Cover not available
Part of
Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 68] 2014
► pp. 1–30

Introduction. Plotting functional-cognitive space

 | University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
 | University of La Rioja, Spain
 | University of Almería, Spain
 | Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
Published online: 22 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.01gom
References (141)
Anstey, M. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: Multifunctional problems and constructional solutions. Linguistics , 46(4), 831–859. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A. (2013). What do constructions suggest about syntactic priming? Empirical evidence in L2 learners of English. Paper delivered at the III International Conference on Meaning Construction, Meaning Interpretation: Applications and Implications (CRAL 2013), held at theUniversity of La Rioja, Spain, July 18–20, 2013.
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2013). Embodied Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. ­Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 168–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, M. (1995). Thematic options and success in writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.). Thematic development in English texts (pp. 55–84). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 14(3), 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L., & Traugott, E.C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C.S. (2001). A matter of GIVE and TAKE: Corpus linguistics and the predicate frame. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses , 42, 55–78.Google Scholar
. (2003a). Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2003b). Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2003c). Multiword sequences and their relevance for recent models of Functional Grammar. Functions of Language , 10(2), 179–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). On functionalism and formalism: A reply to Newmeyer. Functions of Language , 13(2), 197–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009a). Lexical phenomena in Functional Discourse Grammar and Systemic Functional Linguistics. In S. Slembrouck, M. Taverniers, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Studies in linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen: From will to well (pp. 55–67). Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
. (2009b). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C.S. Butler, & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 117–151). ­Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Syntactic functions in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar: An evaluative comparison. Language Sciences , 34(4), 480–490\. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C.S. (2013). Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan, & E. ­Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics. The role of constructions in grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series, 145) (pp. 271–294). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C.S., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2005). Situating FDG in functional-cognitive space: An initial study. In J.L. Mackenzie, & M.A. Gómez-González (Eds.), Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar (Linguistic Insights, 26) (pp. 109–158). Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. (2014). Exploring functional-cognitive space. (Studies in Language Companion Series) . ­Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, C.S., & Taverniers, M. (2008). Layering in structural-functional grammars. Linguistics , 46(4), 689–756.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.J. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language, 45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. ­Hoffmann, & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caffarel, A., Martin, J.R., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (Eds.). (2004). Language typology: A functional perspective . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A., & Mendoza-Denton, N. (2003). Functionalism is/n’t formalism: An interactive review of Darnell, et al. 1999. Journal of Linguistics , 39, 373–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program . Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christie, F., & Unsworth, L. (2005). Developing dimensions of an Educational Linguistics. In R. Hasan, C. Matthiessen, & J.J. Webster (Eds.). Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective , Vol. 1 (pp. 217–250). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2001). Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. (2000). L’accord, l’anaphore et la référence: Quelques enjeux. In M. Coene, W. De Mulder, P. Dendale, & Y. D’Hulst (Eds.), Studia linguistica in honorem Lilianae Tasmowski (pp. 509–533). Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. (2006). Derivational morphology in Role and Reference Grammar: A new proposal. RESLA: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada , 19, 41–66.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (or: A taxonomy of propositional acts). Journal of Semantics , 7(3), 245–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language , 71, 490–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darnell, M., Moravcsik, E.A., Newmeyer, F.J., Noonan, M., & Wheatley, K.M. (Eds.). (1999a). Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Volume 1: General papers (Studies in Language Companion Series, 41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (Eds.). (1999b). Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Volume 2: Case studies (Studies in Language Companion Series, 42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (2010). Category change in English with and without structural change. In E.C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language, 90) (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S.C. (1997a). The theory of functional grammar, Part 1: The structure of the clause (Functional Grammar Series, 20). 2nd edition. Ed. Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (1997b). The theory of functional grammar, Part 2: Complex and derived constructions (Functional Grammar Series, 21). Ed. Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, D., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2010). Argument constructions and language processing evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 213–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R.P. (1973/1981). Generating a sentence in systemic functional grammar. University College London (mimeo). Reprinted In M.A.K. Halliday, & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Readings in Systemic Linguistics (pp. 146–83). London: Batsford.Google Scholar
. (1980). Cognitive Linguistics and social interaction: Towards an integrated model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the other components of an interacting mind . ­Heidelberg: Julius Groos and Exeter University.Google Scholar
. (1994). On moving on on ontologies: Mass, count and long thin things. In D. McDonald (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (pp. 71–80).Association for Computational Linguistics, available through Computer Science, Brandeis University, Waltham MA. DOI logo
. (2000/2010). A theory of syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 206). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Paperback edition with new Preface and updated bibliography 2010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff Grammar: An extension and simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar . 3rd edition. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
. (2012). Problems and solutions in identifying processes and participant roles in discourse analysis. Part 2: How to handle metaphor, idiom and six other problems. Annual Review of Functional Linguistics , 3, 27–76.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R.P., Tucker, G.H., & Lin, Y.Q. (1993). How a Systemic Functional Grammar works: The role of realization in realization. In H. Horacek, & M. Zock (Eds.), New concepts in natural language generation (pp. 114–186). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., & Kay, P. (1995). Construction Grammar coursebook, chapters 1 thru 11 (Reading materials for Ling. X20) . University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language , 64, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Velasco, D., & Hengeveld, K. (2002). Do we need predicate frames?In R. Mairal Usón, & M.J. Pérez Quintero (Eds.), New perspectives on argument structure in Functional Grammar (Functional Grammar Series, 25) (pp. 95–123). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
García Velasco, D. (2009). Conversion in English and its implications for Functional Discourse Grammar. Lingua , 19, 1164–1185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N. (2008). Dependencies are constructions: A case study in predicative complementation. In G. Trousdale, & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 219–256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2011). Constructions, Word Grammar, and grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics , 22(1), 155–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1989). Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics . Hillsdale, NJ and London: ­Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (1995). Functionalism and grammar . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001a). Syntax: An introduction, Volume I . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2001b). Syntax: An introduction, Volume II . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument Structure . Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . New York: 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
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics , 15(3), 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez González, M.A. (2001). The theme-topic interface: Evidence from English . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez González, M.A., Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Gonzálvez-García, F (Eds.). (.2014). The functional perspective on language and discourse: Applications and implications (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C.S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics , 4, 39–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2009). The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences , 31(5), 663–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics , 49(6), 1305–1358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1987/2003). Language and the order of nature. In C. MacCabe, N. Fabb, D. Attridge, & A. Durant (Eds.), The linguistics of writing: Arguments between language and literature (pp. 135–154). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Reprinted in Halliday, M. A. K., & Webster, J. J. (Eds.). (2003). On language and linguistics (pp. 116–138). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. (1994a). An introduction to Functional Grammar . 2nd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. (1994b). Systemic theory. In R.E. Asher, & J.M.Y. Simpson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 4505–4508). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition . London and New York: Cassell.Google Scholar
. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar . 3rd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to Functional Grammar . 4th edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hasan, R., & Fries, P.H. (1995). Reflections on subject and theme: An introduction. In R. Hasan, & P.H. Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 118) (pp. xiii–xlv). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J.L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Functional Discourse Grammar. In E.K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. 4 (pp. 668–676). 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. (2010). Functional Discourse Grammar. In B. Heine, & H. ­Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 367–400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. (2011). The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. In B. Heine, & H. ­Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 580–594). Oxford: Oxford ­University Press.Google Scholar
. (2012). Referential markers and agreement markers in Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences , 34(4), 468–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure). Vol. 1 (pp. 155–175). ­Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Horie, K., & Comrie, B. (2000). Introduction. In K. Horie (Ed.), Complementation (Cognitive and functional perspectives) (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 1) (pp. 1–10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R.A. (2004). Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics 40, 105–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Word Grammar. In K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 633–642). 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. (2007). Language networks: The new Word Grammar . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2008). Word Grammar and Construction Grammar. In G. Trousdale, & N. ­Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 257–302). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2009). Measuring maturity. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand, & J. Riley (Eds.), Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 349–362).London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). An introduction to Word Grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.J. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keizer, M.E. (2007). The grammatical-lexical distinction in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa-Revista de Lingüística , 51(2), 35–56.Google Scholar
. (2013). The X is (is) construction: An FDG account. In J.L. Mackenzie, & H. Olbertz (Eds.), Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series, 137) (pp. 213–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images. The grammar of visual design . 2nd edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Laffut, A., & Davidse, K. (2000). Verb meaning and construction sets: The case of caused NP-PrepP relations. LACUS Forum 1999 , 293–304.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application . ­Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J.L., & Martínez Caro, E. (2012). Compare and contrast: An English grammar for speakers of Spanish (Colección: Estudios de Lengua Inglesa). Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Periñán-Pascual, J.C. (2009). The anatomy of the lexicon component within the framework of a conceptual knowledge base. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada , 22, 217–244.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C.S. Butler, & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Arista, J. (2008). Unification and separation in a functional theory of morphology. In R. Van Valin (Eds.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface (pp. 119–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). A typology of morphological constructions. In C.S. Butler, & J. ­Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 85–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Projections and constructions in functional morphology. The case of Old English HRĒOW. Language and Linguistics , 12(2), 393–425.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2005). Designing literacy pedagogy. In R. Hasan, C. Matthiessen, & J.J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective , Vol. 1 (pp. 251–280). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R. (1992a). English text . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1992b). Genre and literacy-modeling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 13, 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez Vázquez, M. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations in a foreign language. VIAL, Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 1, 151–165.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J. (1998). Language form and language function . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language , 79(4), 682–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005a). Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Formalism and functionalism in linguistics. WIREs Cogn Sci , 1, 301–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B., & Diedrichsen, E. (Eds.). (2013a). Linking constructions into functional linguistics. The role of constructions in grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series, 145). ­Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2005). Brothers in arms? On the relations between cognitive and functional linguistics. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (Cognitive Linguistics Research, 32) (pp. 69–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 543–565). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2011). Pattern versus process concepts of grammar and mind: A cognitive-functional perspective. In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries, & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and expansion (pp. 47–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Painter, C. (2009). Language development. In M.A.K. Halliday, & J.J. Webster (Eds.), Continuum companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 87–103). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, J.C., & Mairal Usón, R. (2009). Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural , 43, 265–273.Google Scholar
Ravelli, L.J. (2004). Signalling the organization of written texts: Hyper-themes in management and history essays. In L.J. Ravelli, & R.A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualised frameworks (pp. 104–130). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. (2009). On the (un)suitability of semantic categories. Linguistic Typology , 13(1), 95–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Functional categories in the noun phrase: On jacks-of-all trades and one-trick-ponies in Danish, Dutch and German. Deutsche Sprache , 2(Special issue: Modifikation im Deutschen: Kontrastive Untersuchungen zur Nominalphrase), 97–123.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Agustín, M.P. (2013). La construcción reduplicativa de base léxica en español: Un estudio preliminar para estudiantes de español como L2. [‘The reduplicative construction with a lexical basis in Spanish: A preliminary study for students of Spanish as L2’]. In S. De Knop, F. Mollica, & J. Kuhn (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik und Romanische sprachen (pp. 205–225). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica , 42(2), 355–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (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). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In E. Diedrichsen, & B. Nolan (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics. The role of constructions in grammar . (Studies in Language Companion Series, 145) (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. (2006). The language of schooling. A functional linguistic perspective . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Taboada, M., & Gómez-González, M.A. (2013). Discourse markers and coherence relations: Comparison across markers, languages and modalities. In M. Taboada, S. Doval-Suárez, & E. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Contrastive discourse analysis: Functional and corpus perspectives (pp. 17–41). Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S.A. (2008). So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics , 12(2), 361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S.A., & Roberts, C. (2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech , 80(3), 280–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2006). The alchemy of the upwardly mobile: Symbolic capital and the stylization of elites in frequent-flyer programmes. Discourse and Society , 17(1), 99–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1998). Introduction: A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 1 (ix–xxiii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (2003). Introduction: Some surprises for psychologists. In M Tomasello. (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 2 (pp. vii–xxiii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G. (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?In E.C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization (pp. 19–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tucker, G.H. (1998). The lexicogrammar of adjectives: A Systemic Functional Approach to lexis . London: Cassell Academic.Google Scholar
. (2007). Between lexis and grammar: Towards a systemic functional approach to phraseology. In C.M.I.M. Matthiessen, R. Hasan, & J.J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective, Vol. 2. (pp. 953–977). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, J., & Rojo, A. (2008). What can language learners tell us about constructions?In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar – Volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 197–229). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R.D.Jr., & LaPolla, R.J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function (­Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R.D., Jr. (1993). A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In R.D. Van Valin, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 82) (pp. 1–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: An introduction to Role and Reference Grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Semantic macroroles and language processing. In I. Bornkessel, M. Schlesewsky, B. Comrie, & A. Friederici (Eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycho-/neurolinguistic perspectives (pp. 263–302). ­Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2009). Privileged syntactic arguments, pivots and controllers. In L. ­Guerrero, S. Ibáñez, & V.A. Belloro (Eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 45–68). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Wee, L., & Ying Ying, T. (2008). That’s so last year! Constructions in a socio-cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics , 40(12), 2100–2113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar