Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp. 131161


Ameka, F. K., & Levinson, S. C.
(2007) Introduction: The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals, and other beasts. Linguistics, 45(5/6), 847–871.Google Scholar
Asher, J. J.
(1982) Learning another language through actions. The complete teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, Ca.: Sky Oaks Productions.Google Scholar
Beréndi, M., Csábi, S., & Kövecses, Z.
(2008) Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 65–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N.
(2005) Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berthele, R.
(2012) On the use of PUT verbs by multilingual speakers of Romansh. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of ‟puttingˮ and ‟takingˮ: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birchfield, D.
(2015) Embodied learning: Origins and Implications. Available at: https://​www​.youtube​.com​/watch​?v​=YzahyTMq8u4
[ p. 156 ]
Blomberg, J.
(2017) Non-actual motion in language and experience. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp. 205–227). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F.
(2011) Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: An assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 227–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., De Rycker, A., & De Knop, S.
(2010) Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics: Introduction. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–26). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S.
(Eds.) (2008) Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M., Gullberg, M., Majid, A., & Narasimhan, B.
(2004) Put project: the cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field manual vol. 9 (pp. 10–24). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
De Knop, S.
(2014) Conceptual tools for the description and the acquisition of the German posture verb sitzen . In S. De Knop & F. Meunier (Eds.), Learner corpus research, Cognitive Linguistics and second language acquisition, special issue of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(1), 127–160.Google Scholar
(2016) German causative events with placement verbs. Lege Artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, 1(1), 75–115.Google Scholar
(2020) Expressions of motion events in German: an integrative constructionist approach for FLT. Cognitextes, 21.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Dirven, R.
(2008) Motion and location events in German, French and English: A typological, contrastive and pedagogical approach. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to Pedagogical Grammar – A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 295–324). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gallez, F.
(2013) Manner of motion: A privileged dimension of German expressions. In T. Fuyin Li (Ed.), Compendium of Cognitive Linguistics research, 2, 25–40.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G.
(Eds.) (2016) Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & Perrez, J.
(2014) Conceptual metaphors as a tool for the efficient teaching of Dutch and German posture verbs. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Della Putta, P.
(2016) Do we also need to unlearn constructions? The case of constructional negative transfer from Spanish to Italian and its pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 237–267). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Pietro, R. J.
(1987) Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P.
(2006) Funktionsverbgefüge – Über das Verhältnis von Unsinn und Methode. In E. Breindl, L. Gunkel & B. Strecker (Eds.), Grammatische Untersuchungen, Analysen und Reflexionen. Festschrift für Gisela Zifonun (pp. 297–318). Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
(2013) Der Satz. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T.
(2009) Constructing a second language. Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 11–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 157 ]
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
(2009a) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Constructions and their acquisition. Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., Römer, U., & Brook O’Donnell, M.
(2016) Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of Construction Grammar. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Even, S.
(2011) Studiosus cognens und studiosus ludens – Grammatik inszenieren. In A. Küppers, T. Schmidt & M. Walter (Eds.), Inszenierungen im Fremdsprachen-unterricht: Grundlagen, Formen, Perspektiven (pp. 68–92). Braunschweig: Diesterweg.Google Scholar
Fagan, S.
(1991) The semantics of the positional predicates liegen/legen, sitzen/setzen, and stehen/stellen . Unterrichpraxis/Teaching German, 24(2), 136–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S.
(2004) Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89, 385–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, W.
(1997) Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R.
(2015) Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 391–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Beitel, D. A., Harrington, M., & Sanders, P.
(1994) Taking a stand on the meanings of ‘stand’: Bodily experience as motivation for polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 11(4), 231–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., & De Knop, S.
(2016) Exploring L2 constructionist approaches. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 3–17). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019) Explain me this. Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
González Rey, M. I.
(2013) Presentation: Phraseodidactics, an applied field of phraseology. In M. I. González Rey (Ed.), Phraseodidactic studies on German as a foreign language/Phraseodidaktische Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache (pp. 7–10). Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M.
(2009) Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language: How English speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 222–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, A.
(2006) Funktionsverbgefüge in System, Text und korpusbasierter (Lerner-) Lexikografie. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
[ p. 158 ]
Helbig, G.
(2006) Funktionsverbgefüge – Kollokationen – Phraseologismen. Anmerkungen zu ihrer Abgrenzung – im Lichte der gegenwärtigen Forschung. In U. Breuer & I. Hyvärinen (Eds.). Wörter – Verbindungen. Festschrift für Jarmo Korhonen zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 165–174). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Helbig, G., & Buscha, J.
(2001) Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Berlin & München: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Herbst, T.
(2016) Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 21–52). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Über Kognition zur Konstruktion – Zielorientiertes Lernen fremdsprachlicher Konstruktionen von links nach rechts. In J. Erfurt & S. De Knop (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik und Mehrsprachigkeit (pp. 149–172). Duisburg: Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr OHG.Google Scholar
Hermann, M.
(2020) Von Funktionsverbgefügen zu Mehrwortverbindungen. Eine Analyse am Beispiel von ‚stellen‘. In S. De Knop & M. Hermann (Eds.), Funktionsverbgefüge im Fokus: Theoretische, didaktische und kontrastive Perspektiven. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Herrlitz, W.
(1973) Funktionsverbgefüge vom Typ „in Erfahrung bringen“. Ein Beitrag zur generativ-transformationellen Grammatik des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Holme, R.
(2010) Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. AILA Review 23, 115–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johansson Falck, M.
(2017) Embodied motivations for abstract ‘in’ and ‘on’ constructions. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza, A. Luzondo Oyon & P. Perez Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp. 53–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
(2012) Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 251–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D. A., Tolentino, L., & Koziupa, T.
(2014) Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: Two science studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 86–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamber, A.
(2006) Funktionsverbgefüge – empirisch (am Beispiel von ‚kommen‘). Linguistik Online, 28(3), 109–131.Google Scholar
(2008) Funktionsverbgefüge – empirisch: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu den nominalen Prädikaten des Deutschen. Niemeyer: Tübingen. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klewitz, B.
(2017) Einleitung. Scaffolding als Lehr- und Lernstrategie. In B. Klewitz, Scaffolding im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Unterrichtseinheiten Englisch für authentisches Lernen (pp. 15–26). Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Kluge, F.
(1833/2011) Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koch, P.
(2012) Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics, 50, 533–603. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Konstruktionsgrammatik – Sprachvergleich – Sprachtypologie. In M. Selig, E. Morlicchio & N. Dittmar (Eds.), Gesprächsanalyse zwischen Syntax und Pragmatik. Deutsche und italienische Konstruktionen (pp. 17–42). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B.
(Eds.) (2012) Events of “putting” and “taking”: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 159 ]
Kutscher, S., & Schultze-Berndt, E.
(2007) Why a folder lies in the basket although it is not lying: The semantics and use of German positional verbs with inanimate figures. Linguistics, 45(5–6), 983–1028.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
(2006) Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity (pp. 17–40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lapaire, J.-R.
(2013) Gestualité cogrammaticale : de l’action corporelle spontanée aux postures de travail métagestuel guidé. Maybe et le balancement épistémique en anglais. Langages, 192(4), 57–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lapaire, J.-R., & Etcheto, P.
(2010) Postures, manipulations, déambulations: comprendre la grammaire anglaise autrement. La Nouvelle Revue de L’adaptation et de la Scolarisation, 49(1), 45–58.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M.
(2002) The semantic network of Dutch posture verbs. In J. Newman (Ed.), The linguistics of sitting, standing and lying (pp. 103–139). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Caused posture: Experiential patterns emerging from corpus research. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 261–297). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M., & Perrez, J.
(2010) On the use of posture verbs by French-speaking learners of Dutch: A corpus-based study. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(2), 315–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mac Arthur, F., & Littlemore, J.
(2008) A discovery approach using corpora in the foreign language classroom. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 159–188). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McKenzie, J.
(1999) Scaffolding for success. The Educational Technology Journal, 9(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S.
(1992) Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nunan, D.
(1991) Communicative Tasks and the Language Curriculum. Tesol Quarterly, 25(2), 279–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papert, S.
(1980) Mindstorms: Kinder, Computer und neues Lernen. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
(1986) Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory, Epistemology and Learning Group.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F.
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G.
(1981) Die übertragenen Bedeutungen der englischen Raumpräpositionen. In G. Radden & R. Dirven (Eds.), Kasusgrammatik und Fremdsprachendidaktik (pp. 133–179). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Rathunde, K.
(2009) Nature and embodied education. The Journal of Developmental Processes, 4(1), 70–80.Google Scholar
[ p. 160 ]
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N.
(2008) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roche, J., & Suñer, F.
(2017) Sprachenlernen und Kognition: Grundlagen einer kognitiven Sprachendidaktik. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.Google Scholar
Rostila, J.
(2011) Phraseologie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Konstruktionsansätze zu präpositionalen Funktionsverbgefügen. In M. Prinz & U. Richter-Vapaatalo (Eds.), Idiome, Konstruktionen, ‘verblümte Rede’. Beiträge zur Geschichte der germanistischen Phraseologieforschung (pp. 263–282). Stuttgart: Hirzel Verlag.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J.
(2000) Communicative language teaching. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 125–129). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Serra-Borneto, C.
(1995)  Liegen and stehen in German: A study in horizontality and verticality. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 459–505). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1997) Two-way prepositions in German: Image and constraints. In M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 187–204). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D.
(2018) Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(6), 1–10.Google Scholar
Smith, M. B.
(1987) The semantics of dative and accusative in German: An investigation in Cognitive Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
(1993) Cases as conceptual categories: Evidence from German. In R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language: A selection of papers from the first international Cognitive Linguistics conference in Duisburg 1989 (pp. 531–565). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Semantic motivation vs. arbitrariness in grammar: Toward a more general account of the DAT/ACC contrast with two-way prepositions. In I. Rauch & G. F. Carr (Eds.), Insights in Germanic linguistics: Methodology and transition (pp. 293–323). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2013) Variation and change in English path verbs and constructions: Usage patterns and conceptual structure. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (pp. 223–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Pottelberge, J.
(2001) Verbonominale Konstruktionen, Funktionsverbgefüge. Vom Sinn und Unsinn eines Untersuchungsgegenstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Von Polenz, P.
(1963) Funktionsverben im heutigen Deutsch. Sprache in der rationalisierten Welt. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.Google Scholar
Weideman, A.
(2016) Responsible design in Applied Linguistics: Theory and practice. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
[ p. 161 ]
Widdowson, H. G.
(1992) ELT and EL Teacher. ELT Journal, 46(4), 333–339. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, K.
(2011) The semantics of variable case marking (accusative/dative) after two- way prepositions in German locative constructions. Towards a constructionist approach. Indogermanische Forschungen, 116, 324–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, K., Rys, J., & De Cuypere, L.
(2018) Case alternation in argument structure constructions with prepositional phrases. A case study in corpus-based constructional analysis. In H. Boas & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional approaches to argument structure in German (pp. 85–130). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeschel, A.
(2008) Funktionsverbgefüge als Idiomverbände. In A. Stefanowitsch & K. Fischer (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 263–280). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar