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-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T12:10:50.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - The Constructional View of Language

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. 21 - 146
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

Andor, J. (2010). Discussing frame semantics: The state of the art – An interview with Charles J. Fillmore. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972 [1955]). A theory of play and fantasy. Reprinted in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 177–193.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bordería, S. P. & Fischer, K. (2021). Using discourse segmentation to account for the polyfunctionality of discourse markers: The case of well. Journal of Pragmatics, 173, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1977). Creativity in verbalization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge. In Freedle, R. O., ed., Discourse Production and Comprehension. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 41–55.Google 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
Fedorenko, E., Blank, I. A., Siegelman, M., & Mineroff, Z. (2020). Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network. Cognition, 203, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1971). Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T., eds., Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 272–289.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–131.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. (1977a). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Zampolli, A., ed., Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 55–81.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). Topics in lexical semantics. In Cole, R. W., ed., Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 76–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977c). The case for case reopened. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea, , ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame Semantics. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 613–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2008). The merging of frames. In Rossini Favretti, R., ed., Frames, Corpora, and Knowledge Representation. Bologna: Bononia University Press, pp. 2–12.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Atkins, B. T. S. (1992). Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E., eds., Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 75–102.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
Finkbeiner, R. (2019). Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (2015). Situation in grammar or in frames? Evidence from the so-called baby talk register. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 258–288.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
Fried, M. (2009). Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Context and Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 63–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Nikiforidou, K., eds. (2013). Advances in Frame Semantics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2016). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Diacronia, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1984). Formulaicity, frame semantics, and pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language, 60(4), 753–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2019). Diachronic frame analysis: The purpose frame in French. Constructions and Frames, 11(1), 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Grammar and Semantics of Adnominal Clauses in Japanese. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1997). Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2008). Variations in Japanese honorification: Deviations or a change in the making? In Leino, J., ed., Constructional Reorganization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2021). Flexibility and fluidity of grammar: Grammatical constructions in discourse and sociocultural context. Journal of Pragmatics, 172, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y., Comrie, B., & Sells, P., eds. (2017). Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, K. (1983). Mari (Cheremis) pseudo-relatives. In Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, 461–464.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. Reprinted in Winston, P., ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211–277.Google Scholar
Moore, D. (2012). Relative clauses in Gavião of Rondônia. In Comrie, B. & Estrada-Fernández, Z., eds., Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas: A Typological Overview. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2015) Grammatical constructions and cross-text generalizations: Empathetic narration as genre. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 181–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2021). Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in stage directions. Journal of Pragmatics, 173, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, B. & Berman, R. A. (2010). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 744–765.CrossRefGoogle 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
Petruck, M. R. L. (1996). Frame Semantics. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. O., Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Petruck, M. R. L. (2011). Advances in Frame Semantics. Constructions and Frames, 3(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Moore, T. E., ed., Cognitive Development and Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press, pp. 111–144.CrossRefGoogle 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
Schmid, H.-J. (2015). A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistic Association, 3(1), 3–26.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. A., eds. (1996). Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics: In Honor of Charles J. Fillmore. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1980). The representation of space by language. Manuscript. Cognitive Science Program. University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1979). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectation. In Freedle, R. O., ed., New Directions in Discourse Processes. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 137–181.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Abraham, W., ed. (1978a). Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, W. (1978b). Valence and case: Remarks on their contribution to the identification of grammatical relations. In Abraham, W., ed., Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 695–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, F. & Webelhuth, G. (1998). A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Cronin, B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. In COLING-ACL ’98: Proceedings of the Conference. Montreal, pp. 86–90. https://doi.org/10.3115/980845.980860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, W. (2008). Precategoriality and argument structure in Late Archaic Chinese. In Leino, J., ed., Constructional Reorganization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 55–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2004). You wanna consider a constructional approach to wanna-contraction? In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S., eds., Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 479–491.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., ed. (2009). Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography. Methods and Applications. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., ed. (2010a). Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2010b). Comparing constructions across languages. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2010c). The syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2011a). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2011b). Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In Engelberg, S., Holler, A., & Proost, K., eds., Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2017). Computational resources: FrameNet and constructicon. In Dancygier, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2019). Zur methodologischen Grundlage der empirischen Konstruktikographie. In Czicza, D., Dekalo, V., & Diewald, G., eds., Konstruktionsgrammatik VI. Varianz in der konstruktionalen Schematizität. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 237–263.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2020). Constructions in English grammar. In Aarts, B., McMahon, A., & Hinrichs, L., eds., The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley, pp. 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2021). Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. In Wen, X. & Taylor, R. J., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, pp. 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Dux, R. (2017). From the past into the present: From case frames to semantic frames. Linguistics Vanguard, 3, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 35(1), 15–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A. (2018a). Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective. In Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A., eds., Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A. (2018b). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 183–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A. (2022). Debunking some myths about the role and relevance of (restricted) semantic role sets: Some thoughts on Ágel & Höllein 2021. In Gallez, F. & Hermann, M., eds., Cognition and Contrast. Festschrift for Sabine De Knop. Brussels: Saint-Louis University Press, pp. 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouveret, M. & Legallois, D., eds. (2012). Constructions in French. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, P. G. (1972). Review of Stockwell, Schachter & Hall Partee (1968), Integration of transformational theories on English syntax. Language, 48, 645–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Government and Binding Theory. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. (2010). Revising Talmy’s typolological classification of complex event constructions. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dux, R. (2020). Frame-Constructional Verb Classes. Change and Theft Verbs in English and German. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, P. (2006). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik, Band 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Eroms, W. (1986). Funktionale Satzperspektive. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977a). Topics in lexical semantics. In Cole, R. W., ed., Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 76–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). The case for case reopened. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985a). Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Niepokuj, M. et al., eds., Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: BLS, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985b). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, (6)2, 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 35–55. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (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. (2003). Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. I: Papers on Semantic Roles. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame Semantics. In Geeraerts, D., ed., Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 49–68.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–132.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2020). Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. II, ed. by Gras, P., Östman, J.-O. & Verschueren, J.. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Baker, C. F. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 313–340.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar Course Book. Manuscript. University of California at Berkeley: Department of Linguistics.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
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhodes, 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
Fox, A. (1990). The Structure of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (2004). Predicate semantics and event construal in Czech case marking. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 87–120.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
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. A. (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–31.Google Scholar
Gonzalvez-Garcia, F. (2010). Contrasting constructions in English and Spanish: The influence of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 43–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurevich, O. (2010). Conditional constructions in English and Russian. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R., Ohara, K. H., Fujii, S., & Fillmore, C. J. (2010). On expressing measurement and comparison in English and Japanese. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. (1982). Über Komposition und Derivation: zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 1(1), 76–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. (1986). Der Begriff “Mittelfeld,” Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In Weiss, W., Wiegand, H. E., & Reis, M., eds., Akten des VII. Kongresses der Internationalen Vereinigung für germanische Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften. Göttingen 1985, vol. 3. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 329–340.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Iwata, S. (2005). The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Tyers, F. M. (2018). A constructicon for Russian. Filling the gaps. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1992). An On-Line Computational Model of Human Sentence Interpretation: A Theory of the Representation and Use of Linguistic Knowledge. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathol, A. (2000). Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2005). Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 32–48.Google 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
Kim, J.-B. & Michaelis, L. A. (2020). Syntactic Constructions in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klotz, M. (2000). Grammatik und Lexik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. & Lemoine, K. (2005). Definite null objects in (spoken) French: A Construction-Grammar account. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 13–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasch, A. (2016). Nonagentive Konstruktionen des Deutschen. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leino, J. (2010). Results, cases, and constructions: Argument structure constructions in English and Finnish. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 103–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leino, J. & Östman, J.-O. (2008). Language change, variability, and functional load: Finnish genericity from a constructional point of view. In Leino, J., ed., Constructional Reorganization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenerz, J. (1977). Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tuebingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R. (2018a). Constructicography at work: Theory meets practice in the Swedish constructicon. 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., eds. (2018b). Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., Goria, E., & Fiorentini, I. (2019). Non-exhaustive lists in spoken language. A construction grammatical perspective. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 290–316.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
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(1), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond Alternations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2006). Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language, 82(4), 850–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemoto, N. (2005). Verbal polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, N., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, 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
Ohara, K. (2018). Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 142–163.Google Scholar
Petruck, M. R. L. (1996). Frame Semantics. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O., Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Potts, T. C. (1978). Case-grammar as componential analysis. In Abraham, W., ed., Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 399–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reis, M. (1985). Wer glaubst Du hat recht? On the so-called extractions from verb-second clauses and verb-first parenthetical constructions in German. Sprache und Pragmatik, 36, 27–83.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2010). English filler-gap constructions. Language, 86(3), 486–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 69–201.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Boas, H. C., & Kay, P. (2012). Introducing Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Somers, H. L. (1987). Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R., Schachter, P., & Partee, B. (1973). The Major Syntactic Structures of English. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1959). Les éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Timyam, N. & Bergen, B. K. (2010). A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. In Boas, H. C., ed., Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Trijp, R. (2013). A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 88–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G. (1992). Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G. (2012). The distribution of that-clauses in English: An SBCG account. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 203–228.Google Scholar
Wöllstein-Leisten, A., Heilmann, A., Stepan, P., & Vikner, S. (1997). Deutsche Satzstruktur. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Ziem, A. (2008). Frames und sprachliches Wissen. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ziem, A., Boas, H. C., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2014). Grammatische Konstruktionen und semantische Frames für die Textanalyse. In Hagemann, J. & Staffeldt, S., eds., Syntaxtheorien. Analysen im Vergleich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 297–333.Google Scholar

References

Bäckström, L., Lyngfelt, B., & Sköldberg, E. (2014). Towards interlingual constructicography: On correspondence between constructicon resources for English and Swedish. Constructions and Frames, 6, 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. F. & Lorenzi, A. (2020). Exploring crosslinguistic framenet alignment. Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop 2020: Towards a Global, Multilingual Framenet. Marseille: ELRA, pp. 77–84.Google Scholar
Bender, E. M. & Koller, A. (2020). Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In Proceedings of ACL 2020, pp. 5185–5198. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoldi, A. & Chishman, R. (2012). Frame semantics and legal corpora annotation. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 7(9), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle 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
Bisk, Y., Holtzman, A., Thomason, J., Andreas, J., Bengio, Y., Chai, J., Lapata, M., Lazaridou, A., May, J., Nisnevich, A., Pinto, N., & Turian, J. (2020). Experience grounds language. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2020, pp. 8718–8735. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., ed. (2009). Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2017). Computational resources: FrameNet and constructicon. In Dancygier, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Dux, R. (2013). Semantic frames for foreign language education: Towards a German frame-based dictionary. Veredas, 17, 82–100.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 35(1), 15–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.183–228.Google Scholar
Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Johansson, R., Muhonen, K., Purtonen, T., & Voionmaa, K. (2012). Transferring frames: Utilization of linked lexical resources. In Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT Workshop on the Induction of Linguistic Structure. Montreal: ACL, pp. 8–15.Google Scholar
Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Lönngren, L., & Zechner, N. (2021). Swedish FrameNet++ – lexical samsara. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.03bor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borin, L., Toporowska Gronostaj, M., & Kokkinakis, D. (2007). Medical frames as target and tool. In Proceedings of FRAME 2007: Building Frame Semantics Resources for Scandinavian and Baltic Languages. Tartu: NEALT, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2016). Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology, 20, 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2022). Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czulo, O., Ziem, A., & Torrent, T. T. (2020). Beyond lexical semantics: Notes on pragmatic frames. In Proceedings of the LREC International FrameNet Workshop 2020: Towards a Global, Multilingual Framenet. Marseille: ELRA, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
da Costa, A. D., Gamonal, M. A., Paiva, V. M. R. L., Marção, N. D., Peron-Corrêa, S. R., de Almeida, Gomes, Matos, V., E. E. S., & Torrent, T. T. (2018). FrameNet-based modeling of the domains of tourism and sports for the development of a personal travel assistant application. In Proceedings of the LREC International FrameNet Workshop 2018: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons. Miyazaki: ELRA, pp. 6–12.Google Scholar
Dannélls, D., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Friberg Heppin, K., & Toporowska Gronostaj, M. (2021a). Swedish FrameNet. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.02dan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dannélls, D., Borin, L., & Friberg Heppin, K., eds. (2021b). The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlemark, A. (2014). Ramar och konstruktioner – en kärlekshistoria [Frames and constructions – a love story]. Report GU-ISS 2014-01. Department of Swedish, University of Gothenburg. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/35145.Google Scholar
Ehrlemark, A., Johansson, R., & Lyngfelt, B. (2016). Retrieving occurrences of grammatical constructions. In Proceedings of COLING 2016: Technical Papers. Osaka: ACL.Google Scholar
Endresen, A. & Janda, L. A. (2020). Taking construction grammar one step further: Families, clusters, and networks of evaluative constructions in Russian. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fellbaum, Ch., ed. (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & 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. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 49–68.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, 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
Forsberg, M., Johansson, R., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., & Prentice, J. (2014). From construction candidates to constructicon entries: An experiment using semiautomatic methods for identifying constructions in corpora. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 114–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friberg Heppin, K. (2021). Differing design decision – comparing Swedish FrameNet to FrameNet. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 191–219. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.08fri.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friberg Heppin, K. & Friberg, H. (2012). Using FrameNet in communicative language teaching. In Proceedings of EURALEX 2012. Oslo: University of Oslo, pp. 640–647.Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2021). Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. Constructions and Frames, 13(1), 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemmel Hudson, M. (2022). Teaching second year German using frames and constructions. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 265–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilardi, L. & Baker, C. F. (2018). Learning to align across languages: Toward Multilingual FrameNet. In Proceedings of the LREC International FrameNet Workshop 2018: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons. Miyazaki: ELRA, pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2001). Lexico-semantic universals: A critical overview. Linguistic Typology, 5, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grūzītis, N., Dannélls, D., Lyngfelt, B., & Ranta, A. (2015). Formalising the Swedish ConstructiCon in Grammatical Framework. In Proceedings of the Grammar Engineering Across Frameworks (GEAF) 2015 Workshop. Beijing: ACL, pp. 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86, 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2019). How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Olmen, D., Mortelmans, T., & Brisard, F., eds., Aspects of Linguistic Variation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 83–113.Google Scholar
Herbst, Th. (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 & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 21–52.Google Scholar
Herbst, Th. (2019). Constructicons – a new type of reference work? Lexicographica, 35, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Th., Heath, D., Roe, I. F., & Götz, D. (2004). A Valence Dictionary of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Th. & Uhrig, P. (2019). Towards a valency and argument structure constructicon of English: Turning the valency patternbank into a constructicon. Lexicographica, 35, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English, 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Tyers, F. M. (2018). A constructicon for Russian: Filling in the gaps. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds. (2018), Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, R. (2021). NLP for resource building. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.07joh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, R., Friberg Heppin, K., & Kokkinakis, D. (2021). Semantic role labeling. In Dannélls, D. et al. eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.07joh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, R. & Nugues, P. (2006). A FrameNet-based semantic role labeler for Swedish. In Proceedings of COLING/ACL 2006. Sydney: ACL, pp. 436–443. https://doi.org/10.3115/1273073.1273130.Google Scholar
Laviola, A. B. (2015). Frames e construções em contraste: Uma análise comparativa português-inglês no tangente à implementação de constructicons [Frames and constructions in contrast: A Portuguese-English comparative analysis in regard to the implementation of constructicons]. MA thesis. Federal University of Juiz de Fora.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2022). Frame-based metonymy in teaching L2 vocabulary. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R. & Petruck, M. R. L. (2018). The FrameNet constructicon in action. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds. Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindén, K., Haltia, H., Luukkonen, J., Laine, A. O., Roivainen, H., & Väisänen, N. (2017). FinnFN 1.0: The Finnish frame semantic database. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 40(3), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586517000075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loenheim, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., Prentice, J., & Tingsell, S. (2016). Constructicography meets (second) language education: On constructions in teaching aids and the usefulness of a Swedish constructicon. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp.327–355.Google Scholar
Lönneker-Rodman, B. & Baker, C. F. (2009). The FrameNet model and its applications. Natural Language Engineering, 15(3), 415–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. (2018). Introduction: Constructicons and constructicography. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R. (2018a). Constructicography at work: Theory meets practice in the Swedish ConstructiCon. 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. (2018b). Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Laviola, A., Bäckström, L., Hannesdóttir, A. H., & Matos, E. E. S. (2018c). Aligning constructicons across languages: A trilingual comparison between English, Swedish, and Brazilian Portuguese. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 255–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Matos, E. E. S., & Bäckström, L. (2022). Comparative concepts as a resource for multilingual constructicography. In Blensenius, K., ed., Valency and Constructions. Gothenburg: MASO, pp. 101–129.Google Scholar
Malm, P., Virk, Sh., Borin, L., & Saxena, A. (2018). LingFN: Towards a framenet for the linguistics domain. In Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop at LREC 2018: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons. Miyazaki: ELRA, pp. 37–43.Google Scholar
Manning, Ch. D. (2015). Last words: Computational linguistics and deep learning. Computational Linguistics, 41(4), 701–707. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, T. & Beuls, K. (2016). Evaluation strategies for computational construction grammars. In Proceedings of COLING 2016: Technical Papers. Osaka: ACL, pp.1137–1146.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. A. & Žolkovskij, A. K., eds. (1984). Толково-комбинаторный словарь современного русского языка: Опыты семантико-синтаксического описания русской лексики [Explanatory combinatorial dictionary of modern Russian: Semantico-syntactic studies of Russian vocabulary]. Vienna: Wiener Slavistischer Almanach.Google Scholar
Nesset, T. & Janda, L. A. (2022). Securing strategic input for L2 learners: Constructions with Russian motion verbs. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohara, K. (2018). Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, A. & Perek, F. (2022). Pedagogic applications of the English Constructicon. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pease, A. & Fellbaum, Ch. (2010). Formal ontology as interlingua: The SUMO and WordNet linking project and global WordNet. In Huang, Ch, Calzolari, N., Gangemi, A., Lenci, A., Oltramari, A., & Prevot, L., eds., Ontology and the Lexicon: A Natural Language Processing Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. & Patten, A. (2019). Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24, 354–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, J., Håkansson, C., Lindström Tiedemann, T., Pilán, I., & Volodina, E. (2021). Language learning and teaching with Swedish FrameNet++: Two examples. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, Ch. R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: ICSI. http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu.Google Scholar
Sahlgren, M. & Carlsson, F. (2021). The singleton fallacy: Why current critiques of language models miss the point. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4, September 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.682578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Th. (2009). The Kicktionary: A multilingual lexical resource of football language. In Boas, H. C., ed., Multilingual Framenets in Computational Lexicography. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds. (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L., ed. (2011). Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Ellsworth, M., Baker, C. F., & Matos, E. E. S. (2018a). The Multilingual FrameNet shared annotation task: A preliminary report. In Proceedings of the LREC 2018 International FrameNet Workshop: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons (IFNW 2018). Miyazaki: ELRA, pp. 62–68.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Matos, E. E. S., Lage, L., Laviola, A., Tavares, T., Gomes de Almeida, V., & Sigiliano, N. (2018b). Towards continuity between the lexicon and the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 107–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Salomão, M. M., Matos, E. E. S., Gamonal, M. A., Gonçalves, J., Pereira de Souza, B., Simões Gomes, D., & Peron-Corrêa, S. R. (2014). Multilingual lexicographic annotation for domain-specific electronic dictionaries: The Copa 2014 FrameNet Brasil project. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.05tor.CrossRefGoogle 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
Venturi, G. (2011). Semantic annotation of Italian legal texts: A FrameNet-based approach. Constructions and Frames, 3(1), 46–79. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.3.1.02ven.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virk, Sh. M., Azam Sheikh, M., Borin, L., Aslam, M. I., Iqbal, S., & Khurram, N. (2019). Exploiting frame-semantics and frame-semantic parsing for automatic extraction of typological information from descriptive grammars of natural languages. In Proceedings of RANLP 2019. Varna: INCOMA, pp. 1247–1256. https://doi.org/10.26615/978-954-452-056-4_143.Google Scholar
Virk, Sh. M., Dannélls, D., Borin, L., & Forsberg, M. (2021). A data-driven semi-automatic framenet development methodology. In Proceedings of RANLP 2021, pp. 1471–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vossen, P. & Fellbaum, Ch. (2009). Universals and idiosyncrasies in multilingual WordNets. In Boas, H. C., ed., Multilingual Framenets in Computational Lexicography. Methods and Applications. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A., Flick, J., & Sandkühler, Ph. (2019). The German constructicon project: Framework, methodology, resources. Lexicographica, 35, 15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Anshen, F. & Aronoff, M. (1997). Morphology in real time. In Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audring, J. (2022). Advances in morphological theory: Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2005). Productivity: Theories. In Štekauer, P. & Lieber, R., eds., Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2006). Word-Based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics, 42(3), 531–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P., Ackerman, F. & Malouf, R. (2019). Word and paradigm morphology. In Audring, J. & Masini, F., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 265–284.Google Scholar
Bochner, H. (1993). Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (1993). Against split morphology. In Booij, G. & Van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (1996). Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2017). Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology. In Gisborne, N. & Hippisley, A., eds., Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 18–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G., ed. (2018). The Construction of Words. Advances in Construction Morphology, Vol. 4. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Booij, G. & Audring, J. (2018). Partial motivation, multiple motivation: The role of output schemas in morphology. In Booij, G., ed., The Construction of Words. Advances in Construction Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 59–80.Google Scholar
Booij, G. & Masini, F. (2015). The role of second order schemas in the construction of complex words. In Bauer, L., Körtvélyessy, L., & Štekauer, P., eds., Semantics of Complex Words, Vol. 3. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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. 49–69.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In Constructions Online, SV1-7, 1–28.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. S. (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haas, W. & Trommelen, M. (1993). Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming. ’s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgevers.Google Scholar
De Saussure, F. (1959). Course in General Linguistics. (Translation of Cours de linguistique générale, 1915). New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (2020). What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 296–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (2020). Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 278–315.Google Scholar
Fehringer, C. (2004). How stable are morphological doublets? A case study of /ə/ ~ Ø variants in Dutch and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 16(4), 285–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L. & Angster, M. (2019). Stripping paradigmatic relations out of the syntax. Morphology, 29, 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N. (2019). Word grammar morphology. In Audring, J. & Masini, F., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 327–345.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gurevich, O. (2006). Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version. PhD thesis. University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39(6), 1041–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. & Baayen, H. (2002). Parsing and productivity. In Booij, G. & Van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 2001. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2019). Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure, 12(3), 334–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. & Audring, J. (2019). Relational morphology in the parallel architecture. In Audring, J. & Masini, F., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 390–408.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. & Audring, J. (2020). The Texture of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V. (2022). Morphology in a parallel, distributed, interactive architecture of language production. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 803259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, V. & Vakareliyska, C. M. (2013). [N][N] compounds in Russian. A growing family of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 32–48.Google Scholar
Kempf, L. (2016). Adjektivsuffixe in Konkurrenz. Wortbildungswandel vom Frühneuhochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M. & Panther, K. U. (2016). Analytische und gestalthafte Nomina auf -er im Deutschen vor dem Hintergrund konstruktionsgrammatischer Überlegungen. In Bittner, A. & Spieß, C., eds., Formen und Funktionen. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotowski, S. (2020). The semantics of English out-prefixation: A corpus-based investigation. English Language and Linguistics, 25(1), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2019). Morphology in Cognitive Grammar. In Audring, J. & Masini, F., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 346–364.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
Masini, F. & Audring, J. (2019). Construction morphology. In Audring, J. & Masini, F., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 365–389.Google Scholar
Nesset, T. (2008). Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model: Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology-Phonology Interface. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. & Morris, C. (2018). Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G., eds., Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 47–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orgun, C. O. (1996). Sign-Based Morphology and Phonology with Special Attention to Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., Speelman, D., Van de Velde, F., & Grondelaers, S. (2021). Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 487–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I., Dalton-Puffer, Ch., & Baayen, H. (1999). Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1090–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. (1992). What is a morpheme? A view from Construction Grammar. In Buszard-Welcher, L. A., Wee, L., & Weigel, W., eds., Proceedings of the 18th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 409–423.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. Z. (1998). Type-based derivational morphology. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2(1), 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riehemann, S. Z. (2001). A Constructional Approach to Idioms and Word Formation. PhD thesis. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Baumann, A. (2021). Of absent mothers, strong sisters and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 97–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds., (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. (2013). Lexical Relatedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suttle, L. & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269.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
van der Spuy, A.. (2017). Construction Morphology and inflection. Lingua, 199, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidhaas, T. & Schmid, H.-J. (2015). Diminutive verbs in German: Semantic analysis and theoretical implications. Morphology, 25(2), 183–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brdar, M., Raffaelli, I., & Žic Fuchs, M., eds. (2012). Cognitive Linguistics between Universality and Variation. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Brooke-Rose, C. (1958). A Grammar of Metaphor. London: Secker and Warburg.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2008). Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? Memory and Cognition, 36(6), 1047–1056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corpas Pastor, G. (2022). You are driving me up the wall! A corpus-based study of a special class of resultative constructions. Lexis, 19, 1–34.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In Dirven, R. & Pörings, R., eds., Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 161–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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
Gentner, D., Imai, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2002). As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space-time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(5), 537–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–31.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80, 532–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scene. PhD Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1998). The conduit metaphor revisited: A reassessment of metaphors for communication. In Koenig, J. P., ed., Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(2), 315–339.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
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Materna, J. (2010). Building FrameNet in Czech. PhD dissertation. Masaryk University.Google Scholar
Moore, K. (2011). Frames and the experiential basis of the moving time metaphor. Constructions and Frames, 24, 80–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphor. In Gibbs, R. W., ed., Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2007a). Grammar in Metaphor: A Construction Grammar Account of Metaphoric Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2007b). Lexical filledness and metaphor in idioms. In Nenonen, M., Niemi, S., & Niemi, J., eds., Collocations and Idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press, pp. 330–341.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2009). Grammatical constructions in metaphoric language. In Lewandowska–Tomaszczyk, B. & Dziwirek, K., eds., Cognitive Corpus Linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 57–80.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2019). Mixed Metaphors: Their Use and Abuse. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. & Sweetser, E. (2009). Is generic is specific a metaphor? In Parrill, F., Tobin, V., & Turner, M., eds., Meaning, Form and Body. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 309–327.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (1987). Death Is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (1991). Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, J. & Soriano, C. (2008). Is friendship more important than money? A psycholinguistic exploration of the important is big metaphor. Paper presented at the 6th AELCO Conference, Castellón.Google Scholar
Wachowski, W. & Sullivan, K. (2021). Metonymies and Metaphors for Death Around the World. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. & Matlock, T. (2017). Primary metaphors are both cultural and embodied. In Hampe, B., ed., Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99–115.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
×