Cover not available

Article published In: Computational Construction Grammar and Constructional Change
Edited by Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30] 2016
► pp. 1–13

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Computational construction grammar and constructional change

 | Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
 | Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris, France
Published online: 10 January 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.01beu
References (77)
Arbib, Michael. 2012. How the Brain Got Language: The Mirror System Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea (eds). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, and Tom Schoenemann. 2009. “Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper.” Language Learning 59(s1): 1–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. and Nancy Chang. 2005. “Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding.” In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried, 147–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beuls, Katrien and Luc Steels. 2013. “Agent-Based Models of Strategies for the Emergence and Evolution of Grammatical Agreement.” PLoS ONE 8 (3): e58960. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. and Ivan A. Sag (eds). 2012. Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2009. “Constructions at Work or at Rest?.” Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1): 129–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Language, Cognition, and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie and Ferdinand von Mengden (eds). 2014. Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow Essex: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, Antal van den Bosch, and Jakub Zavrel. 1999. “Forgetting Exceptions is Harmful in Language Learning.” Machine Learning 34 (1/3): 1143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daems, Jocelyne, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds). 2015. Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2015. “Usage-Based Construction Grammar.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Ewa Dabrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Simon J. Greenhill, C. Levinson, Stephen, and Russel D. Gray. 2011. “Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals.” Nature 4731: 79–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2005. “Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history.” Science 309 (5743): 2072–2075. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. “The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”.” In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.” Language 64 (3): 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2009. “Construction Grammar as a Tool for Diachronic Analysis.” Constructions and Frames 1 (2): 261–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1985. Paradigm and Paradox: Explorations Into a Paradigmatic Theory of Meaning and its Epistemological Background. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan and Kerstin Fischer (eds). 2010. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Devin M. Casenhiser, and Nitya Sethuraman. 2004. “Learning Argument Structure Generalizations.” Cognitive Linguistics 15 (3): 289–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, Russel D. and Quentin D. Atkinson. 2003. “Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin.” Nature 4261: 435–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. “The Role of Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus and Experimental Data on (Relative) Frequency and Contingency of Words and Constructions.” In Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics, ed. by Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman, and Hubert Cuyckens, 311–325. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, John T. 2003. “The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32 (2): 101–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, David and Dan Klein. 2010. “Finding Cognate Groups Using Phylogenies.” In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1030–1039. Uppsala: ACL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects ofLanguage in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harnad, Stevan. 1990. “The Symbol Grounding Problem.” Physica D 421: 335–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heggarty, Paul, Warren Maguire, and April McMahon. 2010. “Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel language histories.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 365: 38293843.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holland, John. 2006. “Studying Complex Adaptive Systems.” Journal ofSystems Science and Complexity 19 (1): 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hollmann, Willem B. and Anna Siewierska. 2011. “The Status of Frequency, Schemas, and Identity in Cognitive Sociolinguistics: A Case Study on Definite Article Reduction.” Cognitive Linguistics 221: 25–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. “Emergent grammar.” In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip, 139–157. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hurford, James. 1989. “Biological Evolution of the Saussurean Sign as a Component of the Language Acquisition Device.” Lingua 77 (2): 187–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian and Harry Tily. 2011. “On Language ‘Utility’: Processing Complexity and Communicative Efficiency.” WIREs: Cognitive Science 2 (3): 323–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansen, Mark K. and Thomas J. Palmeri. 2002. “Are There Representational Shifts During Category Learning?.” Cognitive Psychology 451: 482–553. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Dan. 1996. “A Probabilistic Model of Lexical and Syntactic Access and Disambiguation.” Cognitive Science 201: 137–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. “Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction.” Language 751: 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon. 2002. “Natural Language from Artificial Life.” Artificial Life 8 (2): 185–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kondrak, Grzegorz. 2002. Algorithms for Language Reconstruction. Ph. D. thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2000. Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. “A Dynamic Usage-Based Model.” In Usage-Based Models ofLanguage, ed. by Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer, 1–63. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena. 2009. “Developing Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1): 191–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nurnberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. “Idioms.” Language 701: 491–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar, Volume 17 of Constructional Approaches to Language. John Benjamins: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Katrien Beuls, and Freek Van de Velde. 2015. “The Rise of the Verbal Weak Inflection in Germanic: An agent-Based Model.” Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 51: 81–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pleyer, Michael and Nicolas Lindner. 2014. “Constructions, Construal and Cooperation in the Evolution of Language.” In The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference, ed. by Erica A. Cartmill, Sean Roberts, Heidi Lyn, and Hannah Cornish, 244–251. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, Sally and John Newman (eds). 2010. Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor and Barbara B. Lloyd (eds). 1978. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, Nathan and Reut Tsarfaty. 2013. “Book Review: Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar.” Computational Linguistics 39 (2): 447–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew D.M. 2014. “Models of Language Evolution and Change.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 5 (3): 281–293.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spranger, Michael. 2013. “Evolving Grounded Spatial Language Strategies.” KI – Künstliche Intelligenz 27 (2): 97–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steels, Luc. 1995. “A Self-Organizing Spatial Vocabulary.” Artificial Life 2 (2): 319–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “Language as a Complex Adaptive System.” In Proceedings of PPSN VI: Lecture notes in Computer Science, ed. by Mark Schoenauer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 17–26. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “Constructivist Development of Grounded Construction Grammars.” In Proceedings 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ed. by Walter Daelemans, 9–19. Barcelona: ACL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012b. “Self-Organization and Selection in Cultural Language Evolution.” In Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution, ed. by Luc Steels, 1–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. The Talking Heads Experiment: Origins of Words and Meanings, Volume 1 of Computational Models of Language Evolution. Berlin: Language Science Press. Open access at [URL].
Steels, Luc and Eörs Szathmáry. 2016. “Fluid Construction Grammar as a Biological System.” Linguistics Vanguard 2 (1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steiner, Lydia, Peter F. Stadler, and Michael Cysouw. 2011. “A Pipeline for Computational Historical Linguistics.” Language Dynamics and Change 1 (1): 89127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language. A Usage Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. “Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks.” In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman, and Gijsbert Rutten, Volume 11, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Trijp, Remi. 2010a. “Grammaticalization and Semantic Maps: Evidence from Artificial Language Evolution.” Linguistic Discovery 8 (1): 310–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010b. “Strategy Competition in the Evolution of Pronouns: A Case-Study of Spanish Leísmo, Laísmo and Loísmo.” In The Evolution of Language (EVOLANG 8), ed. by Andrew D.M. Smith, Marieke Schouwstra, Bart de Boer, and Kenny Smith, 336–343. Singapore: World Scientific. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013b. “Linguistic Assessment Criteria for Explaining Language Change: A Case Study on Syncretism in German Definite Articles.” Language Dynamics and Change 3 (1): 105–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The Case of Coercion and Argument Structure.” Cognitive Linguistics 261: 613–632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change.” In Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium, ed. by Winfred P. Lehman and Yakov Malkiel, 97–195. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren, André Müller, and Viveka Velupillai. 2010. “Homelands of the world’s language families: A quantitative approach.” Diachronica 27 (2): 247276.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Garcia-Varela, Francisco, Zvi Bekerman, Miguel Nussbaum, Marcelo Mendoza & Joaquin Montero
2025. Reducing interpretative ambiguity in an educational environment with ChatGPT. Computers & Education 225 ► pp. 105182 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2019. The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1 ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk, Isabeau De Smet & Freek Van de Velde
2018. Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Constructions and Frames 10:2 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk
2017. Jiyoung Yoon & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.). 2016.Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 9:2 ► pp. 329 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue