Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 24] 2018
► pp. 37–70

Grammar is community-specific

Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar

Mainstream grammatical theory and traditional grammaticography concentrate on single languages or varieties, which are conceptualised as pre-existing, distinct entities and analysed in terms of coherent, static, ideally variation-free language systems. This is in stark contrast to actual language usage, where various kinds of structural contact phenomena are the rule rather than the exception. In line with recent insights from contact linguistics, Diasystematic Construction Grammar assumes that multilingual speakers and communities organise their grammatical knowledge on the basis of the available input via processes of interlingual identification, abstraction, generalisation, and categorisation, regardless of language boundaries. This results in a community-specific multilingual constructicon, comprising both language-specific constructions (restricted to certain communicative contexts associated with a particular language) and constructions unspecified for language.
Keywords: Diasystematic Construction Grammar, language contact, Construction Grammar, contact-induced change
Article outline
  • 1.(Why) Yet another approach?
  • 2.Insights from contact linguistics: Language contact and its status in linguistic theory
  • 3.Taking usage-based CxG seriously: Towards socio-cognitive realism
  • 4.An integrated approach: The repertoire as constructicon
    • 4.1Language-specificity as a constructional property
    • 4.2Constructions without borders: Idioconstructions and diaconstructions
    • 4.3Language-specific input vs. diasystematic constructicon?
    • 4.4Pro-diasystematic change
    • 4.5Generalisation gone wild?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.02hod
References (107)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2007). Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic typology (pp.1–66). Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Babel, A., & Pfänder, S. (2014). Doing copying: Why typology doesn’t matter to language speakers. In Besters-Dilger, J., et al. (Eds.), Congruence in contact-induced language change. Language families, typological resemblance, and perceived similarity (pp.239–257). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity. Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80, 290–311.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, Tamar H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological science in the public interest, 10, 89–129.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohn, R. (2006). Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins. München: Beck.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, J.-P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: code switching in Northern Norway. In Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnography of communication (pp.407–434). New York etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1965 [1933]). Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (Ed.) (2010). Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.233–252). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google 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, 87, 55–83.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. G. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. (2004). History of research on language contact. In Ammon, U., et al. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society (vol. 1, pp.799–805). 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow etc.: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M. (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.273–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.211–232). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2015). Frequency and entrenchment. In Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.53–75). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, A. S. (2014). On the borrowability of subject pronoun constructions in Turkish–Dutch contact. Constructions and Frames, 6, 143–169.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, A. S., & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 12, 41–63.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Malden etc.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2013). Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.365–378). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137), Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2010). Beyond the sentence. Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and frames, 2, 185–207.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1967). Bilingualism with and without diglossia, diglossia with and without bilingualism. The journal of social issues, 23, 29–38.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fredsted, E. (2009). Sprachen und Kulturen in Kontakt – deutsche und dänische Minderheiten in Sønderjylland/Schleswig. In Stolz, C. (Ed.), Neben Deutsch. Die autochthonen Minderheiten- und Regionalsprachen Deutschlands (pp.1–23). Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G. (2015). Variationist linguistic. In Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.366–389), Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (2010). Introduction. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp.1–19), Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive linguistics, 13, 327–356.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive linguistics, 22, 131–153.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals. An introduction. New York/Hove: Psychology Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and language, 36, 3–15.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Li, P. (2013). The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2007). Pre-established categories don’t exist. Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic typology, 11, 119–132.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine, B., & Narrog, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp.375–402). Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1950a). Problems of bilingualism. Lingua, 2, 271–290.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1950b). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210–231.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1953). The Norwegian language in America. A study in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1956). Bilingualism in the Americas. A bibliography and research guide: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2003). On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in language, 27, 529–572.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., & Meunier, F. (2015). Modelling ‘constructional transfer’: a comparative corpus study of morphological and syntactic intensifiers in L1 French, Dutch and L2 Dutch. Paper presented at Morphology Days, 18 December 2015, Leuven.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. (Ed.). 2010. The handbook of language contact. Malden etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle 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 (pp.57–74). Washington: De Gruyter Mouton/American Psychological Association.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2014). Reflections on constructions across grammars. Constructions and frames, 6, 137–142.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: a diasystematic approach to common structures. In Braunmüller, K., & Gabriel, C. (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp.241–257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In Åfarli, T. A., & Mæhlum, B. (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp.137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Convergence vs. divergence from a diasystematic perspective. In Braunmüller, K., Höder, S., & Kühl, K. (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact. Factors and mechanisms (pp.39–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2014c). Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and frames, 6, 202–231.Google Scholar
(2016a). Niederdeutsche Form, unspezifische Struktur. Diasystematische Konstruktionen in der deutsch-dänischen Kontaktzone. In Spiekermann, H., et al. (Eds.), Niederdeutsch: Grenzen, Strukturen, Variation (pp.293–309). Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
(2016b). Though this be contact, yet there is system in’t: Was man noch heute von Uriel Weinreich über Sprachkontakt lernen kann. In Walker, A. (Ed.), Classics revisited. Wegbereiter der Linguistik neu gelesen (pp.157–178). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York etc.: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L. (2002). Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In Jones, M. C., & Esch, E. (Eds.), Language change. The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors (pp.285–313). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). On copying grammatical meaning. Language typology and universals , 58, 75–83.Google Scholar
(2008). Remodeling grammar. Copying, conventionalization, grammaticalization. In Siemund, P., & Kintana, N. (Eds.), Language contact and contact languages (pp.61–79). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G. (2008). Style-shifting and shifting styles: A socio-cognitive approach to lectal variation. In Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp.45–88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind, and brain. Annual review of linguistics, 1, 377–394.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühl, J., & Bohn, R. (Eds.). (2005). Ein europäisches Modell? Nationale Minderheiten im deutsch-dänischen Grenzland 1945–2005. Bielefeld/Gütersloh: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte.Google Scholar
Kühl, K. H. (2008). Bilingualer Sprachgebrauch bei Jugendlichen im deutsch-dänischen Grenzland. Hamburg: Kovač.Google Scholar
Kühl, K. (2015). Danske aflæggere i Nordeuropa: Færødansk, sydslesvigdansk og bokmål. Danske talesprog, 14, 29–54.Google Scholar
Kühl, K., & Braunmüller, K. (2014). Linguistic stability and divergence: An extended perspective on language contact. In Braunmüller, K., Höder, S., & Kühl, K. (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact. Factors and mechanisms (pp.13–38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kühl, K. H., & Petersen, H. P. (2009). Converging verbal phrases in related languages. A case study from Faro-Danish and Danish-German language contact situations. In Braunmüller, K., & House, J. (Eds.), Convergence and divergence in language contact situations (pp.101–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Page, R. B., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity. Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lepschy, G. (Ed.). (1998). History of linguistics. Vol. 3: Renaissance and early modern linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters. Arguments from language change. Cambridge etc.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lüdi, G. (1996). Mehrsprachigkeit. In Goebl, H., et al. (Eds.), Contact linguistics. An international handbook of contemporary research (vol. 1, pp.233–245). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. (2012). Re-thinking FNI. On null instantiation and control in Construction Grammar. Constructions and frames, 4, 1–23.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Contact, convergence, and typology. In Hickey, R. (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp.66–85). Malden etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. (2002). Communities of practice. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp.526–548). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (2002). Social networks. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp.549–572). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, A. (Ed.) (1998). History of linguistics. Vol. 4: Nineteenth-century linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Müller, M. (1994 [1861–1864]). Lectures on the science of language. London: Routledge/Thoemmes.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech. A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics. Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oksaar, E. (1980). Mehrsprachigkeit, Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt. In Nelde, P. H. (Ed.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt (pp.43–52). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Palacios, A., & Pfänder, S. (2014). Similarity effects in language contact. Taking the speakers’ perceptions of congruence seriously. In Besters-Dilger, J., et al. (Eds.), Congruence in contact-induced language change. Language families, typological resemblance, and perceived similarity (pp.219–238). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patrick, P. L. (2002). The speech community. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp.573–597), Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pedersen, K. M. (2003). Border-region Danish. International journal of the sociology of language, 159, 127–138.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pietsch, L. (2010). What has changed in Hiberno-English: constructions and their role in contact-induced change. Language typology and universals, 63, 118–145.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español. Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raith, J. (2004). Sprachgemeinschaft – Kommunikationsgemeinschaft. In Ammon, U., et al. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society (vol. 1, pp.146–158). 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (1999). Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 2, 169–186.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, M. (2007). Calquing and metatypy. Journal of language contact, Thema 1, 116–143.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleicher, A. (1983 [1850]). Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht. Linguistische Untersuchungen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuchardt, H. (1884). Dem Herrn Franz von Miklosich zum 20. November 1883. Slawo-Deutsches und Slawo-Italienisches. Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky.Google Scholar
Sønderjyllands historie (2008–2009). Aabenraa: Historisk Samfund før Sønderjylland.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. (2010). Contact explanations in linguistics. In Hickey, R. (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp.31–47), Malden etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. (2014). Contact-induced language change and typological congruence. In Besters-Dilger, J., et al. (Eds.), Congruence in contact-induced language change. Language families, typological resemblance, and perceived similarity (pp.201–218), Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2006a). Acquiring linguistic constructions. In Kuhn, D., & Siegler, R. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp.255–298). 6th edn. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
(2006b). Construction Grammar for kids. Constructions, special volume 1, article 11.Google Scholar
Wasserscheidt, P. (2014). Constructions do not cross languages: On cross-linguistic generalizations of constructions. Constructions and frames, 6, 305–337.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, M. (1945). Der yivo un di problemen fun undzer tsayt. Yivo bleter, 25, 3–18.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1954). Is a structural dialectology possible? Word, 10, 388–400.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1964 [1953]). Languages in contact. Findings and problems. 3rd edn. London/The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Werlen, I. (2004). Domäne. In Ammon, U., et al. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society (vol. 1, pp.335–341). 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Winge, V. (2004). Geschichte der deutsch-skandinavischen Sprachgrenze. In Besch, W., et al. (Eds.), Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung (vol. 4, pp.3380–3390). 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2015). Converging grammars. Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (29)

Cited by 29 other publications

Beyer, Klaus
2024. A Diasystematic Approach to Multilingual Ecology: The Case of Mbum Speakers in Ngaoundéré, Cameroon. In Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions [Working Title], DOI logo
Croft, William
2024. Philosophical reflections on the future of construction grammar (or, confessions of a Radical Construction Grammarian). Constructions and Frames DOI logo
Hendrikx, Isa & Kristel Van Goethem
2024. Dutch compound constructions in additional language acquisition. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Kessler, Ruth & Tatiana Perevozchikova
2024. Now they accept it, now they don’t: Acceptability judgements of nontypical multiword units in Russian as a native and a heritage language. International Journal of Bilingualism DOI logo
van Rooy, Bertus & Haidee Kotze
2024. Chapter 9. Conclusion. In Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings [Contact Language Library, 60], ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Coussé, Evie, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Julia Prentice
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hennecke, Inga & Evelyn Wiesinger
2023. Language contact phenomena in multiword units: The code-switching–calquing continuum. International Journal of Bilingualism DOI logo
Olofsson, Joel & Julia Prentice
2023. Chapter 7. The entrenchment of semi-schematic time constructions by German foreign language learners of Swedish. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Perak, Benedikt & Tajana Ban Kirigin
2023. Construction Grammar Conceptual Network: Coordination-based graph method for semantic association analysis. Natural Language Engineering 29:3 ► pp. 584 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk
2022. Lectal contamination. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:3 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Höder, Steffen, Julia Prentice & Sofia Tingsell
2021. Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Onysko, Alexander
2021. Cognitive models of language contact. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 82 ff. DOI logo
Rottet, Kevin J.
2021. Making one’s way in Welsh. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Urban, Aileen
2021. Idioconstructions in conflict. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
Van Goethem, Kristel & Isa Hendrikx
2021. Intensifying constructions in second language acquisition. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 376 ff. DOI logo
van Rooy, Bertus
2021. A Diasystematic Construction Grammar analysis of language change in the Afrikaans and English finite verb complement clause construction. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Wiesinger, Evelyn
2021. The Spanish verb-particle construction [V para atrás]. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 140 ff. DOI logo
Zaefferer, Dietmar
2021. Beware of the emperor’s conceptual clothes: general linguistics must not be based on shaky dichotomies. Theoretical Linguistics 47:1-2 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Hagel, Anna
2020. Strange sounds, familiar words. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 122 ff. DOI logo
Hagel, Anna
2023. Chapter 3. One man’s [ɕœtː] is another man’s [kʰøð̞]. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Percillier, Michael
2020. Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family?. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 214 ff. DOI logo
Höder, Steffen
2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 334 ff. DOI logo
Höder, Steffen
2023. Chapter 4. The Devil is in the schema. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Mailhammer, Robert & Ronia Zeidan
2019. Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual productions of the English past tense in Arabic heritage speakers of Australian English. Linguistics Vanguard 5:1 DOI logo
Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2018. Construction Grammar and language contact. In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2021. Widening the scope. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Dux, Ryan
2018. Texas German and English word order constructions in contact. In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Dux, Ryan
2020. Code-switching and loan translation in German-American. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo
Östman, Jan-Ola
2018. Constructions as cross-linguistic generalizations over instances. In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.