Cover not available

In: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

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

Introduction

Investigating the constructicon

 | University of La Rioja
 | National Distance Education University, Madrid
 | University of Birmingham
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.01rui
Article outline
  • 1.Motivation
  • 2.Aims and structure
  • References
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics 16(1), 1–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H., & Gonzálvez, F. (Eds.) 2014. Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broccias, C. 2003. The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez, F. 2014. Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1991. A new approach to English grammar. On semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1988. The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [BLS 14], 35–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, 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
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (Eds.) 2004. Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Del Giudice, A. 2005. Subject-auxiliary inversion: A natural category. The Linguistic Review, 22, 411–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3), 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis. Language Sciences, 31, 663–723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics 49(6), 1305–1358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzálvez, F., & Butler, C. 2006. Mapping functional cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2014. Construction Grammar and its applications to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.) 2013. The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. 1990. The radial network of grammatical category: Its genesis and dynamic structure. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3), 269–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. F. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1), 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keller, R. 1995. Zeichentheorie. Zu einer Theorie semiotischen Wissens. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. 2010. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M. (Eds.) 2005. Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peña, M. S. 2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences 31(6), 740–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs. Linguistics 53(6), 1247–1302.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez, L. 2013. lllocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification link. Language & Communication 33(2), 128–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. 1975. Family resemblances. Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A. 2014. Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1985. Passives and related constructions. Language 61(4), 821–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steels, L. 2012. Design methods for Fluid Construction Grammar. In L. Steels (Ed.), Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar (3–36). Springer: Berlin. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tenny, C. L. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torre, E. 2012. Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions. An Embodied Construction Grammar approach. Constructions, 1, 1–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. 2007. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Welke, K. 2011. Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1955. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 10 december 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