Cover not available
Article published In:
On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Kiki Nikiforidou
[Constructions and Frames 7:2] 2015
► pp. 258–288

Situation in grammar or in frames?

Evidence from the so-called baby talk register

 | Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark
This paper addresses the conditions under which knowledge of situation-specific language use should be part of a construction grammatical representation and under which it should, rather, be part of a frame semantic representation. Using child-directed speech as an example, which has been suggested to constitute a good candidate for a register, it is shown that a conventional association between grammatical form and situation is implausible. Instead, the relationship between grammar and situation is mediated by speakers’ understandings of the functional affordances of the respective situation, to which the communication partner may contribute considerably. In the case of the so-called baby talk register, situational knowledge is thus stored best in semantic frames as a set of functions that can be demonstrated to be commonly attended to, whereas construction grammar remains an inventory of general form-function pairs.
Keywords: register, motherese, usage-based model, construction grammar, child-directed speech, frame semantics
Published online: 24 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis
References (109)
Alley, Th. R. (1983). Infantile head shape as an elicitor of adult protection. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 411–427.Google Scholar
Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction grammar and conventional discourse: a construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 2594–2609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bard, E.C., & Anderson, A.H. (1983). The unintelligibility of talk to children. Journal of Child Language, 10(1), 265–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J.A., Delin, J., & Henschel, E. (2007). Mapping the multimodal genres of traditional and electronic newspapers. In T.D. Royce & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 147–172). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2006). The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1-3), 2–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein-Ratner, N. (1987). The phonology of parent–child speech. In K. Nelson & A. van Kleeck (Eds.), Children’s Language, Vol. 61 (pp. 159–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1994). An analytical framework for register studies. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 31–56). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biersack, S., Kempe, V., & Knapton, L. (2005). Fine-tuning speech registers: a comparison of the prosodic features of child-directed and foreigner-directed speech. In Interspeech-2005 (pp. 2401–2404).Google Scholar
Brent, M.R., & Siskind, J.M. (2001). The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition, 811, B33–B44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1977). The place of baby talk in the world of language. In C. Snow & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp. 1–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, T.A., & Brent, M.R. (1997). Syntactic categorization in early language acquisition: Formalizing the role of distributional analysis. Cognition, 631, 121–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E.V. (1998). Lexical structure and pragmatic directions in acquisition. In M.C. Gruber, D. Higgins, K.S. Olson, & T. Wysocki (Eds.), Chicago linguistic society: Papers from the panels, Vol. 341 (pp. 437–446). Publisher.Google Scholar
Clark, E.V., & Estigarribia, B. (2011). Using speech and gesture to inform young children about unfamiliar word meanings. Gesture, 11(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conti-Ramsden, G., & Friel-Patti, S. (1987). Situational variability in mother-child conversations. In K. Nelson & A. van Kleek (Eds.), Children’s language, Vol. 61 (pp. 43–63). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cross, T., Johnson-Morris, J.E., & Nienhuys, T.G. (1980). Linguistic feedback and maternal speech: Comparisons of mothers addressing hearing and hearing-impaired children. First Language, 11, 163–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cross, T.G., Nienhuys, T.G., & Kirkman, M. (1985). Parent–child interaction with receptively disabled children: Some determinants of maternal speech style. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s language, Vol. 51 (pp. 247–290). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cruse, D.A. (2000). Meaning in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DePaulo, B.M., & Coleman, L. (1986). Talking to children, foreigners, and retarded adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 511, 945–959. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C.A. (1977). Baby talk as a simplified register. In C.E. Snow & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children. Language input and acquisition (pp. 209–235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2004). Talking to children: A search for universals. In B.C. Lust & C. Foley (Eds.), First language acquisition – The essential readings (pp. 176–189). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. (1985). Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development, 8(2), 181–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1992). Human maternal vocalizations to infants as biologically relevant signals: an evolutionary perspective. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmidess, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 391–428). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., & Hurtado, N. (2006). Names in frames: Infants interpret words in sentence frames faster than words in isolation. Developmental Science, 9(3), F33–F40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Marchman, E., & Weisleder, A. (2012). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 1–13.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., & Mazzie, C. (1991). Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 271, 209–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., & Weisleder, A. (2011). Early language experience is vital to developing fluency in understanding. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research, Vol. 31 (pp. 3–19). New York: Guiltford Publications.Google Scholar
Filipi, A. (2009). Toddler and parent interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech , 2801, 20–32.
. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul, Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., & Atkins, B.T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E.F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. (1988). The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (2000). From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin, NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). What computer talk is and isn’t: human-computer conversation as intercultural communication. Saarbrücken: AQ.Google Scholar
. (2010). Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. In Proceedings of HRI’11 ( pp. 53–60). March 6-9th, 2011. Lausanne, Switzerland.
. (2012). Human tutors intuitively reduce complexity in socially guided embodied grammar learning. Ro-Man 2012, Paris.Google Scholar
. (2015). Conversation, construction grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 71, 563–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., Foth, K., Rohlfing, K., & Wrede, B. (2011). Mindful tutors – linguistic choice and action demonstration in speech to infants and to a simulated robot. Interaction Studies, 12(1), 134–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., Lohan, K., & Foth, K. (2012). Levels of embodiment. Linguistic analyses of factors influencing HRI. In Proceedings of HRI’12 , Boston.
Fischer, K., Lohan, K.S., Rohlfing, K., & Foth, K. (2014). Partner orientation in asymmetric communication: Evidence from contingent robot response. HRI ’14 Workshop on Humans and Robots in Asymmetric Interactions , March 3rd, 2014, Bielefeld, Germany.
French, L., & Pak, M.K. (1995). Young children’s play dialogues with mothers and peers. In K.E. Nelson & Z. Réger (Eds.), Children’s language, Vol. 81 (pp. 65–101). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L.R., Newport, E.L., & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current status of the motherese hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 111, 43–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford/NewYork: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Groom, V., Takayama, L., Ochi, P., & Nass, C. (2009). I am my robot: The impact of robot-building and robot form on operators. In Proceedings of the Human-Robot Interaction Conference: HRI 2009 (pp. 31–36). San Diego, CA.
Haggan, M. (2002). Self-reports and self-delusion regarding the use of motherese: Implications from Kuwaiti adults. Language Sciences, 241, 17–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). Introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Kaplan, P.S., Bachorowski, J.-A., & Zarlengo-Strouse, P. (1999). Child-directed speech produced by mothers with symptoms of depression fails to promote associative learning in four-month old infants. Child Development, 701, 560–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (1995). Construction grammar. In J. Verschueren, J-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 171–177 ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L.A. (2012). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kaye, K. (1980). Why we don’t talk baby talk to babies. Journal of Child Language, 71, 489–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V., Brooks, P.J., & Pirott, L. (2001). How can child-directed speech facilitate the acquisition of morphology? In Proceedings of the VIIIth International Congress for the study of child language (pp. 1237–1247).Google Scholar
Kitamura, C., Thanavishuth, C., Burnham, D., & Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2002). Universality and specificity in infant-directed speech: Pitch modifications as a function of infant age and sex in a tonal and a non-tonal language. Infant Behavior and Development, 241, 372–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraljic, T., Samuel, A.G., & Brennan, S.E. (2008). First impressions and last resorts: How listeners adjust to speaker variability. Psychological Science, 19(4), 332–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krause, J., & Hitzenberger, L. (Eds.). (1992). Computer talk. Hildesheim: Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Küntay, A., & Slobin, D.I. (1996). Listening to a Turkish mother: Some puzzles for acquisition. In D.I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Gua (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language. Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Küntay, A., & Slobin, D.A. (2001). Discourse behavior of lexical categories in Turkish child-directed speech: nouns vs. verbs. In M. Almgren, A. Barrena, M. Ezeizabarrena, I. Idiazabal, & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Research on child language acquisition: Proceedings for the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language (pp. 928–946). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Laakso, A., & Smith, L. (2004). Pronouns predict verb meanings in child-directed speech. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 767–772). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, D.Y. (2001). Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 37–72.Google Scholar
Lieven, E.V. (1978). Conversations between mothers and young children: Individual differences and their possible implication for the study of language learning. In N. Waterson & C.E. Snow (Eds.), The development of communication (pp. 173–187). Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Liu, H.-M., Feng-Ming, T., & Kuhl, P.K. (2009). Age-related changes in acoustic modifications of Mandarin maternal speech to preverbal infants and five-year-old children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Child Language, 361, 909–922. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohan, K.S. (2011). A model of contingency detection to spot tutoring behavior and to respond to ostensive cues in human-robot interaction. PhD Thesis, Bielefeld University.
Mannle, S., & Tomasello, M. (1987). Fathers, siblings, and the bridge hypothesis. In K. Nelson & A. van Kleek (Eds.), Children’s Language, Vol. 61 (pp. 23–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R. (1992). English text. London: Arnold. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2010). Interactional frames and grammatical description. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 135–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metta, G., Natale, L., Nori, F., Sandini, G., Vernon, D., Fadiga, L., Von Hofsten, C., Rosander, K., Lopes, M. Santos-Victor, J. et al. (2010). The iCub humanoid robot: An open-systems platform for research in cognitive development. Neural Networks, 23(8), 1125–1134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R.W. (2001). Americans’ talk to dogs: Similarities and differences with talk to infants. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 183–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk [Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 38]. Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman-Norlund, S.E., Noordzij, M.L., Newman-Norlund, R.D., Volman, I.A., de Ruiter, J.P., Hagoort, P., & Toni, I. (2009). Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition, 1111, 46–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newport, E.L., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L.R. (1977). Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C.E. Snow & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children. Language input and acquisition (pp. 109–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2016). ‘Genre knowledge’ in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in the folk tales. In W. Spooren & N. Stukker (eds.), Genre in discourse and cognition. Concepts, models and methods. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo
Ninio, A. (2011). Syntactic development: Its input and output. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nomikou, I., Lohan, K.S., & Rohlfing, K. (2012). Adaptive maternal synchrony: Multimodal practices are tailored to infants’ attention. CEU Conference on Cognitive Development , Budapest, Hungary.
Östman, J.–O. (2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J–O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papousek, M., Papousek, H., & Haekel, M. (1987). Didactic adjustments in fathers’ and mothers’ speech to their three-month-old infants. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 161, 306–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pine, J.M. (1994). The language of primary caregivers. In C. Gallaway & B.J. Richards (Eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 15–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quam, C., Yuan, J., & Swingley, D. (2008). Relating intonational pragmatics to the pitch realizations of highly frequent words in English speech to infants. In Proceedings of the CogSci’08 Conference.
Redford, M.A., Davis, B.L., & Miikkulainen, R. (2004). Phonetic variability and prosodic structure in mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 271, 477–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Stanford: CSLI and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowe, M.L. (2008). Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 351, 185–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, B.C., Frank, M.C., & Roy, D. (2009). Exploring word learning in a high-density longitudinal corpus. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society .
. (2012). Relating activity contexts to early word learning in dense longitudinal data. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Cognitive Science Conference . Sapporo, Japan.
Scheper-Hughes, N. (1985). Culture, scarcity, and maternal thinking: Maternal detachment and infant survival in a Brazilian shantytown. Ethos, 13(4), 291–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.I. (1975). On the nature of talk to children. In Foundations of language development: A multi-disciplinary approach, Vol. I1 (pp. 283–297). New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snow, C.E. (1972). Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Development, 431, 549–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1977). Mothers’ speech research: From input to interaction. In C.E. Snow & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children. Language input and acquisition (pp. 31–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (1994). Beginning from baby talk: Twenty years of research on input and interaction. In C. Gallaway & B.J. Richards (Eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 3–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Issues in the study of input: Finetuning, universality, individual and developmental differences, and necessary causes. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 180–193). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Snow, C.E., & Goldfield, B.A. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation-specific language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 101, 551–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soderstrom, M. (2007). Beyond baby talk: Re-evaluating the nature and content of speech input to preverbal infants. Developmental Review, 271, 501–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soderstrom,M., Seidl, A., Kemler Nelson, D.G., & Jusczyk, P.W. (2003). The prosodic bootstrapping of phrases: evidence from prelinguistic infants. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 249–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stern, D.N. (1977). The first relationship: Infant and mother. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sylvester-Bradley, B., & Trevathen, C. (1978). Baby talk as an adaptation to the infant’s communication. In N. Waterson & C.E. Snow (Eds.), The development of communication (pp. 75–92). Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Trainor, L.J., & Desjardins, R.N. (2002). Pitch characteristics of infant-directed speech affect infants’ ability to discriminate vowels. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 335–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uther, M., Knoll, M., & Burnham, D. (2007). Do you speak e-ng-l-i-sh ? A comparison of foreigner- and infant-directed speech. Speech Communication, 491, 2–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veneziano, E. (2001). Displacement and informativeness in child-directed talk. First Language, 211, 323–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogt, P., & Mastin, J.D. (2013). Rural and urban differences in language socialization and early vocabulary development in Mozambique. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3687–3692). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Walker, K., & Armstrong, L. (1995). Do mothers and fathers interact differently with their child or is it the situation which matters? Child: Care, Health and Development, 21(3), 161–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yont, K.M., Snow, C.E., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2003). The role of context in mother-child interactions: an analysis of communicative intents expressed during toy play and book reading with 12-month-olds. Journal of Pragmatics, 351, 435–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zoeppritz, M. (1985). Computer talk? Technical Report TN 85.05, IBM Heidelberg Scientific Center.Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Marmaridou, Sophia
2023. Sociopragmatics and Context. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Kosmala, Loulou & Ludivine Crible
2022. The dual status of filled pauses: Evidence from genre, proficiency and co-occurrence. Language and Speech 65:1 ► pp. 216 ff. DOI logo
Matsumoto, Yoshiko & Shoichi Iwasaki
2022. Multiplicity in grammar: Modes, genres and Speaker's knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 198 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Endo, Tomoko
2021. The Japanese benefactive -te ageru construction in family and adult interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 172 ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Fischer, Kerstin & Morgan Aarestrup
2021. Relationships between construction grammar(s) and genre: Evidence from an analysis of Instagram posts. Journal of Pragmatics 183 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
2021. Flexibility and fluidity of grammar: Grammatical constructions in discourse and sociocultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 172 ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Kaneyasu, Michiko & Minako Kuhara
2020. Dimensions of recipe register and native speaker knowledge. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 30:4 ► pp. 532 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat
2020. Pragmatic information in constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Finkbeiner, Rita
2019. Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2018. Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3 ► pp. 543 ff. DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2021. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in ‘stage directions’. Journal of Pragmatics 173 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Vergaro, Carla
2018. A cognitive framework for understanding genre. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3 ► pp. 430 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. 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.