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-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T14:47:30.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part VI - Constructional Applications

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. 541 - 647
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

Abend, O., Kwiatkowski, T., Smith, N. J., Goldwater, S., & Steedman, M. (2017). Bootstrapping language acquisition. Cognition, 164, 116–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 86–90.Google Scholar
Banarescu, L., Bonial, C., Cai, S., Georgescu, M., Griffitt, K., Hermjakob, U., Knight, K., Koehn, P., Palmer, M., & Schneider, N. (2013). Abstract Meaning Representation for Sembanking. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse. Washington, DC: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 178–186.Google Scholar
Baronchelli, A., Felici, M., Loreto, V., Caglioti, E., & Steels, L. (2006). Sharp transition towards shared vocabularies in multi-agent systems. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2006(6), P06014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2006/06/P06014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. & 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., Gerasymova, K., & van Trijp, R. (2010). Situated learning through the use of language games. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Machine Learning Conference of Belgium and The Netherlands (BeNeLearn), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Beuls, K. & Steels, L. (2013). Agent-based models of strategies for the emergence and evolution of grammatical agreement. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58960. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beuls, K. & Van Eecke, P. (2023). Fluid Construction Grammar: State of the art and future outlook. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Construction Grammars and NLP (CxGs+NLP, GURT/SyntaxFest 2023). Washington, DC: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 41–50.Google Scholar
Beuls, K., Van Eecke, P., & Cangalovic, V. S. (2021). A computational construction grammar approach to semantic frame extraction. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(1), 20180015. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleys, J., Stadler, K., & De Beule, J. (2011). Search in linguistic processing. In Steels, L., ed., Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleys, J. & Steels, L. (2009). Linguistic selection of language strategies: A case study for color. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Life, pp. 150–157.Google Scholar
Bonial, C., Badarau, B., Griffitt, K., Hermjakob, U., Knight, K., O’Gorman, T., Palmer, M., & Schneider, N. (2018). Abstract Meaning Representation of constructions: The more we include, the better the representation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Miyazaki: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 1677–1684.Google Scholar
Chang, N. (2008). Constructing Grammar: A Computational Model of the Emergence of Early Constructions. PhD thesis. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boer, B. (2000). Self-organization in vowel systems. Journal of Phonetics, 28(4), 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vylder, B. & Tuyls, K. (2006). How to reach linguistic consensus: A proof of convergence for the naming game. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 242(4), 818–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dominey, P. F. & Boucher, J.-D. (2005). Learning to talk about events from narrated video in a construction grammar framework. Artificial Intelligence, 167(1), 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doumen, J., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P. (2023). Modelling language acquisition through syntactico-semantic pattern finding. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2023, pp. 1347–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J., Dodge, E., & Bryant, J. (2009). Embodied Construction Grammar. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–146.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. W. & Harms, R. T., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88.Google 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. (1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14, 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Baker, C. F. (2001). Frame semantics for text understanding. In Proceedings of WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop, NAACL, 6.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. & 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. 1–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaspers, J., Cimiano, P., Griffiths, S. S., & Wrede, B. (2011). An unsupervised algorithm for the induction of constructions. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL), 2, 1–6.Google Scholar
Gerasymova, K. & Spranger, M. (2010). Acquisition of grammar in autonomous artificial systems. In Coelho, M., Studer, R. & Wooldridge, M., eds., Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2010). Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 923–928.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 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
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (2014). Charles J. Fillmore. Computational Linguistics, 40(3), 725–731.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
Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–152.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Joulin, A., & Baroni, M. (2016). A roadmap towards machine intelligence. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, pp. 29–61.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1974). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT AI Laboratory.Google Scholar
Nevens, J., Doumen, J., Van Eecke, P., & Beuls, K. (2022). Language acquisition through intention reading and pattern finding. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 15–25.Google Scholar
Nevens, J., Van Eecke, P., & Beuls, K. (2020). From continuous observations to symbolic concepts: A discrimination-based strategy for grounded concept learning. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7, 84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1956). The logic theory machine – a complex information processing system. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudeyer, P.-Y. (2006). Self-organization in the Evolution of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, J. (1984). Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem Solving. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Spiro, R., Bruce, B., & Brewer, W., eds., Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 33–58.Google Scholar
Russell, S. & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th edition. Hoboken: Pearson.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
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sierra Santibáñez, J. (2012). A logic programming approach to parsing and production in Fluid Construction Grammar. In Steels, L., ed., Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin: Springer, pp. 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spranger, M. (2016). The Evolution of Grounded Spatial Language. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spranger, M. & Steels, L. (2015). Co-acquisition of syntax and semantics: An investigation in spatial language. In Yang, Q. & Wooldridge, M., eds., Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Palo Alto: AAAI Press, pp. 1909–1915.Google Scholar
Steels, L. (1998). The origins of syntax in visually grounded robotic agents. Artificial Intelligence, 103(1-2), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle 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 Grammar. 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. (2005). The emergence and evolution of linguistic structure: From lexical to grammatical communication systems. Connection Science, 17, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (2015). The Talking Heads Experiment: Origins of Words and Meanings. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. & Belpaeme, T. (2005). Coordinating perceptually grounded categories through language: A case study for colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. & De Beule, J. (2006). Unify and merge in Fluid Construction Grammar. In Vogt, P., Sugita, Y., Tuci, E., & Nehaniv, C., eds., Symbol Grounding and Beyond. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 197–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L., Van Eecke, P., & Beuls, K. (2022). Usage-based learning of grammatical categories. arXiv:2204.10201. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.10201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2009). The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In Bavin, E. L., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–87.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 2017 AAAI Spring Symposium Series. Palo Alto: AAAI Press, 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 Eecke, P., Nevens, J., & Beuls, K. (2022). Neural heuristics for scaling constructional language processing. Journal of Language Modelling, 10(2), 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2008). The emergence of semantic roles in Fluid Construction Grammar. In Smith, A. D. M., Smith, K., & Ferrer i Cancho, R., eds., The Evolution Of Language: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference (EVOLANG7). Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 346–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2016). Chopping down the syntax tree: What constructions can do instead. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. & Steels, L. (2012). Multilevel alignment maintains language systematicity. Advances in Complex Systems, 15(3–4). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525912500397.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
Wellens, P. & De Beule, J. (2010). Priming through constructional dependencies: a case study in Fluid Construction Grammar. In Smith, A. D. M., Schouwstra, M., de Boer, B., & Smith, K., eds., The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference (EVOLANG8). Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 344–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willaert, T., Van Eecke, P., Beuls, K., & Steels, L. (2020). Building social media observatories for monitoring online opinion dynamics. Social Media + Society, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/205630511989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willaert, T., Van Eecke, P., Van Soest, J., & Beuls, K. (2021). An opinion facilitator for online news media. Frontiers in Big Data, 4, https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2021.695667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winston, P. H. (1977). Artificial Intelligence. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

References

Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2016). Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv:1409.0473. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.0473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasubramanian, S., Jain, N., Jindal, G., Awasthi, A., & Sarawagi, S. (2020). What’s in a name? Are BERT named entity representations just as good for any other name? arXiv:2007.06897. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2007.06897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A. & Zanchetta, E. (2009). The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beniaguev, D., Segev, I., & London, M. (2021). Single cortical neurons as deep artificial neural networks. Neuron, 109(17), 2727–2739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Bonial, C. & Tayyar Madabushi, H. (2023). Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Construction Grammars and NLP (CxGs+NLP, GURT/SyntaxFest 2023). Washington, DC: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Borin, L., Dannélls, D., & Grūzītis, N. (2018). Linguistics vs. language use in constructicon building and use. In Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T., eds., Constructicography. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C., Chen, M., Sigler, E., Litwin, M., Gray, S., Chess, B., Clark, J., Berner, C., McCandlish, S., Radford, A., Sutskever, I., & Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv:2005.14165. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, E. A., Hewitt, J., & Manning, C. D. (2020). Finding universal grammatical relations in multilingual BERT. arXiv:2005.04511. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, K. W. (2020). Emerging trends: Subwords, seriously? Natural Language Engineering, 26(3), 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, K., Luong, M.-T., Le, Q. V., & Manning, C. D. (2020). Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. arXiv:2003.10555. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.10555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, A. M. & Le, Q. V. (2015). Semi-supervised sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Volume 2, pp. 3079–3087.Google Scholar
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv:1810.04805. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2013). Construction Grammar and first language acquisition. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 346–364.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. (2017). Computational learning of Construction Grammars. Language and Cognition, 9(2), 254–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J. (2020). Advances in Embodied Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 12(1), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). The case for case reopened. In Cole, P., ed., Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In Studies in Linguistic Analysis (Special Volume of the Philological Society). Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Garí Soler, A. & Apidianaki, M. (2021). Let’s play mono-poly: BERT can reveal words’ polysemy level and partitionability into senses. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9, 825–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gow-Smith, E. & Tayyar Madabushi, H. (2022). Improving tokenisation by alternative treatment of spaces. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2022), Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 11430–11433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulordava, K., Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Linzen, T., & Baroni, M. (2018). Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchically. Paper presented at the Conference of the NAACL-HLT, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1–6, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haber, J. & Poesio, M. (2021). Patterns of lexical ambiguity in contextualised language models. arXiv:2109.13032. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2109.13032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1992). American parenting of language-learning children: Persisting differences in family–child interactions observed in natural home environments. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1096–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, H., Aue, A., Chen, C., Chowdhary, V., Clark, J., Federmann, C., Huang, X., Junczys-Dowmunt, M., Lewis, W., & Li, M. (2018). Achieving human parity on automatic Chinese to English news translation. arXiv:1803.05567. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.05567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, P., Liu, X., Gao, J. & Chen, W. (2021). DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with disentagled attention. arXiv:2006.03654v6. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.03654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J. (2020). The unstoppable rise of computational linguistics in deep learning. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6294–6306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, J. & Manning, C. D. (2019). A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pp. 4129–4138.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Perek, F. (2015). Meaning change in a petri dish: Constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts. Linguistic Vanguard, 1(1), 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochreiter, S. & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735–1780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Construction Grammar: Introduction. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., Endresen, A., Zhukova, V., Mordashova, D., & Rakhilina, E. (2020). How to build a constructicon in five years. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, T., Choi, J., Edmiston, D., & Lee, S.-G. (2020). Are pre-trained language models aware of phrases? Simple but strong baselines for grammar induction. arXiv:2002.00737. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.00737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, K., Badarau, B., Baranescu, L., Bonial, C., Bardocz, M., Griffitt, K., Hermjakob, U., Marcu, D., Palmer, M., O’Gorman, T., & Schneider, N. (2021). Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) Annotation Release 3.0. https://hdl.handle.net/11272.1/AB2/82CVJF.Google Scholar
Kudo, T. (2018). Subword regularization: Improving neural network translation models with multiple subword candidates. arXiv:1804.10959. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.10959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lan, Z., Chen, M., Goodman, S., Gimpel, K., Sharma, P., & Soricut, R. (2019). Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv:1909.11942. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1909.11942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T. K. & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis of acquisition induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N. & Heylen, K. (2014). A radically data-driven Construction Grammar: Experiments with Dutch causative constructions. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, O. & Goldberg, Y. (2014). Neural word embedding as implicit matrix factorization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27, 2177–2185.Google Scholar
Levy, O., Goldberg, Y., & Dagan, I. (2015). Improving distributional similarity with lessons learned from word embeddings. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, B., Zhu, Z., Thomas, G., Rudzizc, F., & Xu, Y. (2022). Neural reality of argument structure constructions. arXiv:2202.12246. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.12246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, T. & Baroni, M. (2021). Syntactic structure from deep learning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, N. F., Gardner, M., Belinkov, Y., Peters, M. E., & Smith, N. A. (2019). Linguistic knowledge and transferability of contextual representations. arXiv:1903.08855. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1903.08855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019). RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv:1907.11692. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.11692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loureiro, D. & Jorge, A. (2019). Language modelling makes sense: Propagating representations through WordNet for full-coverage word sense disambiguation. arXiv:1906.10007. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.10007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loureiro, D., Jorge, A. M., & Camacho-Collados, J. (2022). LMMS reloaded: Transformer-based sense embeddings for disambiguation and beyond. Artificial Intelligence, 305, 103661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2022.103661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, K. & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 28, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R. (2018). Constructicography at work. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 41–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T., eds. (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv:1301.3781. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.3781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, S., Srinivasan, M., & Meylan, S. (2020). Contextualized word embeddings encode aspects of human-like word sense knowledge. arXiv:2010.13057. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.13057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevens, J., Van Eecke, P., & Beuls, K. (2019). A practical guide to studying emergent communication through grounded language games. Paper presented at the AISB Language Learning for Artificial Agents Symposium, Falmouth, UK.Google Scholar
Nivre, J., De Marneffe, M.-C., Ginter, F., Goldberg, Y., Hajic, J., Manning, C. D., McDonald, R., Petrov, S., Pyysalo, S., & Silveira, N. (2016). Universal dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC ’16), pp. 1659–1666.Google Scholar
Nivre, J., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., Chanev, A., Eryigit, G., Kübler, S., Marinov, S., & Marsi, E. (2007). MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 13(2), 95–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2016). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantics analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 65–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piao, S., Bianchi, F., Dayrell, C., D’egidio, A., & Rayson, P. (2015). Development of the multilingual semantic annotation system. Paper presented at the Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A., Narasimhan, K., Salimans, T., & Sutskever, I. (2018). Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. PrePrint retrieved from https://bit.ly/3zFOl3M.Google Scholar
Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., & Sutskever, I. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8), 9.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, M. T., Wu, T., Guestrin, C., & Singh, S. (2020). Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with CheckList. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 4902–4912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, A., Kovaleva, O., & Rumshisky, A. (2020). A primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT works. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8, 842–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romain, L. (2022). Putting the argument back into argument structure construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(1), 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, R. & Mareček, D. (2019). Inducing syntactic trees from BERT representations. arXiv:1906.11511. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.11511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. (1994). TreeTagger – a language independent part-of-speech tagger. Retrieved from www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/corplex/TreeTagger/.Google Scholar
Sennrich, R., Haddow, B., & Birch, A. (2015). Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. arXiv:1508.07909. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1508.07909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (2004). Constructivist development of Grounded Construction Grammar. 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
Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., & Le, Q. V. (2014). Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3104–3112.Google Scholar
Tang, Y., Nyengaard, J. R., De Groot, D. M., & Gundersen, H. J. G. (2001). Total regional and global number of synapses in the human brain neocortex. Synapse, 41(3), 258–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayyar Madabushi, H., Divjak, D. & Milin, P. (2022). Abstraction not memory: BERT and the English article system. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 924–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayyar Madabushi, H., Romain, L., Divjak, D., & Milin, P. (2020). CxGBERT: BERT meets Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 4020–4032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenney, I., Xia, P., Chen, B., Wang, A., Poliak, A., McCoy, R. T., Kim, N., Van Durme, B., Bowman, S. R., & Das, D. (2019). What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representations. arXiv:1905.06316. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.06316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1–2), 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, Y.-H., Shih, C.-F., Chen, P.-E., Chou, H.-Y., Ku, M.-C., & Hsieh, S.-K. (2022). CxLM: A construction and context-aware language model. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Marseille, 20–25 June 2022, pp. 6361–6369.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. (2017). A computational Construction Grammar for English. In The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding Technical Report SS-17-02. Stanford: AAAI, pp. 266–273.Google 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
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, pp. 5998–6008.Google Scholar
Vilares, D., Strzyz, M., Søgaard, A., & Gómez-Rodríguez, C. (2020). Parsing as pretraining. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 34(5), pp. 9114–9121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vulić, I., Ponti, E. M., Litschko, R., Glavaš, G., & Korhonen, A. (2020). Probing pretrained language models for lexical semantics. arXiv:2010.05731. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.05731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, J., Tay, Y., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., Yogatama, D., Bosma, M., Zhou, D., Metzler, D., Chi, E. H., Hashimoto, T., Vinyals, O., Liang, P., Dean, J., & Fedus, W. (2022). Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. https://openreview.net/forum?id=yzkSU5zdwD.Google Scholar
Weissweiler, L., Hofmann, V., Köksal, A., & Schütze, H. (2022). The better your syntax, the better your semantics? Probing pretrained language models for the English comparative correlative. arXiv:2210.13181. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.13181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yenicelik, D., Schmidt, F., & Kilcher, Y. (2020). How does BERT capture semantics? A closer look at polysemous words. In Proceedings of the Third Blackbox NLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pp. 156–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Warstadt, A., Li, H.-S., & Bowman, S. R. (2020). When do you need billions of words of pretraining data? arXiv:2011.04946. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.04946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Y., Kiros, R., Zemel, R., Salakhutdinov, R., Urtasun, R., Torralba, A., & Fidler, S. (2015). Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

References

Antonopoulou, E. & Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction Grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2594–2609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appel, A. & Nabokov, V. (1967). An interview with Vladimir Nabokov. Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary Literature, 8(2), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, S., Braun, A., Moulin, C., & Winter-Froemel, E., eds. (2018). Expanding the Lexicon: Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity, and Ludicity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, S. (2012). On the distinctiveness of poetic language. New Literary History, 43(1), 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80(2), 290–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. & Kompa, N. (2020). Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. M. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10, 475–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blatt, B. (2017). Nabokov’s Favorite Word Is Mauve: The Literary Quirks and Oddities of Our Most-Loved Authors. London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börgerding, P., Benen, M.-C. & Bergs, A. (2020). Expecting the unexpected? Predictive coding, pattern recognition, and surprise in narratives. Anglistik, 31(1), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2020/1/10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1995). Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: Expressing the subjectivity of the non-speaker. In Stein, D. & Wright, S., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, G. L. (1970). The Language of Dickens. London: Andre Deutsch.Google Scholar
Budts, S. (2020). A connectionist approach to analogy. On the modal meaning of periphrastic do in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 18(2), 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatman, S. (1972). The Later Style of Henry James. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. (2012). Styles, registers, genres, text types. In Bergs, A. & Brinton, L. J., eds., English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 237–253.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2016). Labov, vernacularity and sociolinguistic change. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C. E. (1997). Social meaning in Southern speech from an interactional sociolinguistic perspective: An integrative discourse analysis of terms of address. In Bernstein, C., Nunnally, T., & Sabino, R., eds., Language Variety in the South Revisited. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 225–241.Google Scholar
de Almeida, R., Riven, L., Manouilidou, C., Lungu, O., Dwivedi, V. D., Jarema, G., & Gillon, B. (2016). The neuronal correlates of indeterminate sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(614). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Beaugrande, R. (1987). Schemas for literary communication. In Halász, L., ed., Literary Discourse: Aspects of Cognitive and Social Psychological Approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 49–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based Construction Grammar. In Dabrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 296–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eco, U. (1979). Narrative structures in Fleming. In Eco, U., ed., The Role of the Reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 144–172.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. (2011). Textartenklassifikation. Ein Problemaufriss. In Habscheid, S., ed., Textsorten, Handlungsmuster, Oberflächen: linguistische Typologien der Kommunikation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eitelmann, M. & Haumann, D., eds. (2022). Extravagant Morphology Studies in Rule-Bending, Pattern-Extending and Theory-Challenging Morphology. Amsterdam & Phildelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, B. I. (1939). Who, it may be asked, was Finnegan? The Guardian, May 12, 1939.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (2000). Genres, text types, or discourse modes? Narrative modalities and generic categorization. Style, 34(1), 274–292.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, L. & Nini, A. (2020). Individuality in syntactic variation: An investigation of the seventeenth-century gerund alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M. (2020). Following the Formula in Beowulf, Örvar-Odds Saga, and Tolkien. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, E. J. & Michaelis, L., eds. (2003). Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fry, D. K. Jr. (1981). Formulaic theory and Old English poetry. In Heartz, D. & Wade, B., eds., Report of the Twelfth Congress, Berkeley 1977, International Musicological Society. Kassel: Bärenreiter, pp. 169–173.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In Steen, G. & Gibbs, R., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, M. L. & Goldberg, A. E. (1999). Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In Hahn, M. & Stoness, S. C., eds., Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 208–211.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. & Ungerer, T. (2023). Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226723000117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37(6), 1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2020). Human linguisticality and the building blocks of languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 3056. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, D. (1995). Universal Grammar and Narrative Form. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017a). Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 310–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017b). From constructions to Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2018). Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2019). Language and creativity: A Construction Grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard, 5. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Bergs, A. (2018). A Construction Grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes, 18. https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, A., ed. (1932). Letters of D. H. Lawrence. London: Viking.Google Scholar
Iser, W. (1972). The reading process: A phenomenological approach. New Literary History, 3(2), 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C. L., Cho, S.-J., & Watson, D. G. (2019). Self-priming in production: Evidence for a hybrid model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 43(7): e12749. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobson, R. (1960). Concluding statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 350–377.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909 [1954]). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London: Allen Unwin.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1994). Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keunen, B. (2000). Bakhtin, genre formation, and the cognitive turn: Chronotopes as memory schemata. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1069.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2685–2701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P. & Willems, D. (2011). Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, A. B. (1991). Epic Singers and Oral Tradition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lord, A. B. (1995). The Singer Resumes the Tale. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, C. (1992). Literary sociolinguistics: A methodological framework for research on the use of nonstandard language in fiction. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 17(1), 103–123.Google Scholar
Moessner, L. (2001). Genre, text Type, style, register: A terminological maze? European Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, B. (2005). Black day for the blue pencil. The Observer, August 6. www.theguardian.com/books/2005/aug/06/featuresreviews.guardianreview1.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. & Vaux, B. (2003). Metalinguistic, shmetalinguistic: The phonology of shmreduplication. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 39(1), 702–721.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2010). Viewpoint and Construction Grammar: The case of past + now. Language and Literature, 19(3), 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2012). The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The Past now in language and literature. In Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E., eds., Viewpoint and Perspective in Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2018). Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics and Cognition, 25(3), 543–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, B. (2015). Frames for clause combing. Schematicity and formulaicity in discourse patterns. In Fischer, K. & Nikiforidou, K., eds., On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre. Special Issue of Constructions and Frames, 7(2), pp. 348–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, A. H. (1986). Oral-formulaic research in Old English studies. Oral Tradition, 1(3), 548–606.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
Parry, M. (1971 [1928]). The traditional epithet in Homer. In Parry, A., ed., The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–191.Google Scholar
Petré, P. (2019). How constructions are born. The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. In Busse, B. & Möhlig-Falke, R., eds., Patterns in Language and Linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 157–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Propp, V. Y. (2012 [1928]). The Russian Folktale. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (2004). Snowclones: Lexicographical dating to the second. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000350.html.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. (2002). The Neuroscience of Language: On Brain Circuits of Words and Serial Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S. & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia: A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riedinger, A. (1985). The Old English formula in context. Speculum, 60, 294–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J. & Michaelis, L. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Construction and Frames, 2(2), 158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. (2016). Two ideas of creativity. In Hinton, M., ed., Evidence. Experiment and Argument in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 15–26.Google Scholar
Smit, D. (1987). The later styles of Henry James. Style, 21(1), 95–106.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions. Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, D. (1995). Subjective meanings and the history of inversions in English. In Stein, D. & Wright, S., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google 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
van Dijk, T. A. (1972). Some Aspects of Text Grammars: A Study in Theoretical Linguistics and Poetics. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walpole, H. (1754). Letter to Horace Mann. In Lewis, W. S., ed., Rescuing Horace Walpole. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Watt, I. (1974). The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1995). Subjectivity and experiential syntax. In Stein, D. & Wright, S., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarcone, A., McRae, K., Lenci, A., & Padó, S. (2017). Complement coercion: The joint effects of type and typicality. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegeler, D. (2007). A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(5), 990–1028.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
×