Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp. 94111
References

[ p. 109 ]References

Allerton, D. J.
(1978) Generating indirect objects in English. J. Linguistics, 14, 21–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2010a) The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’ constructions: A case study of English, German, French and Dutch. In F. Zúniga & S. Kittila (Eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies (pp. 219–243). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Lectal variation and constructional semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Recent advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 119–221). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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 honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/
Galera Masegosa, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2012) Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences, 34, 54–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(2006) Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1992) The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 110 ]
Gonzálvez-García, F.
(2009) The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31, 663–723. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. M.
(1974) Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Groefsema, M.
(2001) The real-world colour of the dative alternation. Language Sciences, 23, 525–550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.
(1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, M.
(1995) The structure and surface form of benefactives and other prepositional grammatical relations. In C. S. Burgess, K. Dziwirek & D. Gerdts (Eds.), Grammatical relations. Theoretical approaches to empirical questions (pp 117–129). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kay, P.
(2005) Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Fried, M. & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp 71–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction In C. B. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
(2003) Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In E. Francis & L. A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 259–310). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
(2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 355–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paszenda, J.
(2017) Motivation behind the extended senses of the Polish ditransitive construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, A. Luzondo Oyón & P. Pérez Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp. 219–243). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosca, A.
(2012) Accounting for the constructional behavior of “fetch”, “find”, “gather” and “reach”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 64, 163–175.Google Scholar
Rosca, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2016) Why *John can’t contribute Mary money. Constructional behavior of contribute verbs. Odisea, 17, 139–157.Google Scholar
[ p. 111 ]
Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
(1996) The Polish dative. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck, (Eds.), The dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive studies (pp. 341–394). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp 231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Mairal Usón, R.
(2011) Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.) Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M.
(1996) Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 157–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T.
(1963) An historical syntax of the English language, Part 1: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar