Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T12:06:36.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Case Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 247 - 334
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet Project. In COLING-ACL ’98: Proceedings of the Conference. Montreal, pp. 86–90. https://doi.org/10.3115/980845.980860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M., eds., Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 147–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beuls, K. (2012). Inflectional patterns as constructions: Spanish verb morphology in Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 4(2), 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2021). Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. In Wen, X. & Taylor, R. J., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, pp. 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bod, R. (2009). Constructions at work or at rest? Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K. & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 81(1), 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Hopper, P. J., eds. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, N., De Beule, J., & Micelli, V. (2012). Computational Construction Grammar: Comparing ECG and FCG. In Steels, L., ed., Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Studies in Generative Grammar 9. Dordrecht & Cinnaminson: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copestake, A. (2002). Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W., eds., The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 21–63.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2005). Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M., eds., Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 273–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2010). Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation. In Boye, K. & Engberg-Pedersen, E., eds., Language Usage and Language Structure. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2013). Do we need propositional representations between language and embodied meanings? AMD Newsletter, 2013.Google Scholar
Daniels, M. & Meurers, D. (2004). A grammar formalism and parser for linearization-based HPSG. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2004), Geneva, pp. 169–175. https://doi.org/10.3115/1220355.1220380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Beule, J. (2012). A formal deconstruction of Fluid Construction Grammar. In Steels, L., ed., Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin: Springer, pp. 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2017). Usage-based linguistics. In Aronoff, M., ed., Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1996). Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Bunt, H. & van Horck, A., eds., Discontinous Constituency. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 11–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame Semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 280(1), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Zampolli, A., ed., Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 55–81.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistics Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 35–55. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2003). The case for case. In Fillmore, C. J., ed., Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. 1: Papers on Semantic Roles. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 23–122.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2012). Encounters with language. Computational Linguistics, 38(4), 701–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–132.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(3), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (2005). A frame-based approach to case alternations: The swarm-class verbs in Czech. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(3), 475–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (2009). Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames, 1(2), 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galantucci, B. & Garrod, S. (2010). Experimental semiotics: A new approach for studying the emergence and the evolution of human communication. Interaction Studies, 11(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. A. (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language, 28(4), 435–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gromov, P. (2010). Implementing Sign-Based Construction Grammar with TRALE. Master’s thesis. University of Essex.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2009). Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 287–310.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2012). Diachronic collostructional analysis: How to use it and how to deal with confounding factors. In Allan, K. & Robinson, J. A., eds., Current Methods in Historical Semantics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 133–160.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent Grammar. In Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L. A., & Filip, H., eds., Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 139–157. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. & Zaenen, A. (1995). Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R. M., Maxwell, J. T. III, & Zaenen, A., eds., Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 137–165.Google Scholar
Kathol, A. (2000). Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, M. (1979). Functional Grammar. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 142–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v5i0.3262.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2002). An informal sketch of a formal architecture for construction grammar. Grammars, 5, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014293330198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Knight, K. (1989). Unification: A multidisciplinary survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 21(1), 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In Rudzska-Ostyn, B., ed., Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 127–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leivada, E. (2014). From comparative languistics to comparative (bio)linguistics: Reflections on variation. Biolinguistics, 8, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichte, T. & Kallmeyer, L. (2017). Tree-adjoining grammar: A tree-based constructionist grammar framework for natural language understanding. In The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding: Technical Report SS-17-02, pp. 205–212.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. (2009). Developing constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loetzsch, M., Wellens, P., De Beule, J., Bleys, J., & van Trijp, R. (2008). The Babel2 Manual. AI-Memo 01–08. Brussels: AI-Lab VUB.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. (1995). Dissociating functor-argument structure from surface phrase structure: The relationship of HPSG order domains to LFG. Paper presented at the Tübingen HPSG Workshop, Tübingen. http://nlp.stanford.edu/manning/papers/hpsglfg1.pdf.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D., Penn, G., & Richter, F. (2002). A web-based instructional platform for constraint-based grammar formalisms and parsing. In Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics. Philadelphia: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 19–26. https://doi.org/10.3115/1118108.1118111.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2009). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–158.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2019). Constructions are patterns and so are fixed expressions. In Busse, B. & Moehlig-Falke, R., eds., Patterns in Language and Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. (2006). Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language, 82(4), 850–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. (2021). HPSG and Construction Grammar. In Müller, S., Abeillé, A., Borsley, R. D., & Koenig, J.-P., eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The Handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 1497–1553.Google Scholar
Müller, S. & Wechsler, S. M. (2014). Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. & Gross., T. (2012). Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 165–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2018). The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language, 94(4), 867–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petruck, M. R. L. (2011). Advances in Frame Semantics. Constructions and Frames, 3(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago & Stanford: University of Chicago Press/CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Richter, F. (2004). A Mathematical Formalism for Linguistic Theories with an Application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. PhD dissertation. Eberhard-Karls-Universität.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 69–202.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T. (2011). Performance-compatible competence grammar. In Borsley, R. D. & Börjars, K., eds., Non-transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (1995). A self-organizing spatial vocabulary. Artificial Life Journal, 2(3), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steels, L. (2000). Language as a complex adaptive system. In Schoenauer, M., Deb, K., Rudolph, G., Yao, X., Lutton, E., Merelo, J. J., & Schwefel, H.-P., eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, 1917. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45356-3_2.Google Scholar
Steels, L. (2001). Language games for autonomous robots. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(5), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (2004). Constructivist development of grounded construction grammars. In Daelemans, W. & Walker, M., eds., Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Barcelona: Association for Computational Linguistic Conference, pp. 9–19. https://doi.org/10.3115/1218955.1218957.Google Scholar
Steels, L., ed. (2012a). Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (2012b). Grounding language through evolutionary language games. In Steels, L. & Hild, M., eds., Language Grounding in Robots. New York: Springer, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (2017). Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 9(2), 178–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2(8), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaert, R., Colleman, T., & Gijsbert, R., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eecke, P. (2018). Generalisation and Specialisation Operators for Computational Construction Grammar and Their Application in Evolutionary Linguistics Research. PhD thesis. Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
Van Eecke, P. & Beuls, K. (2017). Meta-layer problem solving for computational construction grammar. In The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding: Technical Report SS-17-02, pp. 258–265.Google Scholar
Van Eecke, P. & Beuls, K. (2018). Exploring the creative potential of computational construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2011). A design pattern for argument structure constructions. In Steels, L., ed., Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2013). A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 88–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2014). Long-distance dependencies without filler-gaps: A cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar. Language and Cognition, 6(2), 242–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2015). Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of coercion and argument structure. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 613–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2020). Making good on a promise: Multidimensional constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P. (2022). The FCG editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLoS ONE, 17(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Audring, J. & Booij, G. (2016). Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54(4), 617–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brenier, J. M. & Michaelis, L. A. (2005). Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 45–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. & Clark, H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55(4), 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P. (1987). The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, E. (2010). Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(1), 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (1995). Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics, 33(5), 839–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Niepokuj, M. et al., eds., Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: BLS, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guimarães, M. (2004). Derivation and Representation of Syntactic Amalgams. PhD thesis. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2002). On the evolution of grammatical forms. In Wray, A., ed., The Transition to Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 376–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2018). Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D., ed., Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 11–42.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. D. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. & Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 2271–2296.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Sag, I. A. (2012). Cleaning up the Big Mess: Discontinuous dependencies and complex determiners. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 229–256.Google Scholar
Koutsoukos, N. & Michaelis, L. A. (2020). Pleonastic complex words as functional amalgams. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 (1), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1974). Syntactic amalgams. In La Galy, M. W. et al., eds., Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 321–344.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1988). There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. In Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A., & Singmaster, H., eds., The Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: BLS, pp. 319–339.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawler, J. M. (1974). Ample negatives. In La Galy, M. W. et al., eds., Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 357–377.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matsuyama, T. (2015). The syntactic structure of Wh-Syntactic amalgams. English Linguistics, 32(1), 78–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2003). Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In Francis, E. J. & Michaelis, L. A., eds., Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 259–310.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2019). Constructions are patterns and so are fixed expressions. In Busse, B. & Moehlig-Falke, R., eds., Patterns in Language and Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Francis, H. S. (2007). Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. In Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R., eds., The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface: Papers in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Hsiao, A. M. (2021). Verbing and linguistic innovation. Frontiers in Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.604763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond Alternations: A Constructional Model of the Applicative Construction in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, C. (2001). Three kinds of transderivational constraint. Syntax at Santa Cruz, 3, 21–40.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a new taxonomy for given-new information. In Cole, P., ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–255.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. (1998). Type-based derivational morphology. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2(1), 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. (2003). Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1994). Talking perfectly: Discourse origins of the present perfect. In Pagliuca, W., ed., Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. & Koutsoukos, N. (2022). How typology shapes the constructional network: Denominal verb constructions in English, Dutch and German. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation, 6(1), 7–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1995). Exceptional degree markers: A puzzle in internal and external syntax. In Dowty, D. et al., eds., Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics, 47, pp. 111–123.Google Scholar

References

Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, P. & Lindström, J. (2016). Left/right asymmetries and the grammar of pre- vs. postpositioning in German and Swedish talk-in-interaction. Language Sciences, 56, 68–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. & Lindström, J. (2021). On agency and affiliation in second assessments: German and Swedish opinion verbs in talk-in-interaction. In Lindström, J., Laury, R., Peräkylä, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in Language and Social Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language and Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Thompson, S. (2005). A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: Concessive repair. In Hakulinen, A. & Selting, M., eds., Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ruiter, J., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S., eds. (2015). Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Schmidt, A. (2021). How shared meanings and uses emerge over an interactional history: Wabi Sabi in a series of theatre rehearsals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 139–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2011). Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. & Sansiñena, M. S., eds. (2021). Constructional approach(es) to discourse-level phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances. Constructions and Frames, special issue, 13(1).Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. & Nikiforidou, K., eds. (2015). On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and Frames, special issue, 7(2).Google Scholar
Ford, C. & Thompson, S. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2006). ‘Was ihn treib, war vor allem Wanderlust’. Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen. In Günthner, S. & Imo, W., eds., Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. & Imo, W., eds. (2006). Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, M.-L., Endo, T., & Kärkkäinen, E. (2017). Units in responsive turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 123, 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, C., Fox, B., & Thompson, S., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 196–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer, P. & Pfänder, S., eds., Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (2008). Projectability and clause combining. In Laury, R., ed., Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, M. (2021). Er “har du det” et reelt spørgsmål – og hvilken forskel gør ‘det’? En interaktionel analyse [Is “har du det” a real question – and what difference does ‘det’ make? An interactional analysis]. In Goldshtein, Y., Hansen, I. Schoonderbreek, & Hougaard, T. Thone, eds., 18. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog. Århus: Århus Universitet, pp. 337–358.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. (1995). WH-clefts and left-dislocations in English conversation. In Downing, P. A. & Noonan, M., eds., Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 247–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koops, C. & Hilpert, M. (2009). The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity: Diachronic and cross-linguistic aspects of pseudoclefts. In Givón, T. & Shibatani, M., eds., Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39(3), 463–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laury, R. & Ono, T. (2020). Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J. & Henricson, S. (2022). Pseudo-cleft constructions in Swedish talk-in-interaction: Turn projection and discourse organization. Lingua, 265, 103–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J. & Linell, P. (2007). Roli å roli. X-och-x som samtalspraktik och grammatisk konstruktion [‘Funny and funny’. X-and-x as a conversational practice and grammatical construction]. In Engdahl, E. & Londen, A.-M., eds., Interaktion och Kontext: Nio Studier av Svenska Samtal, pp. 19–89. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Lindström, J. & Londen, A.-M. (2014). Insertion concessive: An interactional practice as a discourse grammatical construction. Constructions, 9, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-464.Google Scholar
Linell, P., Hofvendahl, J., & Lindholm, C. (2003). Multi-unit question turns in institutional interactions: Sequential organizations and communicative functions. Text, 23(4), 539–571.Google Scholar
Linell, P. & Lindström, J. (2016). Partial intersubjectivity and sufficient understandings for current practical purposes: On a specialized practice in Swedish conversation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 39, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. & Mertzlufft, C. (2014). Evidence for a Dialogical Grammar: Reactive constructions in Swedish and German. In Günthner, S., Imo, W., & Bücker, J., eds., Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2022). Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-grammar interface. Lingua, 265.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(1), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norén, K. & Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: Some empirical substantiations. Pragmatics, 17, 387–416.Google Scholar
Norén, N. (2010). Pronominella returfrågor i tre vardagliga svenska samtal [Pronominal return questions in three Swedish everyday conversations]. In Lindholm, C. & Lindström, J., eds., Språk och Interaktion 2. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, pp. 29–71.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M., eds., Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In Laury, R. & Suzuki, R., eds., Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 103–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, R. (2018). On some functions of salient initial accents in French talk-in-interaction: Intonational meaning and the interplay of prosodic, verbal and sequential properties of talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 48(1), 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In Givón, T., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261–286.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 104–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2020). English why don’t you X as a formulaic expression. In Laury, R. & Ono, T., eds., Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S., Fox, B., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wide, C. (2009). Interactional construction grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Contexts and Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 111–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×