In recent years, foreign language pedagogy has recognized the need to focus on larger meaningful sequences of
words and on communicative goals. Construction grammar (CxG) has a number of assets to address these issues. First, with the
postulate of meaningful schematic templates, CxG makes it possible to establish a structured inventory of abstract constructions.
In this paper, this is illustrated by the inventory of German constructions with the preposition bis ‘up to,
until’. Second, constructions, having a certain degree of schematicity, are particularly suitable to be practiced as whole
sequences. Interactive activities based on ‘embodied teaching and learning’ can help foster the entrenchment of constructions.
Achard, M. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 432–456). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Asher, J. J. (1982). Learning another language through actions. The complete teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
Baicchi, A. (2013). The ontological status of constructions in the mind of Italian University learners of English: Psycholinguistic evidence from a sentence-sorting experiment. In L. Di Michele (Ed.), Regenerating community, territory, voices (pp. 26–32). Napoli: Liguori.
Baicchi, A. (2016). The role of syntax and semantics in constructional priming. Experimental evidence from Italian university learners of English through a sentence-elicitation task. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 211–236). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Bencini, G., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 431, 640–651.
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English Language Teaching Journal, 531, 197–204.
Boers, F., De Rycker, A., & De Knop, S. (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. de Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through CL (pp. 1–27). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 385–436). Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press.
Carroll, M. (2000). Representing path in language production in English and German: Alternative perspectives on Figure and Ground. In C. Habel & C. von Stutterheim (Eds.), Räumliche Konzepte und sprachliche Strukturen (pp. 97–118). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Carstensen, K. (2000). Räumliche Mikroperspektivierung und die Semantik lokaler Präpositionen. In C. Habel & C. von Stutterheim (Eds.). Räumliche Konzepte und Sprachliche Strukturen (pp. 237–260). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 411, 83–121.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 51, 160–170.
De Knop, S. (2016). German causative events with placement verbs. Lege Artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, 1(2), 75–115.
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G. (Eds.) (2016). Applied construction grammar. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. (2016). A construction-based analysis of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 53–88). Berlin: de Gruyter.
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. (2019). Verblose Direktiva als Konstruktionen: ein kontrastiver Vergleich zwischen Deutsch, Französisch und Italienisch. In J. Erfurt & S. De Knop (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik und Mehrsprachigkeit (pp. 127–148). Universität Duisburg-Essen: Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr OHG.
Della Putta, P. (2016). Do we also need to unlearn constructions? The case of constructional negative transfer from Spanish to Italian and its pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 237–267). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Di Pietro, R. J. (1987). Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Draye, L. (1996). The German dative. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative: Descriptive studies. Vol. 11 (pp. 155–215). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ellis, N. C. (2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 139–158). London: Blackwell Publishing Company.
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Jr., F. (2009a). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Evans, V. (2003). The structure of time. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 891, 385–392.
Filipovic, L. & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2015): Motion. In: E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Mouton Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 526–545). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Flecken, M., Carroll, M., Weimar, K., & Von Stutterheim, C. (2015). Driving along the road or heading for the village? Conceptual differences underlying motion event encoding in French, German, and French–German L2 users. The Modern Language Journal, 991, 100–122.
Fries, C. C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Gilquin, G., & De Knop, S. (2016). Exploring L2 constructionist approaches. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 3–17). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
González Rey, M. I. (2013). Presentation: Phraseodidactics, an applied field of phraseology. In M. I. González Rey (Ed.), Phraseodidactic studies on German as a foreign language / Phraseodidaktische Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache (pp. 7–10). Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.
Grießhaber, W. (2009). Präposition. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Handbuch der Deutschen Wortarten (pp. 629–656). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Handwerker, B. (2008). ‛Chunksʼ und Konstruktionen – Zur Integration von lern-theoretischem und grammatischem Ansatz. Estudios Filológicos Alemanes, 151, 49–64.
Handwerker, B., & Madlener, K. (2006). Multimedia-Chunks für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein Lernmodul zur Entwicklung lexikalisch-grammatischer Kompetenz. In A. Hahn & F. Klippel (Eds.), Sprachen Schaffen Chancen (pp. 199–206). München: Oldenbourgs.
Hausmann, F. J. (1984). Wortschatzlernen ist Kollokationslernen. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 311, 395–406.
Herbst, T. (2016). Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards pedagogical construction grammar. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 21–52). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Jarvis, S. (2007). Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41, 43–71.
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York/London: Routledge.
Klein, W. (1991). Raumausdrücke. Linguistische Berichte, 1321, 77–114.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lado, R., & Fries, C. C. (1961). English pattern practices. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 11. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Lapaire, J.-R. (2013). Gestualité cogrammaticale: de l’action corporelle spontanée aux postures de travail métagestuel guidé. Maybe et le balancement épistémique en anglais. Langages, 192 (4), 57–72.
Lapaire, J.-R., & Etcheto, P. (2010). Postures, manipulations, déambulations: comprendre la grammaire anglaise autrement. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 49(1), 45–58.
Leys, O. (1989). Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen. Deutsche Sprache, 171, 97–113.
Leys, O. (1995). Dativ und Akkusativ in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leuvense Bijdragen, 841, 39–62.
Liang, J. (2002). How do Chinese EFL learners construct sentence meaning: Verb-centered or construction-based? M.A. thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Lutzeier, P. R. (1995). Von der Wortbedeutung zur Satzbedeutung: Überlegungen zum Beitrag der Präpositionen. In I. Pohl (Ed.), Semantik von Wort, Satz und Text: Beiträge des Kolloquiums “Semantik von Wort, Satz und Text“ in Rostock (1994) (pp. 171–189). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Langs.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. Tesol Quarterly, 25(2), 279–295.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Kinder, Computer und neues Lernen. New York: Basic books.
Papert, S. (1986). Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Paul, H. (1916–1920). Deutsche Grammatik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Bilingualism and thought. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 433–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). New York: Longman.
Politzer, R. L. (1961). The impact of linguistics on language teaching: Past, present and future. Modern Language Journal, 48(3), 146–151.
Radden, G. (2003). The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages. In N. Baumgarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz, & J. Probst (Eds.), Übersetzen, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60. Geburtstag. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 8(2/3), 226–239.
Rathunde, K. (2009). Nature and embodied education. The journal of developmental processes, 4 (1), 70–80.
Rys, J., Willems, K., & De Cuypere, L. (2014). Akkusativ und Dativ nach Wechselpräpositionen im Deutschen. Eine Korpusanalyse von ‘versinken’, ‘versenken’, ‘einsinken’ und ‘einsenken in’. In I. Doval & B. Lübke (Eds.), Raumlinguistik und Sprachkontrast: neue Beiträge zu spatialen Relationen im Deutschen, Englischen und Spanischen (pp. 217–234). München: Iudicium.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Agustín Llach, M. P. (2016). Cognitive pedagogical grammar and meaning construction in L2. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G. (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 151–184). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Savignon, S. J. (2000). Communicative language teaching. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 125–129). London: Routledge.
Schmitz, W. (1964). Der Gebrauch deutscher Präpositionen. München: Hueber Verlag.
Schröder, J. (1986). Lexikon deutscher Präpositionen. Leipzig: VEB Verlag.
Serra-Borneto, C. (1997). Two-way prepositions in German: Image and constraints. In M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 187–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(6), 1–10.
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, M. B. (1995). Semantic motivation vs. arbitrariness in grammar: Toward a more general account of the DAT/ACC contrast with two-way prepositions. In I. Rauch & G. F. Carr (Eds.), Insights in Germanic linguistics: Methodology and transition (pp. 293–323). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, J. (2008). Prototypes in cognitive linguistics. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 39–65). London: Routledge.
Thieroff, R., & Vogel, P. M. (2011). Flexion. Heidelberg: Winter.
Valenzuela Manzanares, J., & Rojo López, A. M. (2008). What can language learners tell us about constructions? In S. De Knop & T. de Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 197–230). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 123–130.
Weideman, A. (2016). Responsible aesign in Applied linguistics: Theory and practice. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Willems, K. (2011). The semantics of variable case marking (accusative/dative) after two-way prepositions in German locative constructions. Towards a constructionist approach. Indogermanische Forschungen, 1161, 324–366.
Willems, K., Rys, J., & De Cuypere, L. (2018). Case alternation in argument structure constructions with prepositional phrases. A case study in corpus-based constructional analysis. In H. C. Boas & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional approaches to argument atructure in German (pp. 85–130)s. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
FÜREDER, Birgit
2024. Frequency effects in acquisition and processing of complex verbal constructions in Romance: Experimental and corpus perspectives on Spanish as well as potential implications for foreign language acquisition. Ampersand► pp. 100199 ff.
Boas, Hans C., Alexander Ziem, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Debunking some myths about the role and relevance of (restricted) semantic role sets: Some thoughts on Ágel & Höllein 2021. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 65 ff.
Bouveret, Myriam, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Constructionalization of verbal causative periphrases in French faire, laisser, mettre à, donner à + Vinf. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 133 ff.
Gallez, Françoise, Manon Hermann, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Lexikalisierungsmuster zum Ausdruck der Lokalisierung und Fortbewegung im Deutschen: ein didaktischer Ansatz. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 211 ff.
Habermann, Mechthild, Thomas Herbst, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. The German so-was-von construction. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 97 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 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.