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-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T14:54:35.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Construction-Based Language Learning and Teaching

from Part VI - Constructional Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Sabine De Knop
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

Construction Grammar offers several assets that foster the learning and teaching of foreign languages. The constructionist approach focuses on well-entrenched form–meaning mappings of different degrees of complexity and abstraction. Thus, if learners have acquired the syntax and semantics of specific foreign constructions, they should be able to understand the semantic motivation behind the syntactic forms and infer the meaning of new instantiations. Moreover – an economical principle in the learning process – these units can be learned as part of a network of semantically related constructions. In learning L2-constructions, construction-based teaching strategies can be implemented, that is, the scaffolding strategy, structural priming and embodied construction practice. The scaffolding strategy elaborates on the semantic link between constructions of different degrees of syntactic complexity and on the family resemblance concept. Structural priming focuses on the creative repetition of similar structures with different slot-fillers. Finally, embodied practice applies to constructions referring to concrete events which can be represented with pictures or objects or can be enacted.

Keywords

construction-based learningconstruction-based teachingconstructional unitsconstructiconfrequencyscaffoldingstructural primingembodied cognition
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 596 - 622
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

Ambridge, B. & Brandt, S. (2013). Lisa filled water into the cup: The roles of entrenchment, preemption and verb semantics in German speakers’ L2 acquisition of English locatives. ZAA, Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 61(3), 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, J. J. (1982). Learning Another Language through Actions: The Complete Teacher’s Guidebook. Los Gatos: Sky Oaks Productions.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2010). Extended, embodied cognition and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 599–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A. (2016). The role of syntax and semantics in constructional priming: Experimental evidence from Italian university learners of English through a sentence-elicitation task. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2003). Review of Beyond Alternation: A Constructional Model of the German Applicative Pattern (2001) by L. A. Michaelis and J. Ruppenhofer. Studies in Language, 27(3), 663–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, H. (2009). Konstruktionen im Spracherwerb. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 37, 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beréndi, M., Csábi, S., & Kövecses, Z. (2008). Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S., eds., Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 65–99.CrossRefGoogle 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
Bernolet, S. & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2018). Syntactic representations in late learners of a second language. A learning trajectory. In Miller, D., Bayram, F., Rothman, J., & Serratrice, L., eds., Bilingual Cognition and Language: The State of the Science across Its Subfields. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructing a Constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., &Torrent, T. T., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 183–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 227–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F., De Rycker, A., & De Knop, S. (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics: Introduction. In De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, A. (eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S., eds., Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, H. P. & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S. (2015). Conceptual tools for the description and the acquisition of the German posture verb sitzen. In De Knop, S. & Meunier, F., eds., Learner Corpus Research, Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, special issue of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(1), pp. 127–160.Google Scholar
De Knop, S. (2020). From Construction Grammar to embodied construction practice. In Torrent, T. T., da Silva Matos, E. E., & Sathler Sigiliano, N., eds., Construction Grammar across Borders. Special issue of Constructions and Frames, 12(1), pp. 121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S. (2021). Von der Konstruktionsbeschreibung zum Konstruktionslernen illustriert am Beispiel der verblosen Direktiva. In Bürgel, C., Gévaudan, P., & Siepmann, D., eds., Sprachwissenschaft und Fremdsprachendidaktik: Konstruktionen und Konstruktionslernen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, pp. 241–261.Google Scholar
De Knop, S. (2023). Pleonastische Konstruktionen in der Familie der Bewegungs- und Lokalisierungskonstruktionen. In Stumpf, S. & Mollica, F., eds., Konstruktionsfamilien im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
De Knop, S. (2024). The integration of frequency dimensions and lexicalization preferences in contrastive analysis. In A. Baicchi & C. Broccias, eds., Constructional and Cognitive Explorations of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S. & Dirven, R. (2008). Motion and location events in German, French and English: A typological, contrastive and pedagogical approach. In De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of René Dirven. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S. & Gallez, F. (2021). The distributed expression of motion in German – satellites, morphosyntactic case-marking and pragmatic factors. Paper presented at the conference NAMED: De/constructing motion events, in Paris, 1–2 July 2021.Google Scholar
De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G. (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S. & Mollica, F. (2016). A construction-based study of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 53–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S. & Mollica, F. (2022). Construction-based teaching of German verbless directives to Italian-speaking learners. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 123–159.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 De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 237–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2017). Pleonasm in particle verb constructions in German. In Nolan, B. & Diedrichsen, E., eds., Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events: Verb–Verb Constructions at the Syntax–Semantic Interface. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H., eds., The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C., eds., Handbook of Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2010). Construction learning as category learning. In Pütz, M. & Sicola, L., eds., Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the Learner’s Mind. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a Second Language: Introduction to the Special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2003). The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Even, S. (2011). Studiosus cognens und studiosus ludens – Grammatik inszenieren. In Küppers, A., Schmidt, T., & Walter, M., eds., Inszenierungen im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Grundlagen, Formen, Perspektiven. Braunschweig: Diesterweg, pp. 68–79.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89, 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2008). Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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
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
Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2003). Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamamoto, H. (2019). Applying embodied cognition approaches to L2 learning. In Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, ed., Para lá da tarefa: implicar os estudantes na aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no ensino superior. Porto: FLUP, pp. 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handwerker, B. (2008). ‛Chunksʼ und Konstruktionen – Zur Integration von lern-theoretischem und grammatischem Ansatz. Estudios Filológicos Alemanes, 15, 49–64.Google Scholar
Handwerker, B. & Madlener, K. (2006). Multimedia-Chunks für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein Lernmodul zur Entwicklung lexikalisch-grammatischer Kompetenz. In Hahn, A. & Klippel, F., eds., Sprachen Schaffen Chancen. Munich: Oldenbourg, pp. 199–206.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15(6), 409–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herbst, T. (2011). The status of generalizations. In Herbst, T. & Stefanowitsch, A. (eds.), Argument Structure – Valency and/or Constructions? ZAA: Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, LIX(4), 347–367.Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2016). Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hergé, (1998). Tim und Struppi – Die Krabbe mit den goldenen Scheren. Hamburg: Carlsen Verlag.Google Scholar
Hergé, (1999). Le avventure di Tintin. Il granchio d’oro. Rome: Lizaed.Google Scholar
Holme, R. (2010). A construction grammar for the classroom. IRAL, 48, 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2017). Introduction. Motion and semantic typology: A hot old topic with exciting caveats. In Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., ed., Motion and Space across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. (2008). Wozu Konstruktionen? Linguistische Berichte, 213, 3‒44.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
Klewitz, B. (2017). Scaffolding im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Unterrichtseinheiten Englisch für authentisches Lernen. Tübingen: Narr, Francke, Attempto.Google Scholar
Konopka, A. E. & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 68–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krzeszowski, T. P. (1981). Quantitative contrastive equivalence. Studia Linguistica, 35(1–2), 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lado, R. & Fries, C. C. (1961). English Pattern Practices: Establishing the Patterns as Habits. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google 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
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
Littlemore, J. (2011). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Loebell, H. & Bock, K. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 41(5), 791–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, F. & Littlemore, J. (2008). A discovery approach to figurative language learning with the use of corpora. In Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S., eds., Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madlener, K. (2015). Frequency Effects in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, J. (1999). Scaffolding for success. The Educational Technology Journal, 9(4). http://fno.org/dec99/scaffold.html.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond Αlternations: Α Constructional Model of the German Applicative Pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Özçaliskan, S. (2003). Metaphorical motion in crosslinguistic perspective: A comparison of English and Turkish. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 189–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. (1996). Pleonastische Direktionale. In Harras, G. & Bierwisch, M., eds., Wenn die Semantik arbeitet: Klaus Baumgärtner zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathunde, K. (2009). Nature and embodied education. The Journal of Developmental Processes, 4(1), 70–80.Google Scholar
Roche, J. & Suñer, F. (2017). Sprachenlernen und Kognition. Grundlagen einer kognitiven Sprachdidaktik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Römer, U., Brook O’Donnell, M., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument constructions: Effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 952–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. & del Pilar Agustín Llach, M. (2016). Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar and meaning construction in L2. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 151–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheepers, C. & Corley, M. (2000). Syntactic priming in German sentence production. In Gleitman, L. R. & Joshi, A. K., eds., Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah: Psychology Press, pp. 435–440.Google 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 ScholarPubMed
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S., eds., Grammatical Constructions. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2017). Typologies and language use. In Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., ed., Motion and Space across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 419‒445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2011). Keine Grammatik ohne Konstruktionen: Ein logisch-ökonomisches Argument für die Konstruktionsgrammatik. In Engelberg, S., Holler, A., & Proost, K., eds., Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, F. & Roche, J. (2019). Embodiment in concept-based L2 grammar teaching: The case of German light verb constructions. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(3), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2017). Foreword: Past, present and future of motion research. In Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., ed., Motion and Space across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Valenzuela Manzanares, J. & Rojo López, A. M. (2008). What can language learners tell us about constructions? In De Knop, S. & De Rycker, T., eds., Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vujic, J. L. (2016). Construction Grammar and foreign/second language teaching. Hacnetje, 33, 9–19.Google Scholar
Wee, L. (2007). Construction Grammar and English language teaching. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1), 20–32.Google Scholar
Weideman, A. (2016). Responsible Design in Applied Linguistics: Theory and Practice. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2018). Acquisition of formulaic language from a usage-based perspective. In Siyanova-Chanturia, A. & Pellicer-Sánchez, A., eds., Understanding Formulaic Language. A Second Language Acquisition Perspective. New York: Routledge, pp. 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A. & Boas, H. C. (2017). Towards a Constructicon for German. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report SS-17–02, pp. 274–277.Google 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
×