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: 2025-01-31T15:03:27.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part V - Constructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation

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. 437 - 540
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

Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C. D. (1949). A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A Study into the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2003). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 145–167.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Thompson, S. A. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. In Juge, M. L. & Moxley, J. O., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 378–388.Google Scholar
Chafe, W., ed. (1980). The Pear Stories, New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1977). On the gradual nature of syntactic change. In Li, Ch, ed., Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1978). Ergativity. In Lehmann, W., ed., Syntactic Typology. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 329–394.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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. (2003). Typology and Universals, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2007). The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics, 18, 339–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2009). Constructions and generalizations [Review of Goldberg, Constructions at work]. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 157–166.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2010a). Relativity, linguistic variation and language universals. CogniTextes, 4, 303. http://cognitextes.revues.org/303/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2010b). The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In Trousdale, G. & Hoffmann, T., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2021). Ten Lectures on Construction Grammar and Typology. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2022). Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2024a). Word classes in Radical Construction Grammar. In van Lier, E., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Word Classes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2024b). Philosophical reflections on the future of construction grammar, or, confessions of a Radical Construction Grammarian. Constructions and Frames, https://benjamins.com/catalog/cf.23011.cro.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Poole, K. T. (2008). Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2007). A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Webelhuth, G., Koenig, J.-P., & Kathol, A., eds., Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 113–128.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet constructicon. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 309–372.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.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
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H., ed., Universals of Grammar, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1979). Rethinking linguistics diachronically. Language, 55, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 211–242.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86, 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2012). How to compare major word-classes across the world’s languages. In Graf, T., Paperno, D., Szabolcsi, A., & Tellings, J., eds., Theories of Everything: In Honor of Edward Keenan. Los Angeles: UCLA, pp. 109–130.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N., & Wiemer, B., eds., What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, J. P. (1981). The Kanuri Language: A Reference Grammar. Madison: University of Wisconsin African Studies Program.Google Scholar
Janhunen, J. A. (2012). Mongolian. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., & Rhee, S. (2019). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2015). Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd edition. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., Meira, S., & Language and Cognition Group (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79, 485–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D., eds. (2006). Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondloch, J. L. (1978). Basic Quiché Grammar. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies.Google Scholar
Munro, P. (1984). Floating quantifiers in Pima. In Cook, E.-D. & Gerdts, D. B., eds., Syntax and Semantics 16: The Syntax of Native American Languages. New York: Academic Press, pp. 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regier, T., Khetarpal, N., & Majid, A. (2013). Inferring semantic maps. Linguistic Typology, 17, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle 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
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G. (1986). Kilivila: The Language of the Trobriand Islanders. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L. (1997). Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1977). Rubber sheet cognition in language. In W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, & S. Philosoph, eds., Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: ,publisher-name>Chicago University Press, pp. 612–628.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. J. (1980). A Grammar of Yuwaalaraay. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Mechanisms of change in areal diffusion: New morphology and language contact. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameka, F. (2006). Grammars in contact in the Volta Basin (West Africa): On contact-induced grammatical change in Likpe. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W., eds., Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–142.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. (2011). ‘When I die don’t cry’: The ethnopragmatics of “gratitude” in West African languages. In Goddard, C., ed., Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Natural Context. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 231–266.Google Scholar
Andrade, M. J. (1931). Quileute. In Boas, F., ed., Handbook of American Indian Languages, 3rd edition. New York: Columbia University, pp. 151–292.Google Scholar
Andrade, M. J. (1933 [1969]). Quileute Texts. New York: Columbia University. Reprinted 1969 in New York: AMS Press.Google Scholar
Andrade, M. J. (1953). Relations between Nootka and Quileute. International Journal of American Linguistics, 19, 138–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balodis, U. (2016). Yuki Grammar. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Bean, L. J. & Theodoratus, D. (1978). Western Pomo and Northeastern Pomo. In Heizer, R. F., ed., Handbook of North American Indians 8: California. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 306–323.Google Scholar
Belyaev, O. (2019). Contact influences on Ossetic. In Grant, A. P., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Oxford University, pp. 467–493.Google Scholar
Boas, F. (1947). Kwakiutl Grammar with a Glossary of the Suffixes. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Höder, S. (2018). Construction Grammar and language contact. An introduction. In Boas, H. C. & Höder, S., eds., Constructions in Contact: Constructional Perspectives on Contact Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Höder, S., eds. (2021). Constructions in Contact 2. Language Change, Multilingual Practices, and Additional Language Acquisition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–64.Google Scholar
Callaghan, C. (1965). Lake Miwok Dictionary. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Chaker, S. (1989). Arabisation. In Encyclopedia Berbere. Edisud: Aix-en-Provence, pp. 834–843. https://doi.org/10.4000/encyclopedieberbere.2570.Google Scholar
Coghill, E. (2019). Northeastern Neo-Aramaic and language contact. In Grant, A. P., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 494–518.Google Scholar
Daniel, M., Molochieva, Z., & Khalilova, Z. (2010). Ditransitive constructions in East Caucasian. In Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B., eds., Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 277–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, L. (2005). Towards a typology of tail-head linkage in Papuan languages. Studies in Language, 29(2), 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. & Sansiñena, M. S. (2021a). Introduction. In Enghels, R. & Sansiñena, M. S., eds., Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges. Special issue of Constructions and Frames, 13(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. & Sansiñena, M. S., eds. (2021b). Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-level Phenomena: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges. Special issue of Constructions and Frames, 13(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epps, P. (2005). Areal diffusion and the development of evidentiality: Evidence from Hup. Studies in Language, 29(3), 617–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epps, P. & Michael, L. (2017). The areal linguistics of Amazonia. In Hickey, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 934–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1974/1981). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Cole, P., ed., Radical Pragmatics (reprint of Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 1974). Academic Press, pp. 143–166.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
François, A. (2011). Social ecology and language history in the northern Vanuatu linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 1(2), 175–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeland, L. S. (1947). Western Miwok texts with linguistic sketch. International Journal of American Linguistics, 13(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (2015). Construction Grammar. In Alexiadou, A. & Kiss, T., eds., Syntax: Theory and Analysis. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 974–1003.Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2021). Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. In Enghels, R. & Sansiñena, M. S., eds., Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges. Special issue of Constructions and Frames, 13(1), pp. 21–54.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
Garbell, I. (1965). The impact of Kurdish and Turkish on the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Persian Azerbaijan and the adjoining regions. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 85(2), 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gras, P. & Elvira-García, W. (2021). The role of intonation in Construction Grammar: On prosodic constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 180, 232–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Morales, S. (2008). Borrowing and Grammaticalization in Sierra Popoluca: The Influence of Nahuatl and Spanish. PhD thesis. University of California Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Harrington, J. P. (1986). Fieldnotes on Barbareño Chumash. Boxes 410–485, 491–506, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Microfilm reels 59–66, indexed in Mills, E. & Brickfield, A., eds., The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution 1907–1957, Vol. 3: Native American History, Language and Culture of S. CA/Basin. Milwood: Kraus.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1993). The grammar of Irish English. In Milroy, J. & Milroy, L., eds., Real English: The Grammar of the English Dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman, pp. 139–186.Google Scholar
Hayward, R. (1991). A propos patterns of lexicalization in the Ethiopian language area. In Mendel, D. & Clauci, U., eds., Ägypten im afro-orientalischen Kontext. Cologne: Institute of African Studies, pp. 139–156.Google Scholar
Hayward, R. (2000). Is there a metric for convergence? In Renfrew, C., McMahon, A., & Trask, R. L., eds., Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. Papers in the Prehistory of Languages, Vol. 2. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 621–640.Google Scholar
Hellwig, B. (2019). Language contact in the West Chadic language Goemai. In Grant, A. P., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 431–448.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. (2017). Britain and Ireland. In Hickey, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 270–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2016). Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2014a). Introduction: Reflections on constructions across grammars. Constructions and Frames, 6(2), 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds. (2014b). Special issue, Constructions and Frames, 6(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions. A diasystematic approach to common structures. In Braunmüller, K. & Gabriel, C., eds., Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2014a). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In Afarli, T. A., & Mæhlum, B., eds., The Sociolinguistics of Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2014b). Phonological elements and diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6, 202–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2014c). Convergence vs divergence from a diasystematic perspective. In Braunmüller, K., Höder, S., & Kühl, K., eds., Stability and Divergence in Language Contact. Factors and Mechanisms. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of diasystematic Construction Grammar. In Boas, H. C. & Höder, S., eds., Constructions in Contact. Constructional Perspectives on Contact Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2019). Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure, 12(3), 334–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollenbach, B. (1995). Semantic and syntactic extensions of body-part terms in Mixtecan: The case of face and foot. International Journal of American Linguistics, 61(2), 168–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L., Csató, É., & Karakoç, B. (2020). Turkic language contacts. In Hickey, R., ed., The Handbook of Language Contact, 2nd edition. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A. (1988). A syntactic sketch of Jamiltepec Mixtec. In Studies in the Syntax of Mixtecan Languages I. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics, 83. Dallas: SIL and the University of Texas, pp. 11–150.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2016). On the grammatical status of insubordinate if-clauses. In Kaltenböck, G., Keizer, E., & Lohmann, A., eds., Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 341–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Liljegren, H. (2017). Semantic patterns from an areal perspective. In Hickey, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 204–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marandin, J.-M. (2006). Contours as constructions. In Schönefeld, D., ed., Constructions All Over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications. Constructions. SV1-10/2006. https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, J. (2004). Areal semantics: Is there such a thing? In Saxene, A., ed., Himalayan Languages: Past and Present. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 347–393.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (1988). The grammaticization of coordination. In Haiman, J. & Thompson, S., eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (2007a). Integrating approaches to diversity: Argument structure on the Northwest Coast. In Matsumoto, Y., Oshima, D., Robinson, O., & Sells, P., eds., Diversity in Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 9–36.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2007b). Grammar, contact, and time. Journal of Language Contact, 1, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (2012). Morphologies in contact: Form, meaning, and use in the grammar of reference. In Stolz, T., Vanhove, M., Otsuka, H., & Urdzu, A., eds., Morphologies in Contact. Berlin: Akademia Verlag, pp. 15–36.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2020a). Context and consciousness: Documenting evidentials. In Brzech, K., Schultze-Berndt, E., & Bergqvist, H., eds., Knowing in Interaction: Empirical Approaches to Epistemicity and Intersubjectivity in Language. Special issue of Folia Linguistica, 54(2), 317–342.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2020b). Contact and North American languages. In Hickey, R., ed., Handbook of Language Contact, 2nd edition. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (2021a). Stories behind post-verbal negation clustering. In Krasnoukhova, O., Crevels, M. & van der Auwera, J., eds., Postverbal Negation: Synchrony, Diachrony, Areality. Special Issue of Studies in Language, 45(3), 684–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (2021b). Sitting and talking together: Packaging meaning into verbs with the neighbors. In Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Schapper, A., & Ameka, F., eds., Areal Typology of Lexico-Semantics. Special Issue of Linguistic Typology, 26(2), 375–402.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2021c). Language contact in North America. In Adamou, E. & Matras, Y., eds., Routledge Handbook of Language Contact. New York: Routledge, pp. 503–527.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2022). Topicality, affectedness, and body-part grammar. In Zariquiey, R. & Valenzuela, P. M., eds., The Grammar of Body Parts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 286–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Næss, Å. (2019). Bidirectional borrowing of structure and lexicon: The case of the Reef Islands. In Grant, A., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 627–642.Google Scholar
Nakayama, T., ed. (2003). George Louie’s Nuu-chah-nulth (Ahousaht) Texts with Grammatical Analysis. Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim A2-028. Kyoto: Nakanishi Printing Co.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Miros, G. K. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2010). Prosodic constructions in making complaints. In Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E., & Selting, M., eds., Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olguín Martínez, J. (2022). Temporal Adverbial Clauses in the Languages of the World: Clause-Linking Strategies. PhD thesis. University of California Santa Barbara.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
Östman, J.-O. (2015). From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse … and back. In Bücker, J., Günthner, S., & Imo, W., eds., Konstruktionsgrammatik V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 15–44.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2020). Constructions as discourse-restrained flexible prototypes. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M., eds. (2004). Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Dialects, discourse, and Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 476–490.Google Scholar
Packendorf, B. (2020). Contact and Siberian languages. In Hickey, R., ed., The Handbook of Language Contact. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons, pp. 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piirainen, E. (2012). Widespread Idioms in Europe and Beyond: Toward a Lexicon of Common Figurative Units. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, H. (1984). Wintu Grammar. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Radin, P. (1924). Wappo Texts, 1st series. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 19(1), 1–147.Google Scholar
Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2008). An intonational construction. Constructions, 5. https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-451.Google Scholar
Sakel, J. (2007). Mosetén borrowing from Spanish. In Matras, Y. & Sakel, J., eds., Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 567–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, J. (1965). English-Wappo Vocabulary. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Slater, K. (2003). A Grammar of Mangghuer, a Mongolic language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. London & New York: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, T. (1994). Mesoamerican calques. In MacKay, C. & Vásques, V., eds., Investigaciones lingüísticas en Mesoamérica. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónomal de México, pp. 15–50.Google Scholar
Souag, L. (2019). Language contact in Berber. In Grant, A., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 449–466.Google Scholar
Suárez, J. (1983). The Mesoamerican Indian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, N. (2019). Prosodic Patterns in English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Bender, E. M. (2007). Socially meaningful syntactic variation in sign-based grammar. English Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 347–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, M. (2018). Towards a constructional analysis of the progressive aspect in Texas German. In Boas, H. C. & Höder, S., eds., Constructions in Contact: Constructional Perspectives on Contact Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, T. & Hoffmann, T. (2020). The way construction in World Englishes. English World-Wide, 41(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell‐Kibler, K. (2011). The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change, 22(3), 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. (2010). Lectal variation in constructional semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y., eds., Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. & De Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. & Noël, D. (2012). The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Evans, V. & Pourcel, S., eds., New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2015a). Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2015b). Language in the mind and in the community. In Daems, J., Zenner, E., Heylen, K., Speelman, D., & Cuyckens, H., eds., Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 221–235.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2020). Language as a phenomenon of the third kind. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, B. & Colleman, T. (2013). From noun to intensifier: massa and massa’s in Flemish varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences, 36, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100.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
Geeraerts, D. (2005). Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. Ruiz & Cervel, S. Peña, eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interactions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In Tabakowska, E., Choinski, M., & Wiraszka, L., eds., Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2016). The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D. (1999). Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat. Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen [Convergence and Divergence in the Dutch Lexicon. A Study of Clothing and Football Terms]. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Kristiansen, G. (2015). Variationist linguistics. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (2010). Introduction: Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y., eds., Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerwin, J. & Röthlisberger, M. (2023). Dialectal ditransitive patterns in British English: Weighing sociolinguistic factors against language-internal constraints. In Zehentner, E., Röthlisberger, M., & Colleman, T., eds., Ditransitive Constructions in Germanic Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 195–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J., Szmrecsanyi, B., Röthlisberger, M., & Heller, B. (2018). General introduction: A comparative perspective on probabilistic variation in grammar. Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R., eds., Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 153–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in Mind and Society: A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2017). Historical sociolinguistics and Construction Grammar: From mutual challenges to mutual benefits. In Säily, T., Nurmi, A., Palander-Collin, M., & Auer, A., eds., Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J., eds., Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, Challenges and Potential Incompatibilities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In Braunmüller, K. & Gabriel, C., eds., Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2015). Cognitive Sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-based Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2021). The Cognitive Foundation of Post-Colonial Englishes: Construction Grammar as the Cognitive Theory for the Dynamic Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Bergs, A. (2018). A Construction Grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes, 18. http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, W. (2013). Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 491–509.Google Scholar
Hollmann, W. & Siewierska, A. (2011). The status of frequency, schemas and identity in cognitive sociolinguistics: A case study on definite article reduction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 25–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R. (2008). Introduction: Cognitive sociolinguistics: Rationale, methods and scope. In Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R., eds., Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leino, J. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Constructions and variability. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Gries, S. Th. (2009). Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide, 30(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Hoffmann, S. (2006). Describing verb-complementational profiles of New Englishes: A pilot study of Indian English. English World-Wide, 27(2), 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negrão, E. & Viotti, E. (2015). Elementos para a investigação da semântica do clítico SE no portugues brasileiro [Pointers for an investigation of the semantics of the clitic SE in Brazilian Portuguese]. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos, 57(1), 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2018). Genre and constructional analysis. In Vergaro, C., ed., Cognitive Perspectives on Genre. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 543–575.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2019). The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English: Towards a radically usage-based perspective on constructional attrition. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 22–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. & Colleman, T. (2021). Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Wen, X. & Taylor, J. R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 662–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., De Clerck, B., & Colleman, T. (2014). The emergence of non-canonical degree modifiers in non-standard varieties of Dutch: A constructionalization perspective. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 207–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Dialects, discourse and Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 476–490.Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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
Pickering, M. J & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the pragmatic and social dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. & Hollmann, W. (2007). Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Hannay, M. & Steen, G. J., eds., Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A., Afonso, S., Palú, D., & Franco, K. (2021). Null se constructions in Brazilian and European Portuguese: Morphosyntactic deletion or emergence of new constructions? Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 159–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds. (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 62(4), 685–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Heller, B., & Röthlisberger, M. (2016). Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide, 37(2), 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2002). From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yerastov, Y. (2015). A Construction Grammar analysis of the transitive be-perfect in present-day Canadian English. English Language and Linguistics, 19(1), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2015). Converging Grammars: Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A. (2015). Probleme und Desiderata einer Social Construction Grammar. In Ziem, A. & Lasch, A., eds., Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und kognitive Routinen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

References

Ädel, A., Nyström Höög, C., & Östman, J.-O. (2023). From risk and responsibility to risk discourse. In Ädel, A. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Risk Discourse and Responsibility. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 2–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. & Pfänder, S., eds. (2017). Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1998). The emergent lexicon. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 34, 421–435.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2020). Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. III: Fillmore on Linguistic Theory and Constructions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.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.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
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
Lambrecht, K. (1996). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leino, J. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Constructions and variability. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2001). Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction, and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. (2018). Conceptual Semantics: A Micro-Modular Approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (1981). You Know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2002). Sulvan kansan wellerismit konstruktiona [The Wellerisms of the residents in Solf expressed as a construction]. In Herlin, I., Kalliokoski, J., Kotilainen, L., & Onikki-Rantajääskö, T., eds., Äidinkielen merkitykset [Senses of the Mother Tongue]. Helsinki: SKS, pp. 75–97.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
Östman, J.-O. (2006). Ordstäv som en central del av språket. Om att få med “allt” i en grammatisk beskrivning [Wellerisms as part of the core of language. On including ‘everything’ in a grammatical description]. Svenskans beskrivning, 28, 389–401.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2015). From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse … and back. In Bücker, J., Günthner, S., & Imo, W., eds., Konstruktionsgrammatik V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 15–44.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2021). Constructions as discourse-restrained flexible prototypes. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2022). Discourse, pragmatics and responsibility. In Peterson, E., Hiltunen, T., & Kern, J., eds., Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change. Theory, Innovation, Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xix–xxv.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (subm.). Construction Discourse as mediator between Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics: Focus on responsibility.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. & Mattfolk, L. (2021). Introducing the name-phrase construction. In Heikkola, L. M., Paulsen, G., Wojciechowicz, K., & Rosenberg, J., eds., Språkets Funktion [The Function of Language]. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, pp. 244–264.Google Scholar
Rosenholm, G. (1965). Solf sockens historia II [The History of the Solf Parish, Part 2], Solf: Solf kommuns förlag.Google Scholar
Segerståhl, S. (2011). Vaggvisor i Kvevlax. Språkliga Strukturer och Konstruktioner [Lullabies in Kvevlax. Linguistic Structures and Constructions]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Solin, A. & Östman, J.-O. (2016). The notion of responsibility in discourse studies. In Östman, J.-O. & Solin, A., eds., Discourse and Responsibility in Professional Settings. Sheffield: Equinox, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Tainio, L. (1999). Postikortti työpaikalle [Postcards to the workplace]. In Laakso, V. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Postikortti Diskurssina [The Postcard as Discourse]. Hämeenlinna: Korttien Talo, pp. 87–122.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (2019). Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. In Ono, T., Laury, R., & Suzuki, R., eds., Usage-Based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–37.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
×