Article published in:
Metaphor in Education: A multilingual perspective
Edited by Katrin Ahlgren, Anne Golden and Ulrika Magnusson
[Metaphor and the Social World 11:2] 2021
► pp. 235260
References
Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K.
(2009) Age of Onset and Native-likeness in a Second Language: Listener Perception Versus Linguistic Scrutiny. Language Learning, 591, 249–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E.
(2001) Bilingualism in Development. Language, Literacy, & Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanco, C.
(2015) Phrasem-Konstruktionen und lexikalische Idiom-Varianten: der Fall der komparativen Phraseme des Deutschen. In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, K. Proost & E. Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstrukturen zwischen Valenz und Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(1998) The Emergent Lexicon. In M. Gruber, C. Higgins, K. Olson & T. Wysock (Eds.), CLS 34: The Panels (pp. 421–439). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
(2006) From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language, 821, 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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 & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D. & Goldberg, A.
(2005) Fast mapping of phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 81, 500–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S. & Mollica, F.
(2016) A construction-based analysis of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 53–87). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ekberg, L.
(1999) Användningen av komplexa predikat hos invandrarbarn i Rosengård. In L-G. Andersson, A. Lundqvist, K. Norén & L. Rogström (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning. 23. Förhandlingar vid Tjugo-tredje sammankomsten för svenskans beskrivning (pp. 86–95). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2013) Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Wulff, S.
(2014) Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 75–93). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1988) The mechanisms of construction grammar. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, February 13–15, 1988 : General session and parasession on grammaticalization (pp. 35–55). Berkeley: BLS. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. & De Knop, S.
(2016) Exploring L2 constructionist approaches. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 2–17). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Håkansson, C., Lyngfelt, B. & Brasch, B.
(2019) Typfall och mönsterigenkänning – konstruktionsbaserad andraspråksundervisning i praktiken. In M. Bianchi, D. Håkansson, B. Melander, L. Pfister, M. Westman & C. Östman (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 361 (pp. 107–117), Uppsala.Google Scholar
Herbst, T.
(2016) Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards pedagogical construction grammar. In S. DeKnop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 355–377). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 21–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S.
(2021) Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism. A Construction Grammar approach. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder, Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holme, R.
(2010) A construction grammar for the classroom. IRAL 48(4). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K.
(1992) Non-native features of Near-native speakers: On the Ultimate Attainment of Childhood L2 Learners. In R. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 351–368). Amsterdam, London, New York & Tokyo: North Holland. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Källström, R. & Lindberg, I.
(2011) Introduction. In R. Källström & I. Lindberg (Eds.) Young Urban Swedish: Variation and change in multilingual settings. (Göteborgsstudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap 14.) Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
Konopka, A. E. & Bock, K.
(2009) Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 581, 68–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2009) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loenheim, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S.
(2016) Constructicography meets (second) language education. On constructions in teaching aids and the usefulness of a Swedish constructicon. In S. DeKnop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 327–355). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mühlenbock, K.
(2009) Readable, legible or plain word: Presentation of an easy-to-read Swedish corpus. Multilingualism, Proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 81, 325–327.Google Scholar
Mühlenbock, K. & Johansson Kokkinakis, S.
(2009) LIX 68 revisited. An extended readability measure. Conference paper at Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL) 2009. University of Liverpool, UK20–23 July 2009.
Olofsson, J. & Prentice, J.
(2020) För tre enorma öl sedan: Befästning av semi-schematiska konstruktioner i L2-svenska. Språk och Stil. Tidskrift för svensk språkforskning 301, 91-16. http://​uu​.diva​-portal​.org​/smash​/get​/diva2:1513248Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A.
(2009) Conceptual Representation in the Bilingual Lexicon and Second Language Vocabulary Learning. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), The Bilingual Mental Lexicon: Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp. 125–160). Bristol, Buffalo & Toronto: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pitzl, M. L.
(2017) Communicative ‘success’, creativity and the need for de-mystifying L1 use: Some thoughts on ELF and ELT. Lingue e Linguaggi, 241, 37–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, J.
(2010a) På rak sak: Om ordförbindelser och konventionaliserade uttryck bland unga språkbrukare i flerspråkiga miljöer. (Göteborgsstudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap 13.) Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
(2010b) Käppen i hjulen: Behärskning av svenska konventionaliserade uttryck bland gymnasieelever med varierande språklig bakgrund. Rapporter i svenska som andraspråk (ROSA12.) Göteborg: Institutet för svenska som andraspråk, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
Prentice, J. & Sköldberg, E.
(2010) Klättra på väggarna eller bara vara ett med soffan? Om figurativa ordförbindelser bland ungdomar i flerspråkiga skol-miljöer. Språk och stil: tidskrift för svensk språkforskning, 201, 5–35.Google Scholar
(2011) Figurative word combinations in texts written by adolescents in multilingual school environments. In R. Källström & I. Lindberg (Eds.) Young Urban Swedish: Variation and change in multilingual settings (pp. 195–218). (Göteborgsstudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap 14.) Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 31, 3–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimension of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 271, 543–557. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–36). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton/Washington: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Språkbanken Text, Korp
(2020) <https://​spraakbanken​.gu​.se​/korp/ [viewed 1 May 2020].
Sullivan, K.
(2013) Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. (Constructional Approaches to Language 14.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenskt språkbruk: Ordbok över konstruktioner och fraser
(2003) Utgiven av Svenska språknämnden Stockholm: Norstedts ordbok.Google Scholar
Tay, D.
(2015) Lakoff and the Theory of Conceptional Metaphor. In J. Littlemore & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 49–59). London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
(2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wee, L.
(2007) Construction Grammar and English language teaching. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(121), 20–32.Google Scholar
Wray, A.
(2008) Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar