Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 1–13

Introduction

Investigating the constructicon

 | University of La Rioja
 | National Distance Education University, Madrid
 | University of Birmingham
Article outline
  • 1.Motivation
  • 2.Aims and structure
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.01rui
References (65)
References
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form: The role of metonymy and inference. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A. 2011. West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics 49(1), 53–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. 2005. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (147–190). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Embodied Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (168–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Plauché, M. 2001. Extensions of deictic and existential constructions in French: Voilà, voici and Il y a. In A. Cienki, B. Luka, & M. Smith (Eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (45–61). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2005. The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics 16(1), 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H., & Gonzálvez, F. (Eds.) 2014. Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C. 2003. The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez, F. 2014. Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Lexical Rules vs. Constructions: A False Dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Radical Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (211–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. 2010. Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action. From theory to application and back (13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1991. A new approach to English grammar. On semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
1988. The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [BLS 14], 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, C. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. 2007. Constructing grammatical meaning: Isomorphism and polysemy in Czech reflexivization. Studies in Language 31(4), 721–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (Eds.) 2004. Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 1998/2006. The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van Langendonck, & W. Van Belle (Eds.), The Dative II (185–210). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Geeraerts, D. 2006. Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics (175–197). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N., & Russle, K. 2004. Contrastive focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 307–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996. Making one’s way through the data. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex predicates (151–173). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013. Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Del Giudice, A. 2005. Subject-auxiliary inversion: A natural category. The Linguistic Review, 22, 411–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez, F. 2008. Towards a constructionist, usage-based reappraisal of interpersonal manipulation: Evidence from secondary predication in English and Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57, 109–136.Google Scholar
2009. The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis. Language Sciences, 31, 663–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics 49(6), 1305–1358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. “That’s so a construction!”. Some reflections on innovative uses of “so” in Present-day English. In M. A. Gómez, F. Ruiz de Mendoza, & F. Gonzálvez (Eds.), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space (271–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez, F., & Butler, C. 2006. Mapping functional cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. 2014. The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns (167–216). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2014. Construction Grammar and its applications to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.) 2013. The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory and language acquisition (109–129). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S. 2008. The locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. 1990. The radial network of grammatical category: Its genesis and dynamic structure. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3), 269–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. F. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, R. 1995. Zeichentheorie. Zu einer Theorie semiotischen Wissens. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. 2010. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luzondo, A. 2014. Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(1), 30–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M. (Eds.) 2005. Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, M. S. 2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences 31(6), 740–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs. Linguistics 53(6), 1247–1302.Google Scholar
Pérez, L. 2013. lllocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification link. Language & Communication 33(2), 128–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. 1975. Family resemblances. Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Baicchi, A. 2007. Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (95–127). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A. 2014. Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, I., Boas, C., & Kay. P. 2012. Introducing sign-based construction grammar. In H. C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (1–29). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1985. Passives and related constructions. Language 61(4), 821–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. 2012. Design methods for Fluid Construction Grammar. In L. Steels (Ed.), Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar (3–36). Springer: Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torre, E. 2012. Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions. An Embodied Construction Grammar approach. Constructions, 1, 1–38.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. 2007. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Leek, F. 1996. The English conative construction: A compositional account. Papers from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 32, 363–378.Google Scholar
Welke, K. 2011. Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1955. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Olguín Martínez, Jesús
2024. Semantically negative adverbial clause-linkage: ‘let alone’ constructions, expletive negation, and theoretical implications. Linguistic Typology 28:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Olguín Martínez, Jesús & Alonso Vásquez Aguilar
2024. Counterfactual conditional strategies in some Amazonian languages. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas 24 ► pp. e024010 ff. DOI logo
Olguín Martínez, Jesús, Alonso Vásquez-Aguilar & Pilar Valenzuela
2024. Temporal ‘since’ constructions in cross-linguistic perspective. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 77:3 ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Penadés Martínez, Inmaculada
2020. Consecutive intensifying constructional idioms. Romanica Olomucensia 32:1 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.