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-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T11:58:04.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Methodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research

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. 147 - 246
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

Adelman, J., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, A. & Kytö, M., eds., Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 900–919.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2011). Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. In Jarema, G., Libben, G., & Westbury, C., eds., Methodological and Analytic Frontiers in Lexical Research (Part 1). Special issue of The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 436–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2017). Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In Schmid, H.-J., ed., Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Boston: APA & Walter de Gruyter, 129–152.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. K. & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language 81(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, G., Krämer, I., & Zwarts, J., eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. & Tomasello, M. (1999). Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, P., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K., & Lewis, L. B. (1999). Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development, 70(6), 1325–1337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language And Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change, 14(3), 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37(4), 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Thompson, S. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 23, 65–85.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B., ed., Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2008). The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers – productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(4), 931–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ Million Words, 1990–present. Available online at www.americancorpus.org.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ Million Words, 1810–2009. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. & Gradoville, M. (2011). An analysis of frequency as a factor contributing to the diffusion of variable phenomena: Evidence from Spanish data. In Ortiz-López, L. A., ed., Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 224–238.Google 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
Ferreira, V. S. & Bock, K. J. (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 1011–1029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flach, S. (2021). Collostructions: An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods. Package version v.0.2.0, https://sfla.ch/collostructions/.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2009). Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 892–898.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
Gries, S. Th. (2008). Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 403–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2010). Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: Further explorations. In Gries, S. Th., Wulff, S., & Davies, M., eds., Corpus Linguistic Applications: Current Studies, New Directions. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2013). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2022a). What do (most of) our dispersion measures measure (most)? Dispersion? Journal of Second Language Studies, 5(2), 171–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2022b). On, or against?, (just) frequency. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Divjak, D. S., eds. (2012). Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004a). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004b). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S., eds, Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 225–236.Google Scholar
Hay, J. & Foulkes, P. (2016). The evolution of medial /t/ over real and remembered time. Language, 92(2), 298–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). The English comparative – language structure and language use. English Language and Linguistics, 12(3), 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2015). Historical linguistics. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Information structure. In Aarts, B., MacMahon, A., & Hinrichs, L., eds., Handbook of English Linguistics. New York: Wiley, pp. 229–248.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Correia Saavedra, D. (2017). Why are grammatical elements more evenly dispersed than lexical elements? Assessing the roles of frequency and semantic generality. Corpora, 12(3), 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Flach, S. (2022). A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive. In Krawczak, K., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., & Grygiel, M., eds., Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2019). English Comparative Correlatives: Diachronic and Synchronic Variation at the Lexicon–Syntax Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, A. E., ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 217–230.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. (2007). Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences, 3(1), 26–44.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. & Smith, S. W. (1998). And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Jucker, A. & Ziv, Y., eds., Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.171–201.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
Lorenz, D. (2013). Semi-modal Contractions in English: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency. Freiburg: Rombach.Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2018). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 65–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfänder, S. & Behrens, H. (2016). Experience counts: An introduction to frequency effects in language. In Behrens, H. & Pfänder, S., eds., Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2012). Burstiness of verbs and derived nouns. In Santos, D., Linden, K., & Ng’ang’a, W., eds., Shall We Play the Festschrift Game? Essays on the Occasion of Lauri Carlson’s 60th Birthday. Berlin: Springer, pp. 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., de Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F. (2018). Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 269–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivas, J. & Brown, E. L. (2012). Stage-level and individual-level distinction in morphological variation. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 1(2), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosemeyer, M. & Schwenter, S. E. (2019). Entrenchment and persistence in language change: The Spanish past subjunctive. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 15(1), 167–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
Suttle, L. & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. (2015). Gradual loss of analyzability: Diachronic priming effects. In Adli, A., García García, M., & Kaufmann, G., eds., Variation in Language: System- and Usage-Based Approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G. (1991). Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English. In Kastovsky, D., ed., Historical English Syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 439–467.Google Scholar
Turney, P. D. & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J. & Gries, S. Th., eds. (2016). Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Abdulrahim, D. (2019). ‘Go’ constructions in Modern Standard Arabic: A corpus-based study. Constructions and Frames, 11(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausín, A. (2001). On A-Movement. PhD thesis. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Azazil, L. (2020). Frequency effects in the L2 acquisition of the catenative verb construction: Evidence from experimental and corpus data. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(3), 417–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2011). Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 295–328.Google Scholar
Backus, A. & Mos, M. (2011). Islands of productivity in corpus data and acceptability judgments: Contrasting two potentiality constructions in Dutch. In Schönefeld, D., ed., Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beliën, M. (2016). A constructional perspective on conceptual constituency: Dutch postpositions or particles? In Yoon, J. & Gries, S. Th, eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, T., Gries, S. Th., & Mukherjee, J. (2014). The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide, 35(1), 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, S. & Colleman, T. (2016). Sense-based and lexeme-based alternation biases in the Dutch dative alternation. In Yoon, J. & Gries, S. Th, eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–198.CrossRefGoogle 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
Brunner, T. & Hoffmann, T. (2020). The way-construction in World Englishes. English World-Wide, 41(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busso, L., Perek, F., & Lenci, A. (2021). Constructional associations trump lexical associations in processing valency coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(2), 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., Depraetere, I., & Lesuisse, M. (2019). The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 220–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A. C.-H. (2022). Words, constructions and corpora: Network representations of constructional semantics for Mandarin space particles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 18(2), 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, I.-H. (2017). The polysemy network of Chinese ‘one’-phrases in a diachronic constructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 9(1), 70–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (1997). Then in conditional constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2020). What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, I. & Van de Velde, F. (2020). Semantic differences between strong and weak verb forms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(3), 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vaere, H., De Cuypere, L., & Willems, K. (2021). Alternating constructions with ditransitive geben in present-day German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(1), 73–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. (2018). Finding variants for construction-based dialectometry: A corpus-based approach to regional CxGs. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009b). 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
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
Flach, S. (2020a). Schemas and the frequency/acceptability mismatch: Corpus distribution predicts sentence judgments. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(4), 609–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flach, S. (2020b). Reduction Hypothesis revisited: Frequency or association? In Sanchez-Stockhammer, C., Günther, F., & Schmid, H.-J., eds., Language in Mind and Brain: Multimedial Proceedings of the Workshop Held at LMU, Munich, December 10–11, 2018. Munich: LMU Open Access, pp. 16–22.Google Scholar
Flach, S. (2021). From movement into action to manner of causation: Changes in argument mapping in the into-causative. Linguistics, 59(1), 247–283.CrossRefGoogle 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
Gaeta, L. & Zeldes, A. (2017). Between VP and NN: On the constructional types of German -er compounds. Constructions and Frames, 9(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1991). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1999). The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In MacWhinney, B., ed., The Emergence of Language. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 197–212.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford 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
Gould, K. M. & Michaelis, L. A. (2018). Match, mismatch, and envisioning transfer events: How verbal constructional bias and lexical-class concord shape motor simulation effects. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 234–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2003). Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, S. Th. (2012). Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language, 36(3), 477–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2013a). Data in Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–108.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2013b). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015a). More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 505–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015b). The role of quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus and experimental data on (relative) frequency and contingency of words and constructions. In Daems, J., Zenner, E., Heylen, K., Speelman, D., & Cuyckens, H., eds., Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 311–325.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2019a). 15 years of collostructions: Some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2019b). Ten Lectures on Corpus-Linguistic Approaches: Applications for Usage-Based and Psycholinguistic Research. Leiden & Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2021 [2009]). Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2010). Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In Rice, S. & Newman, J., eds., Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 59–72.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Mukherjee, J. (2010). Lexical gravity across varieties of English: An ICE-based study of n-grams in Asian Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 520–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004a). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004b). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S., eds., Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 225–236.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. 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
Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S. (2021). Examining individual variation in learner production data: A few programmatic pointers for corpus-based analyses using the example of adverbial clause ordering. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(2), 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, D. & Henderson, R. (2019). Expressive updates, much? Language, 95(1), 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamunen, M. V. J. (2017). On the grammaticalization of Finnish Colorative Construction. Constructions and Frames, 9(1), 101–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, B., Bernaisch, T., & Gries, S. Th. (2017). Empirical perspectives on two potential epicenters: The genitive alternation in Asian Englishes. ICAME Journal, 41(1), 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Th. (2020). Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language: Moving towards colloconstruction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 12(1), 56–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2006). Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2016). Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Flach, S. (2020). Disentangling modal meanings with distributional semantics. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36(2), 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Saavedra, D. C. (2020). Using token-based semantic vector spaces for corpus-linguistic analyses: From practical applications to tests of theoretical claims. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(2), 393–424.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2020a). What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar? Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the Constructionist enterprise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2020b). Marginal argument structure constructions: the [V the Ntaboo-word out of]-construction in Post-colonial Englishes. Linguistics Vanguard, 6(1), https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T, Horsch, J., & Brunner, T. (2019). The more data, the better: A usage-based account of the English comparative correlative construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenset, G. B. & McGillivray, B. (2017). Quantitative Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
Kemmer, S. & Verhagen, A. (1994). The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 115–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1975). Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In Austerlitz, R., ed., The Scope of American Linguistics. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, pp. 7–133.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, L. & Ambridge, B. (2021). Balancing information-structure and semantic constraints on construction choice: Building a computational model of passive and passive-like constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Cognitive Linguistics, 32, 349–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, D. & Tizón-Couto, D. (2019). Chunking or predicting: Frequency information and reduction in the perception of multi-word sequences. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(4), 751–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martí, M. A., Taulé, M., Kovatchev, V., & Salamó, M. (2019). DISCOver: DIStributional approach based on syntactic dependencies for discovering Constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0028.Google Scholar
Martinez-Garcia, M. T. & Wulff, S. (2012). Not wrong, yet not quite right: Spanish ESL students’ use of gerundial and infinitival complementation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P. S. (1997). Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 327–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Gries, S. Th. (2009). Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide, 30(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Anthonissen, L. (2020). Individuality in complex systems: A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F. (2018). Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 269–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quochi, V. (2016). Development and representation of Italian light-fare constructions. In Yoon, J. and Gries, S. Th., eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastelli, S. (2020). Contingency learning and perfective morpheme productivity in L2 Italian: A study on lexeme–morpheme associations with ΔP. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(3), 459–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rautionaho, P. & Deshors, S. C. (2018). Progressive or not progressive? Modeling constructional choices in EFL and ESL. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 4(2), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, R. (2018). Abstractions and exemplars: The measure noun phrase alternation in German. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(4), 729–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (ed.). (2011). Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, M. B. (1994). Agreement and iconicity in Russian impersonal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 5–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A., Afonso, S., Palú, D., & Franco, K. (2021). Null ‘se’ constructions in Brazilian and European Portuguese: Morphosyntactic deletion or emergence of new constructions? Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 159–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & 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
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2007). Linguistics beyond grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(1), 57–71.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
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczesniak, K. (2019). Variation motivated by analogy with fixed chunks: Overlap between the reflexive and the way construction. Constructions and Frames, 11(1), 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2006). Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Koide, Y. (1987). Iconicity and ‘indirect objects’ in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(3), 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, V. & Miglio, V. G. (2016). Constructions with subject vs. object experiencer in Spanish and Italian. A corpus-based approach. In Yoon, J. and Gries, S. Th., eds., Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 65–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. & Gries, S. Th. (2011). Corpus-driven methods for assessing accuracy in learner production. In Robinson, P., ed., Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. & Gries, S. Th. (2019). Particle placement in learner English: Measuring effects of context, first language, and individual variation. Language Learning, 69(4), 873–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. & Gries, S. Th. (2021). Explaining individual variation in learner corpus research: some methodological suggestions. In Le Bruyn, B. & Paquot, M., eds., Learner Corpora and Second Language Acquisition Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–213.Google Scholar

References

Baicchi, A. (2015). Construction Learning as a Complex Adaptive System: Psycholinguistic Evidence from L2 Learners of English. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, G. (2013). Psycholinguistics. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 379–396.Google Scholar
Bencini, G. & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, S. & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition, 114(3), 455–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31(2), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K. & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, H. P. & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busso, L., Lenci, A., & Perek, F. (2020). Valency coercion in Italian: An exploratory study. Constructions and Frames, 12(2), 171–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busso, L., Perek, F., & Lenci, A. (2021). Constructional associations trump lexical associations in processing valency coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(2), 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, Z. G., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2012). Mapping concepts to syntax: Evidence from structural priming in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 833–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In Schönefeld, D., ed., Constructions All Over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications, special issue of Constructions, SV1-7/2006, 1–28.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., Milin, P., & Medimorec, S. (2020). Construal in language: A visual-world approach to the effects of linguistic alternations on event perception and conception. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(1), 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddington, D. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. (2010). Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, A., eds., Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. S. & Bock, K. (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 1011–1029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 58–93.CrossRefGoogle 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. & Bencini, G. (2005). Support from language processing for a constructional approach to grammar. In Tyler, A. E., Takada, M., Kim, Y., & Marinova, D., eds., Language in Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language and Language Learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. & Markman, A. (2009). Constructional sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(4), 675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldwater, M., Tomlinson, M., Echols, C., & Love, B. (2011). Structural priming as structure-mapping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 156–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2010). Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In Rice, S. & Newman, J., eds., Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 59–72.Google Scholar
Gries, S Th. & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. & Weinstein-Tull, J. (2003). Conceptual structure modulates structural priming in the production of complex sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 537–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, M. & 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
Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2003). Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(2), 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Kolk, H. H. J. (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41(2), 143–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Healy, A. F. & Miller, G. A. (1970). The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 20, 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, I., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Costa, A. (2012). The comprehension of anomalous sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 122(2), 193–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. E. (2007). Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences, 3(1), 26–44.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. E. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition, 127(1), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M. A. & Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1439–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kako, E. (2006a). The semantics of syntactic frames. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 562–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kako, E. (2006b). Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cognition, 101(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaschak, M. P. & Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 508–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konopka, A. E. & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58(1), 68–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lapata, M., Keller, F., & Schulte im Walde, S. (2001). Verb frame frequency as a predictor of verb bias. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(4), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappert, S. & Pechmann, T. (2013). Bidirectional structural priming across alternations: Evidence from the generation of dative and benefactive alternation structures in German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1303–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappert, S. & Pechmann, T. (2014). Priming word order by thematic roles: No evidence for an additional involvement of phrase structure. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(11), 2260–2278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. & Hilpert, M. (2014). Constructional tolerance: Cross-linguistic differences in the acceptability of non-conventional uses of constructions. Construction and Frames, 6(2), 266–304.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
Pickering, M. J. & Branigan, H. P. (1999). Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(4), 136–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pijpops, D., Dirk 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
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potter, M. C. & Lombardi, L. (1998). Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(3), 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pülvermüller, F., Cappelle, B., & Shtyrov, Y. (2013). Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 397–416.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, G.-H. & Kim, H. (2021). Roles of verb and construction cues: Cross-language comparisons between English and Korean sentence comprehension. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 19(2), 332–362.CrossRefGoogle 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
Tooley, K. M. & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 925–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2005). Plausibility and verb subcategorization in temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 528–553.Google ScholarPubMed
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420.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
Vasilyeva, M. & Waterfall, H. (2011). Beyond syntactic priming: Evidence for activation of alternative syntactic structures. Journal of Child Language, 39(2), 1–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Wiechmann, D. (2008). Initial parsing decisions and lexical bias: Corpus evidence from local NP/S-ambiguities. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. P. & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(3), 368–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittenberg, E. & Levy, R. (2017). If you want a quick kiss, make it count: How choice of syntactic construction affects event construal. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenberg, E. & Snedeker, J. (2014). It takes two to kiss, but does it take three to give a kiss? Categorization based on thematic roles. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(5), 635–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J., Bencini, G., Goldberg, A. E., & Snedeker, J. (2019). How abstract is syntax? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 193, 104045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, J., Morato, R., & Snedeker, J. (2019). Priming semantic structure in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 3, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J. & Snedeker, J. (2018). How broad are thematic roles? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 179, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, J., Snedeker, J., & Wittenberg, E. (2018). Event structures drive semantic structural priming, not thematic roles: Evidence from idioms and light verbs. Cognitive Science, 42(8), 2918–2949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Network Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barabási, A.-L. & Reka, A. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic construction grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S., eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E. F., eds., Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 21–74.Google Scholar
Bar-Yam, Y. (2002). General features of complex systems. In Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Oxford: EOLSS UNESCO Publishers.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(S1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds. (2009). Context and Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.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. & Sag, I. A., eds. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar, Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, G., Krämer, I., & Zwarts, J., eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization. The role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. & Janda, R. D., eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In Schönefeld, D., ed., Constructions All Over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications, special issue of Constructions, SV1-7/2006, 1–28.Google Scholar
Colleman, T. & Van de Velde, F. (2015). Variatie en verandering in constructies: op het snijvlak van de constructiegrammatica en de variatielinguïstiek. Taal en Tongval, 67(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E. (2014). Lexical expansion in the have and be perfect in Dutch. A constructionist prototype account. Diachronica, 31, 159–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E. (2018). Grammaticalization, host-class expansion and category change. In Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G., eds., Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J., eds. (2018). Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Opportunities, Challenges and Potential Incompatibilities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2017). Ten Lectures on Grammar in the Mind. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. & Van de Velde, F. (2013). Serving two masters: Form–function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language, 37(3), 534–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2011). Review of “Language, usage and cognition” by Joan Bybee. Language, 87, 830–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 295–321.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2023). The Constructicon: Taxonomies and Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle 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. & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar Coursebook, Chapters 1–11 (Reading Materials for Ling X20). Linguistics Department, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2018). Analogy: Its role in language learning, categorization, and in models of language change such as grammaticalization and constructionalization. In Hancil, S., Breban, T., & Lozano, J. V., eds., New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, L. (2019). Categoriality in Language Change: The Case of the English Gerund. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1998). The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In Van Langendonck, W. & Van Belle, W., eds., The Dative, Vol. 2: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. (1992). Complexity and complex adaptive systems. In Hawkins, J. & Gell-Mann, M., eds., The Evolution of Human Languages. New York: Addison-Wesley, pp. 3–18.Google 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. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. (2017). Multiple Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herbst, Th. & Hoffmann, T. (2018). Construction Grammar for students: A constructionist approach to syntactic analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6(1), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hieber, D. (2018). Category genesis in Chitimacha. A constructional approach. In Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G., eds., Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 15–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J., eds., Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, Challenges and Potential Incompatibilities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Diessel, H. (2017). Entrenchment in Construction Grammar. In Schmid, H.‑J., ed., Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Flach, S. (2022). A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive. In Krawczak, K., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., & Grygiel, M., eds., Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P., & Wiemer, B., eds., What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Components and Its Fringes. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2013). Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 307–328.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2010). An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, A. E., ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 217–230.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. & Audring, J. (2016). Morphological schemas: Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11(3), 467–493.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
Ke, J., Gong, T., & Wang, W. S.-Y. (2008). Language change and social networks. Communications in Computational Physics, 3(4), 935–949.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2007). Transmission and diffusion. Language, 83(2), 344–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1974). Syntactic amalgams. Chicago Linguistic Society, 10, 321–344.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev-Ari, S. (2018). Social network size can influence linguistic malleability and the propagation of linguistic change. Cognition, 176, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, pp. 168–196.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2013). Contractions of English Semi-modals: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency. Freiburg: Rombach.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2020). Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links. To-contraction in American English. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 243–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markey, M.-A. (2022). Finding Footprints: Evidence for the Role of Analogy in Language Change. PhD dissertation. KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (1994). A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language, 18, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic Construction Grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. & Colleman, T. (2021). Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Wen, X. & Taylor, J. R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 662–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. & 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
Ogura, M. & Wang, W. S.-Y. (2008). Dynamic dialectology and social networks. In Dossena, M., Dury, R., & Gotti, M., eds., English Historical Linguistics 2006, Volume 3: Geo-Historical Variation in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. & Huddleston, R. (2002). Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perc, M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(98), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2018). The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language, 94(4), 867–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2019). Where, How and Why Does Argument Structure Vary? A Usage-Based Investigation into the Dutch Transitive-Prepositional Alternation. PhD dissertation. KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2020). What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F. (2018). Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 269–305.CrossRefGoogle 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
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raviv, L., Meyer, A., & Lev-Ari, S. (2019). Larger communities create more systematic languages. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Science, 286(1907), 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Raviv, L., Meyer, A., & Lev-Ari, S. (2020). The role of social network structure in the emergence of linguistic structure. Cognitive Science, 44(8), e12876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding Child Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., ed. (2016). Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, E. & Sommerer, L. (2020). The nature of the node and the network: Open questions in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2018). Article Emergence in Old English: A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle 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
Steels, L. (2011). Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Review, 8, 339–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2005). Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., Tagliamonte, S., & Todd, S. (2017). Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa, 2(1), 86.Google Scholar
Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Possessive genitives in English. Linguistics, 27, 663–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The constructional convergence and the construction network reconfiguration hypotheses. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Gildea, S., & Sommerer, L., eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 109–140.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2014). On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 557–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T. & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist Approaches: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds., The Extending Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2018). Iterated exaptation. In Booij, G., ed., The Construction of Words. Advances in Construction Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 519–544.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F., De Smet, H., & Ghesquière, L. (2013). On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. & Fonteyn, L. (2017). Degeneracy. The evolutionary advantage of the violation of isomorphism. Paper presented at SLE, Zürich, September 10–13, 2017.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F., Maekelberghe, C., & Fonteyn, L. (2021). Towards a taxonomy of horizontal relations. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG), Antwerp, August 18–20, 2021.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G., eds. (2018). Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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
Watts, D. J. & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitacre, J. & Bender, A. (2010). Degeneracy: A design principle for achieving robustness and evolvability. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 263, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, B. (2014). Spoken language achieves robustness and evolvability by exploiting degeneracy and neutrality. Bioessays, 36, 960–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, E. & Traugott, E. C. (2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 167–211.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
×