Cover not available

In:Constructions in Contact 3: Constructional schemas and patterns in language contact
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 40] 2025
► pp. 1–21

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

What makes Construction Grammar relevant for contact linguistics — and vice versa?

 | The University of Texas at Austin
 | Kiel University
Published online: 13 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.40.01boa
Article outline
  • 1.Language change, language contact, and Construction Grammar
  • 2.Constructions and patterns
  • 3.The papers in this volume
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (86)
References
Audring, J., & Booij, G. (2016). Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54, 617–637. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bally, C. (1909). Traité de stylistique française. Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80, 290–311.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Kompa, N. A. (2020). Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics, 13, 20202025. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2004). You wanna consider a Constructional Approach to Wanna-Contraction? In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 479–491). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(forthc.). What happened to Frame Semantics? Journal of English Linguistics.
Boas, H. C., & Höder, S. (2018). Construction grammar and language contact. An introduction. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 5–36). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Leino, L., & Lyngfelt, B. (2024). Constructionist views on Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 16, 169–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2017). Two sides of the same coin: A constructional approach to phraseological patterns. Plenary talk, EUROPHRAS 2017, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1976). Again — one or two subjunctives? Hispania, 59, 41–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G. (2014). Constructions all the way everywhere: Four new directions in constructionist research. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 1–14). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bücker, J. (2015). Schema — Muster — Konstruktion. In C. Dürscheid, & J. G. Schneider (Eds.), Handbuch Satz, Äußerung, Schema (pp. 445–463). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2024). Can construction grammar be proven wrong? Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowie, A. (Ed.) (1998). Phraseology: theory, analysis, and applications. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2019). Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, vol. 3: Key topics (pp. 231–250). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Language as a phenomenon of the third kind. Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 213–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (2020). What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 251–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eikel, F. (1966). New Braunfels German: Part II. American Speech, 41, 254–260.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engelberg, S., König, S., Proost, K., & Winkler, E. (2011). Argumentstrukturmuster als Konstruktionen? Identität — Verwandtschaft — Idiosynkrasien. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 71–112). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engelberg, S. (2015). Gespaltene Stimuli bei Psych-Verben. Kombinatorische Mustersuchen in Korpora zur Ermittlung von Argumentstrukturverteilungen. In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, K. Proost, & E. Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion (pp. 469–491). Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engelberg, S., Lobin, H., Steyer, K., & Wolfer, S. (2018). Muster, Dynamik, Komplexität — eine Einführung in den Gegenstand des Bandes. In S. Engelberg, H. Lobin, K. Steyer, & S. Wolfer (Eds.), Wortschätze. Dynamik, Muster, Komplexität (pp. IX–XXIII). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enghels, R., & Sansiñena, M. S. (2021). Constructional approach(es) to discourse-level phenomena. Constructions and Frames, 13, 3–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eroms, H. W. (2003). Die Wegbereiter einer deutschen Valenzgrammatik. In V. Ágel, L. M. Eichinger, H. W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. J. Heringer, & H. Lobin et al. (Eds.), Dependency and valency (vol. 1, pp. 159–169). De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb valency patterns. A challenge for semantics-based accounts. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig, & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (pp. 113–128). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 13–340). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar coursebook. Manuscript. UC Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhodes, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frances, S., & Hunston, G. (2000). Pattern grammar. Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1996). Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns. Vol. 1: Verbs. HarperCollins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns. Vol. 2: Nouns and adjectives. HarperCollins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1970). Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 6, 22–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. (1972). Linguistic atlas of Texas German. University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gläser, R. (1998). The stylistic potential of phraseological units in the light of genre analysis. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 125–143). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. (2006). English Constructions. In B. Aarts, & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 343–355). Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagel, A. (2023). One man’s [ɕœtː] is another man’s [kʰøð̞]. In E. Coussé, S. Höder, B. Lyngfelt, & J. Prentice (Eds.), Constructional approaches to Nordic languages (pp. 55–80). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2013). Lexical analysis: norms and exploitations. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2023). On what a construction is. Constructions, 15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian language in America. A study in bilingual behavior. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (Ed.) (2019). Higher-order schemas in morphology. Thematic issue, Word Structure, 12(3).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: a diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure, 12, 334–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). The Devil is in the schema: a constructional perspective on Swedish taboo-avoiding strategies. In E. Coussé, S. Höder, B. Lyngfelt, & J. Prentice (Eds.), Constructionist approaches to Nordic languages (pp. 81–113). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Constructionist approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 10, 259–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2014). Pattern grammar in context. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmidt, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions — Collocations — Patterns (pp. 99–119). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). A system-network approach to verb argument structure constructions in English. Conference paper, 13th International Conference on Construction Grammar, University of Gothenburg.
Hunston, S., & Su, H. (2019). Patterns, constructions, and local grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics, 40, 567–593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ingham, R. (2017). The Middle English prepositional dative: Contact with French. Conference paper, SLE 2017, University of Zürich.
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 32–48). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1974). On the use of the present to explain the past. In L. Heilmann (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Bologna-Florence, Aug. 28–Sept. 2, 1972 (vol. 1, pp. 825–851). Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lipka, L. (1990). An outline of English lexicology: lexical structure, word semantics, and word-formation. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (Eds.) (2018). Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages. Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masini, F. (2005). Multi-word expressions between syntax and the lexicon: The case of Italian verb-particle constructions. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18, 145–173.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2022). Structural outcomes of language contact. In S. S. Mufwene, & A. M. Escobar (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language contact, vol. 2: Multilingualism in population structure (pp. 593–617). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morin, C. (forthc.). Are phonemes constructions? A plea for distinguishing function and meaning. Constructions and Frames.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 703, 491–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olofsson, J., & Prentice, J. (2023). The entrenchment of semi-schematic time constructions by German foreign language learners of Swedish. In E. Coussé, S. Höder, B. Lyngfelt, & J. Prentice (Eds.), Constructional approaches to Nordic languages (pp. 179–211). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse … and back. In J. Bücker, S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp. 15–44). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patten, A. L., & Perek, F. (2022). Pedagogic applications of the English Constructicon. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions (pp. 178–215). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F., & Patten, A. L. (2019). Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24, 354–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). The automatic analysis of corpora. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82 Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991 (pp. 379–400). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steyer, K. (2000). Usuelle Wortverbindungen des Deutschen. Linguistisches Konzept und lexikografische Möglichkeiten. Deutsche Sprache, 28, 101–125.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Patterns. Phraseology in a state of flux. International Journal of Lexicography, 28, 279–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2012). The ecology of constructions. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 50–74). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trips, C., & Stein, A. (2019). Contact-induced changes in the argument structure of Middle English verbs on the model of Old French. Journal of Language Contact, 12, 232–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ward, N. G. (2019). Prosodic patterns in English conversation. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. Findings and problems. Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann, & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics (pp. 95–188). University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willich, A. (2022). Konstruktionssemantik. Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeschel, A., & Proost, K. (2019). Grain size issues in constructicon building — and how to address them. Lexicographica, 35, 169–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue