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leclercq, B. and Morin, C. 2025. The Meaning of Constructions. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leino, J. 2010. Results, Cases, and Constructions: Argument Structure Constructions in English and Finnish. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas (ed.), 103–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. 2018. Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. In Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages, B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara and T. Timponi Torrent (eds.), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., and Torrent, T. T. (eds). 2018. Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macken, L., De Clercq, O., and Paulussen, H. 2011. Dutch Parallel Corpus: A Balanced Copyright-Cleared Parallel Corpus. Meta 56(2): 374–390. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. 2001. Exclamative Constructions. In Language Universals and Language Typology: An International Handbook, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Österreicher and W. Raible (eds.), 1038–1050. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. and Lambrecht, K. 1996. Toward a Construction-Based Theory of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition. Language 72(2): 215–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morin, C. 2025. Are phonemes constructions? A plea for distinguishing function and meaning. Constructions and Frames, Online First.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oksefjell Ebeling, S., and Ebeling, J. 2020. Contrastive Analysis, Tertium Comparationis and Corpora. Nordic Journal of English Studies 19(1): 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oya, T. 1999. Er Bettelt Sich Durchs Land — eine One’s Way-Konstruktion im Deutschen? Deutsche Sprache: Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 27(4): 356–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rett, J. 2009. A Degree Account of Exclamatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, A. Riester and T. Solstad (eds.), 385–397. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas and I. A. Sag (eds.), 69–202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schafroth, E. 2020. Why Equivalence of Idioms in Different Languages Is the Exception: Arguments from a Constructional Perspective. In Contrastive Phraseology: Languages and Cultures in Comparison, P. Cotta Ramusino and F. Mollica (eds.), 129–150. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steels, L. 2013. Fluid Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds.), 153–178. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. Th. 2005. Covarying Collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tekin, Ö. 2012. Grundlagen der Kontrastiven Linguistik in Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Timyam, N. and Bergen, B. K. 2010. A Contrastive Study of the Caused-Motion and Ditransitive Constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and Pragmatic Constraints. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas (ed.), 137–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2008a. Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Incremental Development of Language: Suggestions from the Development of Degree Modifiers in English. In Variation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, R. Eckardt, G. Jäger and C. Schwarze (eds.), 219–250. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008b. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Constructions and Language Change, A. Bergs and G. Diewald (eds.), 23–45. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. and Hartmann, S. 2023. Constructionist Approaches: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, R. Boogaert, T. Colleman and R. Gijsbert (eds.), 141–180. New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Trijp, R. 2024. Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 16(2): 311–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2025. Different Constructional Approaches in Practice: A Comparative Study. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, M. Fried and K. Nikiforidou (eds.), 249–289. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villalba, X. 2015. Oraciones Exclamativas. In Enciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica, J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (ed.), 737–749. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willich, A. 2023. Konstruktionssemantik: Frames in Gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziem, A. and Ellsworth, M. 2016. Exklamativsätze im FrameNet-Konstruktikon. In Satztypen und Konstruktionen im Deutschen, R. Finkbeiner and J. Meibauer (eds.), 146–191. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue