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-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:20:37.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Construction Grammar

The Constructicon

Taxonomies and Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2023

Holger Diessel
Holger Diessel
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany

Summary

It is one of the central claims of construction grammar that constructions are organized in some kind of network, commonly referred to as the constructicon. In the classical model of construction grammar, developed by Berkeley linguists in the 1990s, the constructicon is an inheritance network of taxonomically related grammatical patterns. However, recent research in usage-based linguistics has expanded the classical inheritance model into a multidimensional network approach in which constructions are interrelated by multiple types of associations. The multidimensional network approach challenges longstanding assumptions of linguistic research and calls for a reorganization of the constructivist approach. This Element describes how the conception of the constructicon has changed in recent years and elaborates on some central claims of the multidimensional network approach.
Get access

Keywords

construction grammarconstructicongrammar networkusage-basedcognitive linguistics
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Construction Grammar
Online ISBN: 9781009327848
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 22 June 2023

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

Abbot-Smith, K. and Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30, 995–1026.Google Scholar
Abbot-Smith, K. and Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review 23, 275–290.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. (2012). Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon (6th ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. and Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73, 247–264.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. and Mirković, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science 33, 583–609.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (6th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure 12, 274–296.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2006). Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17, 39–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, D. and Kapatsinski, V. (2017). A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: Construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13, 1–58.Google Scholar
Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. and Bates, E. (eds.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, 3–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics 47, 383–411.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds.) (2008). Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–177.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. (2011). Grammatical relations typology. In Song, J. J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. (2021). Lateral relations and multiple source constructions: The Old English subject relative clause and the Norwegian han-mannen-construction. PhD dissertation, Friedrich Schiller University Jena.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2010). The syntax–lexicon continuum in construction grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24, 54–82.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2017). Computational resources: FrameNet and constructicon. In Dancygier, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 549–573. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–387.Google Scholar
Bock, K. and Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition 35, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolinger, D. (1971). The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. and Audring, J. (2017). Construction morphology and the parallel architecture of grammar. Cognitive Science 41, 277–302.Google Scholar
Bouso, T. (2020). The growth of the transitivising reaction object construction. Constructions and Frames 12, 239–271.Google Scholar
Bower, G. H. (2000). A brief history of memory research. In Tulving, E. and Craik, F. I. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory, 3–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children’s first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., and Baayen, H. R. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Kraemer, I., and Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. and Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86, 186–213.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. and Hay, J. (2008). Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, M. (2002). Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A Study on the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 425–455.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82, 711–733.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Cognition, and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. and Beckner, C. (2010). Usage-based theory. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 827–855. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.) (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. and Moder, C. L. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59, 251–270.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. and Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37, 575–596.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. and Thompson, S. A. (2022). Interaction and grammar: Predicative adjectives in English conversation. Languages 7, 2.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions 1, 1–28.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, T. and de Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double-object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. M. and Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82, 407–428.Google Scholar
Cornille, B. and Delbecque, N. (2008). Speaker commitment: Back to the speaker. Evidence from Spanish alternations. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22, 37–62.Google Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., and Olofsson, J. (eds.) (2018). Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., Smolensky, P., and Legendre, G. (2012). Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122, 306–329.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, 931–951.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. and Lieven, E. V. M. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16, 437–474.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93, 283–321.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., D’hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., and Van Goethem, K. (2018). The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29, 197–234.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (1997). Verb-first constructions in German. In Verspoor, M., Dong, L. K., and Sweetser, E. (eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25, 108–127.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2013). Construction grammar and first language acquisition. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 347–364. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2016). Frequency and lexical specificity. A critical review. In Behrens, H. and Pfänder, S. (eds.), Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language, 209–237. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2017). Usage-based linguistics. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019a). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019b). Preposed adverbial clauses: Functional adaptation and diachronic inheritance. In Schmidtke-Bode, K., Levshina, N., Michaelis, S., and Seržant, I. A. (eds.), Explanation in Linguistic Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 191–226. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2020). A dynamic network approach to the study of syntax. Frontiers in Psychology 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.604853.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. and Hilpert, M. (2016). Frequency effects in grammar. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. and Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81, 1–25.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2020). Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E. (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 277–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. and Politt, K. (2022). Paradigms Regained: Theoretical and Empirical Arguments for the Assessment of the Notion of Paradigm. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (1988). Object-article order and adjective-noun order: Dispelling a myth. Lingua 74, 185–217.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68, 81–138.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (2019). Grammaticalization accounts of word order correlations. In Schmidtke-Bode, K., Levshina, N., Michaelis, S., and Seržant, I. A. (eds.), Explanation in Linguistic Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 763–796. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), (2013). The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H. et al. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books and MIT Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 429–448.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–81. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics. Basic Readings, 373–400. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. and Kay, P. (1999). Construction Grammar. Berkeley: University of California. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., and O’Connor, C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 501–538.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, L. and Van de Pol, N. (2016). Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 20, 185–219.Google Scholar
Gahl, S. and Garnsey, S. M. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80, 748–775.Google Scholar
Gahl, S., Yao, Y., and Johnson, K. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 66, 789–806.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E. M., and Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 7, 58–93.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7, 155–170.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 219–224.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, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. and Jackendoff, R. S. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80, 532–567.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34, 365–399.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. and Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collexeme analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9, 97–129.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., Hampe, B., and Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16, 635–676.Google Scholar
Haig, G. (1998). Relative Constructions in Turkish. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hare, M. L. and Goldberg, A. E. (2000). Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In Hahn, M. and Stoness, S. C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 208–211. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. and Pleyer, M. (2020). Constructing a protolanguage: Reconstructing prehistoric languages in a usage-based construction grammar framework. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 376, 20200200.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2021). Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics 57, 605–633.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M., Calude, A., Spagnol, M., Narrog, H., and Bamyaci, E. (2014). Coding causal-noncausal verb alternations: A form-frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50, 587–625.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. and Karjus, A. (2017). Explaining asymmetries in number marking: Singulatives, pluratives, and usage frequency. Linguistics 55, 1213–1235.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., and Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2014). The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In Herbst, T., Schmid, H.-J., and Faulhaber, S. (eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns, 167–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hetterle, K. (2015). Adverbial Clauses in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. and 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., and Grygiel, M. (eds.), Contrast and Analogy in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions. In Braunmüller, K. and Gabriel, C. (eds.), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies, 241–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2011). Particle Placement in English: A Usage-based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2019). English Comparative Correlatives: Diachronic and Synchronic Variation at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2020). 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.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 139–157.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60, 703–752.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007). Language Networks. The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P. (2020). What It Takes to Talk: Exploring Developmental Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, A. E. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S. (2013). Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Iwata, S. (2008). Locative Alternation: A Lexicalist-Constructional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). Twistin’ the night away. Language 73, 534–559.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002a). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002b). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In Dehé, N., Jackendoff, R., McIntyre, A., and Urban, S. (eds.), Verb-Particle Explorations, 67–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. and Audring, J. (2020). The Texture of the Lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (2013). Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1991). 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.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20, 137–194.Google Scholar
Justeson, J. S. and Stephens, L. D. (1990). Explanations for word order universals: A log-linear analysis. In Bahner, W., Schildt, J., and Viehweger, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Linguistics, Vol. 3, 2372–2376. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., and Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49, 133–156.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V. (2018). Changing Minds, Changing Tools: From Learning Theory to Language Acquisition to Language Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
König, E. and Siemund, P. (2007). Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krug, M. (2000). Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R. and Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31, 32–59.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1997). Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 1–32.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Kemmer, S. and Barlow, M. (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language, 1–64. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasch, A. and Ziem, A. (eds.), (2014). Grammatik als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen: Sprachwissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leino, J. (2021). Formalizing paradigms in construction grammar. In Diewald, G. and Politt, K. (eds.), Paradigms Regained: Theoretical and Empirical Arguments for the Assessment of the Notion of Paradigm, 37–66. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2022). Communicative Efficiency: Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M., Behrens, H., Spears, J., and Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30, 333–370.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Towards an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review 95, 492–527.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2020). Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: To-contraction in American English. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E.. (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 243–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. and Tizón-Couto, D. (2020). Not just frequency, not just modality: Production and perception of English semi-modals. In Hohaus, P. and Schulze, R. (eds.), Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, Co-text, and Context, 79-108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A. and Pisoni, D. P. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19, 1–36.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. (2018). Introduction: Constructions and constructicography. In Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K. H., and Torrent, T. T. (eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K. H., and Torrent, T. T. (eds.), (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., and Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101, 676–703.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. and Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In Traxlor, M. J. and Gernsbacher, M. A. (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 581–611. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A. (1995). Even. Munich: Lincom Europe.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. and Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maye, J., Werker, J. F., and Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82, B101–B111.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-based construction grammar. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. and Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72, 215–247.Google Scholar
Miestamo, M. (2005). Standard Negation: The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Norde, M. and Morris, C. (2018). Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., and Vanderbauwhede, G. (eds.), Category Change from a Constructional Perspective, 47–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Similarity, frequency and category representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14, 54–65.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., and Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language 70, 491–538.Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-Based Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perek, F. and Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language 24, 108–127.Google Scholar
Petré, P. (2014). Constructions and Environments: Copular, Passive, and Related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. and Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39, 633–651.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. and Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming. A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134, 427–459.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and the acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46, 115–154Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., and Van de Velde, F. (2018). Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Constructions and Frames 10, 269–305.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D. and Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50, 543–581.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-based construction grammar. In Boas, H. C. and Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69–202. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). A framework for understanding entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Schmid, H. J. (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, 9–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K. and Diessel, H. (2017). Cross-linguistic patterns in the structure, function and position of (object) complement clauses. Linguistics 55, 1–38.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K. and Levshina, N. (2018). Reassessing scale effects on differential object marking: Methodological, conceptual and theoretical issues in quest of a universal. In Seržant, I. A. and Witzlack-Makarevich, A. (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Object Marking, 509–538. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R. and Baayen, H. R. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 118–139.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shieber, S. (2003). An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Brookline, MA: Microtome Publishing. [first published 1986]Google Scholar
Smirnova, E. (2021). Horizontal links within and between paradigms. In Hilpert, M., Cappelle, B., and Depraetere, I. (eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar, 185–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2018). Article Emergence in Old English: A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2022). Day to day and night after night: Temporal NPN constructions in Present Day English. In Sommerer, L. and Keizer, E. (eds.), English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective, 363–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E. (eds.), (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sporns, O. (2012). Networks of the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steels, L. (2011), (ed.). Design Patterns of Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Steels, L. (2015). The Talking Heads Experiment: Origins of Words and Meanings. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8, 209–243.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 566–585.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics 32, 389–420.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. and Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist Approaches: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2010). The emergence of the determiner in Dutch NP. Linguistics 48, 263–299.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., and Rutten, G. (eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Lier, E. and Messerschmidt, M. (2022). Lexical restrictions on grammatical relations in voice and valency constructions. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 75, 1–20.Google Scholar
Van Trijp, R. (2016). The Evolution of Case Grammar. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological neighbourhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 28, 735–747.Google Scholar
Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., and MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58, 250–271.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Yeung, H. H., and Yoshhida, K. A. (2012). How do infants become experts of native-speech pronunciation? Current Directions in Psychological Science 21, 221–226.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, D. (2008). Sense-contingent lexical preferences and early parsing decisions: Corpus-evidence from local NP/S-ambiguities. Cognitive Linguistics 19, 447–463.Google Scholar
Willich, A. (2022). Konstruktionssemantik: Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktions-grammatik und Konstruktikographie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., and Szmrecsanyi, B. (2013). Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30, 382–419.Google Scholar
Zehnenter, E. (2019). Competition in Language Change: The Rise and Fall of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element 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.

The Constructicon
  • Holger Diessel, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany
  • Online ISBN: 9781009327848
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

The Constructicon
  • Holger Diessel, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany
  • Online ISBN: 9781009327848
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

The Constructicon
  • Holger Diessel, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany
  • Online ISBN: 9781009327848
Available formats
×