Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:2 (2021) ► pp. 332362
References
Ahrens, K. V.
(1995) The mental representation of verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Allen, K., Pereira, F., Botvinick, M., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2012) Distinguishing grammatical constructions with fMRI pattern analysis. Brain and Language, 1231, 174–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T.
(1999) Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 411, 124–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y.
(1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 731, 247–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 571, 502–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R.
(2008) The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 1061, 87–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A.
(2013) The ontological status of constructions in the mind of Italian university learners of English: Psycholinguistic evidence from a sentence-sorting experiment. In L. D. Michele (Ed.), Regenerating Community, Territory, Voices (pp. 12–24). Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A.
(2011) West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics, 491, 53–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J.
(2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 681, 255–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, G. M., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 431, 640–651. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A.
(2018) Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in German. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M.
(1994) Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2005) Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 81, 500–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Childers, J. B., & Paik, J. H.
(2009) Korean-and English-speaking children use cross-situational information to learn novel predicate terms. Journal of Child Language, 361, 201–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C.
(2010) Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1061, 41–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1965) Aspects and the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F.
(2016) A construction-based study of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 53–88). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M.
(2013) Order of subject, object and verb. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved at http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/81 on 12-JUN-2020.
Du Bois, J. W.
(2003) Argument structure. In J. W. Du Bois, L. E. Kumpf, & W. J. Ashby (Eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function (pp. 11–60). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D.
(2011) Cluster Analysis (5th edition). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R.
(1991) On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Psychology, 231, 331–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Kim, S. K., Choo, H., Ghio, A., Herschensohn, J., & Koh, S.
(2019) Look and listen! The online processing of Korean case by native and non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(3), 385–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D., & Weissenborn, J.
(2007) Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax–semantic interface. Brain Research, 11461, 50–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmuttter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A.
(1997) The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 371, 58–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013a) Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind and Language, 281, 435–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013b) Constructionist approach. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019) Explain me this. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. B., & Markman, A. B.
(2009) Constructional sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Linguistics, 201, 675–702. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S.
(2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 182–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A.
(2014) Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Healy, A., & Miller, G.
(1970) The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 201, 372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, H., & Kaiser, E.
(2014) The role of the verb in grammatical function assignment in English and Korean. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 401, 1363–1376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1975) Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 511, 639–671. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2013) Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 281, 1439–1452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kako, E.
(2006) Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cognition, 1011, 1–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kako, E., & Wagner, L.
(2001) The semantics of syntactic structures. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 51, 102–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T., & Haywood, S. L.
(2003) The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 491, 133–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M.
(2000) Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 431, 508–529. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., & Grüter, T.
(2019) Cross-linguistic activation of implicit causality biases in Korean learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(3), 441–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., & Rah, Y.
(2016) Effects of verb semantics and proficiency in second language use of constructional knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 716–731. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Constructional processing in a second language: The role of constructional knowledge in verb-construction integration. Language Learning, 69(4), 1022–1056. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., Shin, G-H., & Hwang, H.
2020). Cross-linguistic influence in the second language integration of verb and construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 421, 825–847. Crossref
Kim, J-B.
(2016) The syntactic structures of Korean: A construction grammar perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J-B., & Choi, I.
(2004) The Korean case system: A unified, constraint-based approach. Language Research, 40(4), 885–921.Google Scholar
Kim, J. B., & Sells, P.
(2010) Oblique case marking on core arguments in Korean. Studies in Language, 34(3), 602–635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K.
(2016) A contrastive analysis of English and Korean news headlines. Studies in Linguistics, 411, 25–48.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.
(1999) The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 141, 687–714. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(1995) Unaccusativity in the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liang, J.
(2002) Sentence comprehension by Chinese learners of English: Verb-centered or construction-based. Unpublished master’s thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangdong.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B.
(2009) Towards a comprehensive Construction Grammar account of control: A case study of Swedish infinitives. Constructions and Frames, 11, 153–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S.
(1994) The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 1011, 676–703. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mantel, N.
(1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research, 271, 209–220.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., & Amyote, L.
(1997) Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 121, 137–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miyamoto, E. T.
(2002) Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 311, 307–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B.
(2013) Constructions as grammatical objects. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 143–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. D.
(1991) Categories and case: The sentence structure of Korean (Vol. 711). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F.
(2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 231, 601–635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F., & Hilpert, M.
(2014) Constructional tolerance: Cross-linguistic differences in the acceptability of non-conventional uses of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 61, 266–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S.
(2008) Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 1341, 427–459. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team
(2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://​www​.R​-project​.org/
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2015) Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics, 261, 467–503. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shin, G-H.
(2018) Event structure composition in Korean verbless constructions by particles and verbal nouns: Evidence from newspaper headlines. Journal of Language Sciences, 25(3), 403–425. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) Connecting input to comprehension: First language acquisition of active transitives and suffixal passives by Korean-speaking preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Sohn, H. M.
(1999) The Korean Language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T., & Kobayashi, T.
(2017) Syntactic cues for inferences about causality in language acquisition: Evidence from an argument-drop language. Language Learning and Development, 131, 24–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C.
(1996) The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 351, 566–585. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K.
(1994) Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, K. Rayner & L. Frazier (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155–179). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Västi, K., & Kittilä, S.
(2014) Semantic roles and verbless constructions: A Finnish challenge for verb-centered approaches. Studies in Language, 38(3), 512–542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittek, A., & Tomasello, M.
(2005) German-speaking children’s productivity with syntactic constructions and case morphology: Local cues act locally. First Language, 251, 103–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yong, N., & Lee, M.
(2012) Semantic effects of a pre-verbal argument on the online processing of Korean sentences: An eye-tracking study. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 371, 639–657. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A.
(1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1231, 162–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar