204
CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR AND ITS APPLICATION TO ENGLISH
second type of essay that merits discussion involves the replication of a published experimental study. Experimental research m Construction Grammar is sail in its infancy, but there are quiteji few studies out there that do noc require the use of specialised software or expensive machinery. Studies such as Bencini and Goldberg (2000), Gurevich et al. (2010), or Dajjrowska (2010) can be repLrcated, that is, repeated with similar or identical stimuli but with different participants, using your own computers and props that you can make from office materials. Do not worry that simply repeacing/an existing study might not yield anything of worth: the replicarion/of studies is a very important part of science, and besides that, retracing the steps of experienced researchers makes you learn a lot A third type of essay uses corpus data to study variation in the use of a construction. Studies of this kind take a construction and explore bow it varies with regard to structure %and to meaning, across varieties, and perhaps across different groups of speakers, or across different periods of time. Doing this does not necessarily require that you /re already familiar with corpus-linguistic methods, but it certainly requires you to take the plunge and get the skills that enable you to./answer your research question. For starters, you might use online resources such as Mark Davies' suite of corpora (http://corpus.byu.edu/J, which allow you to collect data via a web page, without any need foripecialised software. Wiechmann and Fuhs (2006) point towards useful pieces of software for the analysis of conventional corpora. If you decide that you want to pursue corpus linguistics in more depth, Gries (2009) is a highly recommended resource. As it is needless to say, .these suggestions do not begin to cover the spectrum of studies that could be done. Follow your interests, ask for advice, and be ready to learn.
To conclude, this book hopefully leaves you wanting to find out more about Construction Grammar. As was pointed out earlier, the theory is/under development, which means that many issues still need to be worked out. Also, connections between Construction Grammar and related fields of inquiry are currently being developed. It therefore remains to be seen what die future holds for Construction Grammar. At thysame time, if you would like to play a part in shaping that future, there is ample opportunity.
11
'Xl£f^-vl :   &lVi /ksi
References
Aarts, Bas (2000), 'Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and fuzzy tree fragments', in
Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt (eds), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory, Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 5-1 J. Akhtar, Nameera (1999), 'Acquiring basic word orden Evidence for data-driven
learning of syntactic structure', Journal of Child Language 26: 339-56, Ambridge, Ben and Adele E. Goldberg (2008), 'The island status of clausal
complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation',
Cognitive Linguistics 19/3:349-81. Ambridge, Ben and Elena Lieven (2011), Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting
Theoretical Approaches, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arnon, Inbal and Neal Snider (2010), 'More than words: Frequency effects for
multi-word phrases', Journal of 'Memory and Language 62/1: 67-82. Aronoff, Mark (1976), Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Auer, Peter (2005), 'Projection in interaction and projection in grammar', Text & Tali 25/l: 7-36.
Baayen, R. Harald (2008), Analyzing Linguistic Data, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, Guy (2008), 'Real and apparent time', in Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 2nd edn, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 312-31.
Baron, Naomi S. (2008), Always On: Language m an Online and Mobile World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bauer, Laurie (2006), 'Compounds and minor word-formation types', in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics, Maiden: Blackwell, pp. 483-506.
Bauer, Laurie and Antoinette Renouf (2001), 'A corpus-based study of compounding in English', Journal of English Linguistics 29:101-23.
Bauer, Laurie and Peter Trudgill (eds) (1998), Language Myths, London: Penguin.
Behaghel, Otto (1932), Deutsche Syntax. Bd. IV: Wortstellung, Periodenbau,
Heidelberg: Winter. Bencini, Giulia M. L. (2013), 'Psycholinguistics', in Thomas Hoffmann and
205
206      CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR AND ITS APPLICATION TO ENGLISH
REFERENCES
207
I;:
|;
§6 -
m
Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, New York: Oxford University Press, pp, 379-96.
Bencini, Giulia M. L. and Adele E. Goldberg (2000), 'The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning', Journal of Memory and Language 43 /4: 640-51.
Berko Gleasonjean (19S8), 'The child's learning of English morphology', Word 14:150-77.
Boas, Hans C. (2003), A Constructional Approach to Resultatives, Stanford: CSLI.
Boas, Hans C. (2005), 'Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg &JackendofP, language 81/2:448-64.
Boas, Hans C. and Ivan A. Sag (eds) (2012), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, Stanford: CSLI.
Bock J. Kathryn (1986), 'Syntactic persistence in language production', Cognitive
Sychology 18: 355-87. j, Geert (2009), 'Construction morphology and compounding', in Rochelle Lieber and Pavel Stekauer (eds), The Oxford'Handbookrof'Compounding, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 201-16. Booij, Geert (2010), Construction Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert (2012), The Grammar ofWords.An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert (2013), 'Morphology in Construction Grammar', in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 255-73. Bowerman, Melissa (1979), 'The acquisition of complex sentences', in Michael Garman and Paul Fletcher (eds), Studies in Language Acquisition, Cambridge Cambridge University Press, pp. 285-305. Boyd, Jeremy K. and Adele E. Goldberg (2011), 'Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in "a"-adjective production', ; Language 81 j'1: 1-29. Braine, Martin D. S. (1976), Children's First Word Combinations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brandt, Silke, Evan Kidd, Elena Lieven, and Michael Tomasello (2009), 'The discourse bases of relativization: An investigation of young German and English-speaking children's comprehension of relative clauses', Cognitive Linguistics 20/3: 539-70.
Bresnan, Joan (2007), 'Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation', in Sam Featherston and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base, Berlin: Moucon de Gruyter, pp. 77-96.
Bresnan, Joan and Marilyn Ford (2010), 'Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English', Languages /I: 186-213.
Bresnanjoan and Jennifer Hay (2008), 'Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English', Lingua 118/2: 245-59.
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tariana Nikitina, and R. Haraid Baayen (2007), 'Predicting the dative alternation', in Gerlof Bourne, Irene. Kraemer, and Joost Zwarts (eds), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, pp. 69-94.
Brooks, Patricia and Michael Tomasello (1999), 'Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs', Developmental Psychology 35: 29—44.
Bybee, Joan L, (2010), Language, Usage, and Cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Call, Jody and Michael Tomasello (1998), 'Distinguishing intentional from accidental actions in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees {Pan troglodytes), and human children {Homo sapiens)', Journal of Comparative Psychology 112/2: 192-206.
Carpenter, Matinda, Nameera Akhtar, and Michael Tomasello (1998), 'Fourteen- through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions', Infant Behavior and Development 2\\ 315-30,
Casenhiser, Devin and Adele E. Goldberg (2005), 'Fast mapping of a phrasal form and meaning', Developmental Science 8: 500-8.
Chafe, Wallace (1976), 'Givenness, contrastiveness, definkeness, subjects, topics, and point of view', in Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, New York: Academic Press, pp. 25-55,
Chafe, Wallace (1987), 'Cognitive constraints and information flow', in Ross Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21-51
Chomsky, Noam A. (1959), 'Review of Verbal Behavior. By B. F. Skinner', Language 35/1: 26—58.
Croft, William A. (2001), Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William A. and D. Alan Cruse (2004), Cognitive Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culicover, Peter W. and Ray S.Jackendoff (1999), 'The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative', Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543-71.
DaJ>rowska, Ewa (2008), 'Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based perspective', Cognitive Linguistics 19/3: 391-425.
Dabrowska, Ewa (2010), 'Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments', Linguistic Review 27:1-23.
Dabrowska, Ewa andElena Lieven (2005), 'Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions', Cognitive Linguistics 16/3:437-74.
Dabrowska, Ewa, Caroline Rowland, and Anna Theakston (2009), 'The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies', Cognitive Linguistics 20/3: 571-97.
Davies, Mark (2010), The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ Million Words, 1810-2009, available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha.
Deutscher, Guy (2005), The Unfolding of Language, New York: Holt.
Diessel, Holger (2004), The Acquisition of Complex Sentences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2oa
CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR AND ITS APPLICATION TO ENGLISH
Diessel, Holger (2013), 'Construction Grammar and first language acquisition', in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 347-64.
Diessel, Holger and Michael Tomasello (2001), 'The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis', Cognitive Linguistics 12: 1-45.
Diessel, Holger and Michael Tomasello (2005), 'A new look at the acquisition
of relative clauses', Language&\(h 1-25. Du Bois.John (1985), 'Competing motivations', in John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity
in Syntax, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 343-65. Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fillmore, CharlesJ., Paul Kay, andMary Catherine 0'Connor(1988), "Regularity
and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of letalont, Language
64/3:501-38.
Fillmore, Charles J., Russell R. Lee-Goldman, and Russell Rhodes (2012), 'The FrameNet Construction', in Hans C. Boas and Ivan A. Sag (eds), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, Stanford: CSLI, pp. 283-99.
Fried, Mifjam and Jan-Ola Ostman (eds) (2004), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gahl, Susanne and Susan M. Garnsey (2004), 'Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation', Language 80/4: 748-75.
Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen, and Kevin Russell (2004),
'Contrast!ve focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper)', Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 22; 307-57. Gibson, Edward and Eva Fedorenko (2010), 'Weak quantitative standards in
linguistic research', Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14/6:233-4. Giegerich, Heinz (2004), 'Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun
constructions and the stress criterion', English Language and Linguistics 8/1:
1-24.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995), Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to
Argument Structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele E. (2001), 'Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted:
The role of information structure in argument distribution', Language Sciences
23: 503-24.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2003), 'Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language', Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7/5: 219-24.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006), Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2011), 'Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption', Cognitive Linguistics 22/1:131-54.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2013), 'Constructionist approaches', in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19—31.
REFERENCES
209
Goldberg, Adele E, and Farrell Ackerman (2001), 'The pragmatics of obligatory
adjuncts', Language 7 7/4: 798-814, Goldberg, Adele E. and Giulia M. L. Bencini (2005), 'Support from language
processing for a constructional approach to grammar', in Andrea Tyler
(ed.), Language In Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language and
Language Learning, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Round Table
on Languages, and Linguistics, pp. 3-18. Goldberg, Adele E. and Ray S. Jackendoff (2004), 'The English resultative as a
family of constructions', Language 80/4: 532-67. Goldberg, Adele E, Devin M. Casenhiser, and Nitya Sethuraman (2004),
'Learning argument structure generalizations', Cognitive Linguistics 15/3:
286-316.
Green, Georgia M. (1985), 'The description of inversions in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar', Berkeley Linguistics Society 11:117-46.
Gregory, Michelle and Laura A. Michaelis (2001), 'Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited', Journal of Pragmatics 33/11: 1665-706.
Gnce, Herbert Paul (1975), 'Logic and conversation', in Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3, New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
Gries, Stefan T. (2004), 'Shouldn't it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of die structure of blends', Linguistics 42/3:639-67.
Gries, Stefan T. (2005), 'Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach', Journal ofPsycholinguisticResearch 34/4: 365-99.
Gries, Stefan T. (2009), Quantitative Corpus Linguistics viith RA Practical Introduction, London: Routiedge.
Gries, Stefan T. (2011), 'Corpus data in usage-based linguistics: What's the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument structure constructions?', in Mario Brdar, Stefan T. Gries, and Milena Zic Fuchs (eds), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 237-56.
Gries, Stefan T. (2012), 'Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications', Studies in LanguageM/i:477-510.
Gries, Stefan T. (2013), Statistics for Linguistics with R, 2nd edn, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gries, Stefan T. and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004a), 'Extending collostructional
analysis: A corpus-based perspective on "alternations'", International Journal
of Corpus Linguistics 9/1:97-129. ■- Gries, Stefan T. and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004b), 'Co-varying cotlexemes in
the mo-causative', in Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Language,
Culture, and Mind, Stanford: CSLI, pp, 225-36. ■ Gries, Stefan T. and Stefanie Wulff (2005), 'Do foreign language learners also
have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora', Annual
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3:182-200.
210      CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR AND ITS APPLICATION TO ENGLISH
REFERENCES
211
Gries, Stefan T., Beate Harape, and Doris Schönefeld (2005), 'Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions'. Cognitive Linguistics 16/4:63S-76.
Griffiths, Patrick (2006), An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg, and Ronald Wilson (1989), 'The learnability and acquistion of dative alternation in English', Language 65/2: 203-57.
Gurevich, Olya, Matt Johnson, and Adele E. Goldberg (2010), 'Incidental verbatim memory for language', Language and Cognition! j\: 45-78.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967), 'Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2', Journal of Linguistics 3: 199-244.
Hankamer, Jorge and Ivan A. Sag (1976), 'Deep and surface anaphora', Linguistic Jn9ujry7/3-,m-428.
Hare, Brian and Michael Tomasello (200S), 'Human-like social skills in dogs?', Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 439HW.
Haspelmath, Martin and Thomas Müller-Bardey (2004), 'Valency change', in Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan (eds), Morphology.-A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. Vol. 2, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1B0-45.
Hauser, Marc D. (1996), The Evolution of Communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hauser, Marc D., Noam A. Chomsky, and Tecumseh W. Fitch (2002), 'The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?', Science 298: 1569-79.
Hay, Jennifer (2002), 'From speech perception to morphology: Affix-ordering revisited', Language78/3: 527—55.
Hay, Jennifer and Ingo Plag (2004), 'What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22; 565-96.
Healy, Alice F. and George A. Miller (1970), 'The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning', Psycbonomic Science 20: 372.
Herbst, Thomas and Katrin Götz-Votteler (eds) (2007), Valency Theoretical Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, Ian Roe, and Dieter Götz (2004), A Valency Dictionary of English, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hilferty, Joseph (2003), 'In defense of grammatical constructions', PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona,
Hilpert, Martin (2006), 'Distinctive collexemes and diachrony', Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2/2: 243-57.
Hilpert, Martin (2008), Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change, Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Hilpert, Martin (2013), Constructional Change in English:Developments in Alhmorpby, Word Formation, and Syntax, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2004), 'Lexicalization and grammaticization:
Opposite or orthogonal?', in Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Björn Wiemer (eds), What Makes Grammattcalization: A Look from its Components and its Fringes, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21-42.
Hockett, Charles F. (1966), 'The problem of universal in language', inJoseph H. Greenberg(ed.), Universals of 'Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1-29.
Hoffmann, Thomas (2013), 'Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions', in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 307-28.
Hoffmann, Thomas and Graeme Trousdale (2011), 'Variation, change and constructions in English', Cognitive Linguistics 22/l: 1-23.
Hoffmann, Thomas and Graeme Trousdale (eds) (2013), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson (1980). 'Transitivity in grammar and discourse', Language 56/2: 251-99.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Imo, Wolfgang (20O7), Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung Konstruktionen mit zehn malrixsatzßhigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch, Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Israel, Michael (1996), 'The way constructions grow', in Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, Stanford: CSLI, pp. 217-30.
Jurafsky, Daniel, Alan Bell, Michelle Gregory, and William D. Raymond (2001), 'Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production', in Joan L. Bybee and Paul J. Hopper (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229—54.
Kaschak, Michael and Arthur Glenberg (2000), 'The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in language comprehension', Journal of Memory and Language 43: 508-29.
Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore (1999), 'Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X Doing I?construction', Language 75/l: 1-33.
Keller, Rudi (1994), On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language, London: Routledge,
Kiesling, Scott (2004), 'Dude', American Speech 79/3:281-305.
Kintsch, Walter (1998), Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Kirchhofer, Katharina C, Felizitas Zimmermann, Juliane Kaminski, and
Michael Tomasello (2012), 'Dogs (Canisfamiliaris), but not chimpanzees {Pan
troglodytes),understand imperative pointing', PLoS ONE 7/2: e30913. Kortmann, Bernd and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds) (2013), The Mouton World
Atlas of Variation in English, Berlin: de Gruyter. Labov, William (1969), 'Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the
English copula', Language 45/4: 715-62. Labov, William (1994), Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. I: Internal Factors,
Oxford: Blackwell.
212      CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR AND ITS APPLICATION TO ENGLISH
REFERENCES
213
I
J'
Bil fi'
L !V
Labo v, William (2001), Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol H: Social Factors, Oxford: Blackwell.
LakofF, George (1974), 'Syntactic amalgams', Chicago Linguistics Society 10: 32 M4.
Lakoff, George (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LakofF, George and Mark Johnson (1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Lambrecht, Knud (1994), Information Structure and Sentence Form Topic, Focus
and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lambrecht, Knud (2001a), 'A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions',
Linguistics 39/3:463-516, Lambrecht, Knud (2001b), 'Dislocation', in Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard
König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds), Language Typology sumd Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, pp. 1050-78. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987), Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical
Prerequisites, Stanford: Stanford University Press, Langacker, Ronald W, (1995), 'Raising and transparency1, Language 71/1:1-62. Leino, Jaakko (2013), 'Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions', in Thomas
Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar, Oxford; Oxford University Press, pp. 329-44. Levin, Beth (1993), English Verb Classes andAlternations: A Preliminary Investigation,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, Beth and M. Rappaport Hovav (2005), Argument Realization, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Lieven, Elenajulian Pine, and Gillian Baldwin (1997), 'Lexically-based learning and the development of grammar in early multi-word speech', Journal of " Child Language24/1:187-219. Lieven, Elena, Heike Behrens, Jenny Speares, and Michael Tomasello (2003),
'Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach', Journal of Child Language
30: 333-70.
Lieven, Elena, Dorothe Salomo, and Michael Tomasello (2009), 'Two-year-old children's production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis', Cognitive L inguistics, 20/3:481-508.
Lindquist, Hans (2009), Corpus Linguistics andthe Description ofEdinburgh' Edinburgh University Press
Loebell, Helga and J, Kathryn Bock (2003), 'Structural priming across languages', Linguistics 41/5: 791-824.
Mair, Christian (1987), ' ro»g&-movement in present-day British English: A corpus-based study', Stadia Linguistica 41/1: 59—71.
Mair, Christian and Geoffrey Leech (2006), 'Current changes in English syntax', in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 318-42.
Mayerthaler, Willi (1981), Morphologische Natürlichkeit, Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
Michaelis, Laura A. (2004), 'Type shifting in Construction Grammar An integrated approach to aspectual coercion', Cognitive Linguistics 15/1:1-67.
Michaelis, Laura A. and Knud Lambrecht (1996), 'Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition', Language 72/2:215^7.
Neety James H. (1976), 'Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Evidence for facilitatory and inhibitory processes', Memory & Cognition 4: 648-54.
Newman, John and Sally Rice (2006), 'Transitivity Schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC, in Stefan T. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225-60.
Oatesjohn and Andrew Grayson (2004), Cognitive and Language Development in Children, Oxford: Blackwell.
Patten, Amanda L. (2010), 'Grarnmaticalization and the (>-cleft construction', in Elizabeth C. Traugott and Graeme Trousdale (eds), Gradience, Gradualness and Grarnmaticalization, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221-43.
Payne, Thomas (1997), Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
■ Perek, Florent (2012), 'Alternation-based. generalizations are stored in the
mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment', Cognitive
Linguistics 23/3: 601-35. Pickering, Martin and Victor S. Ferreira (2008), 'Structural priming; A critical
review', Psychological Bulletin 134/3:427-59. Pinker, Steven (1984), Language Leamabiliry andLanguage Development, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. Pinker, Steven (1989), Leamabilitf and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument
Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Plag, Ingo (1999), Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English
Derivation, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. . Plag, Ingo (2003), Word-Formation in English, Cambiidgs: Cambridge University
Press.
Prince, Ellen (1978), 'A comparison of m&-clefts and tf-clefts in discourse', Language 54/4: 883-906.
Prince, Ellen (1981), 'Toward a taxonomy of given—new information', in Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press, pp. 223-56.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and jan Svartvik (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, New York: Longman.
Ramus, Franck, Marc D. Häuser, Cory Miller, Dylan Morris, and Jacques Mehler (2000), 'Language discrimination by human newborns and by cotton-top tamarinmonkeys', Science2S8: 349—51.
Ross, John Robert (1967), 'Constraints on variables in syntax', PhD dissertation,
■ MIT..
. Ruppenhofer Josef (2005), Regularities in null instantiation, Ms.
_JLU'.
214      CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR AND ITS APPLICATION TO ENGLISH
REFERENCES
215
Ruppenhoferjosef and Laura A. Michaelis (2010), 'A constructional account of
genre-based argument omissions', Constructions and Frames 2:158-84. Saeed,John (2003), Semantics, 2nd edn, Oxford: Blackwell. SarTran, Jenny R., Richard N. Aslin, and Elissa L. Newport (1996), 'Statistical
learning by 8-month-olds', Science 274: 1926-8. Sag, Ivan A. (2010), 'English filler-gap constructions', Language86/3:486-545. Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow, and Emily Bender (2003), Syntactic Theory: A
Formal Introduction, 2nd edn, Stanford: CS LI. Sato, Yoruke (2010), 'Complex phrase structures within morphological words:
Evidence from English and Indonesian1, Lingua 120/2: 379-407. Schütze, Carson T. (1996), The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammatically/
Judgments and Linguistic Methodology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Siegel, Dorothy (1974), 'Topics in English morphology', PhD dissertation,
MIT.
Spencer, Andrew (1988), 'Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon', Language fA/l\661-W.
Stefanowitsch, .Anatol (2003), 'Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives ofEnglish', in Günter Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 413-41.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2006), 'Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy', Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2/1:61-77,
Stefano witsch, Anatol (2008), 'Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence', Cognitive Linguistics 19/'3: 513-31.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2011), 'Constructional preemption by contextual mismatch: A corpus-linguistic investigation', Cognitive Linguistics 22/1:107-29.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Stefan T. Gries (2003), 'Collostmctions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions', International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8/2:209-4-3.
Starnberger, Joseph P. and Brian MäcWhinney (1988), 'Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon?', in Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds), Theoretical Morphology, New York: Academic Press, pp. 101—16.
Sweetser, Eve (1990), From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (2006), Morphosymactic Persistence in Spoken English: A Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics, Psycbolinguistics, and Discourse Analysis, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2006), Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, Hidemitsu. (2012), A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the English Imperative: With Special Reference to Japanese Imperatives, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taylor, John R. (1989), 'Possessive genitives in English', Linguistics 27: 663-86. Taylor, John R. (1996), Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
P1
Taylorjohn R. (2012), The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tennie, Claudio, Josep Call, and Michael Tomasello (2012), 'Untrained chimpanzees {Pan troglodytes sctrweinfurthü) fail to imitate novel actions', PLoS ONE 7:e41548.
Thompson, Sandra A., and Paul J. Hopper (2001), 'Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation', in Joan L. Bybee and Paul J. Hopper (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Amsterdam john Benjamins, pp. 27-60.
Tomasello, Michael (1992), First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, Michael (2000a), 'The item based nature of children's early syntactic development', Trends in Cognitive Sciences^: 156-63.
Tomasello, Michael (2000b), 'Do young children have adult syntactic competence?', Cognition 74: 209-53.
Tomasello, Michael (2003), Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, Michael (2007), 'Construction Grammar for kids', Constructions, Special Vol. 1, available online at http://elanguage.net/journals/ constructions.
Tomasello, Michael and Michaeljeffrey Farrar (1986), 'Joint attention and early language', Child Development 57:1454-63.
Tomasello, Michael andjody Todd (1983), 'Joint attention and lexical acquisition style', First Language 4: 197-212.
Tomasello, Michael, Nameera Akhtar, Kelly Dodson, and Laura Rekau (1997), 'Differential productivity in young children's use of nouns and verbs', Journal of Child Language 24: 3 73-87.
Trousdale, Graeme (2010), An Introduction to English Sociolinguistics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Van Eynde, Frank (2007), 'The Big Mess construction', in Stefan Müller (ed.), .,. Proceedings of the HPSG-07 Conference, pp. 415-33.
van Marie, Jaap (1985), On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity, Dordrecht: Foris.
Wanner, Eric and Michael Maratsos (1978), 'An ATN approach to comprehension', in Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George Miller (eds), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119-61.
Wasow, Tom andjennifer E. Arnold (2003), 'Postveibai constituent ordering in English', in Günther Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 120-54,
Wiechtnann, Daniel (to appear), Understanding Relative Clauses: A Usage-Based View on the Processing of Complex Constructions, Berlin: de Gruyter. I Wiechmann, Daniel and Stefan Fuhs (2006), 'Concordancing software', Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2/1:109-30.
Wölk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
216      CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR AND ITS APPLICATION TO ENGLISH
(2013), 'Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring
cross-constructional variation and change', Diachrmita 30/3. Wonnacorr, Elizabeth, Jeremy Boyd, Jennifer Thomson, and Adele E. Goldberg
(2012), 'Input effects on the acquisition of a novel phrasal construction in five
year olds', Journal of Memory and Language 66: 458-78. Wulff, Stefanie, Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Stefan T. Gries (2007), 'Brutal Brits
and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the
(»fff-causative', in Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Kopeke, Thomas Berg,
aiid Peter Siemund (eds), Aspects of Meaning Construction, ^Amsterdam; John
Benjamins, pp. 265-81. Zeschel, Arne (2009), 'What's (in) a construction?', in Vyvyan Evans and
Stephanie Pourcel (eds), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, pp. 18S-200.
Index
a-adjectives, 139-41,152 acceptability judgments, 137 activation, 107-8,115-17,127, 145-7 affix ordering, 88-9 agent, 27
allomorphy, 75, 84,98, 155 Ambridge, B., 119,123-8,178 : apparent time, 196 argument structure, 23-51, 60,65,
69-70, 135-7,153,159,164-5,
169-70,173,177,187 flj-predicative construction, 149-50,
153
attributive adjective construction, 63,
68-70,95,139-41 attributive compounds, 95,98-100 Auer, P., 120,148
auxiliary plus infinitive construction, 21
BGI hypothesis, 125
Bcncini, G., 135-7,152-4, 203-4
beneficiary, 27
big mess construction, 5—6,151 / blending, 77-8,100 / BTSIC (British National Corpus), 3-5,
81,87,149 Boas, H., 49,69, 202 / Booij, G., 74-6, 80,83-7,93,96-7,100 Boyd,J., 19,138-41,152 / BresnanJ, 187-95,201 / Bybee,J„ 66-7,93,149/154
caused motion construction, 31, 35—7, 45-8, 61,65,72; 134-6,170-1
Chafe, W, 108 429
coercion, 17^18, 24, 39,55,65, 71, 76, 130-2 /
Cognitive Construction Grams Cognitive Grammar, 202 collocational preferences, *
147,200 / colloquialisation, 198 ^ ■ . : j. : constructional analysis, 22 ■ . ■ I ■ comparative correlative construction, >.
7-9,50,53-4,57; 148 ! complement clause, 63,124-0,145,148,
153, 172-3,-177 complete inheritance, 66 complexity based ordering hypothesis,
90 /
compounding, 79, 85-8, 93-100, 134 comprehension, 68, 132-7,142-4,
JS2-A, 174 construct, 12
construct-i-con, 2,6-8,13-14,19-23, /   29,42, 50-75, 79-84,92-9, 125, 130-1, 151,157,161,164-5,180,191 construction (definition), 10,13 constructional change, 196 conversion, 132
corpus data, 3, 20-2, 32-4,81-3,90-1, 99,106,119,138,146-9,153,167, 172,178, 185,188-91,194-S, 200^1
Croft, W., 24, 68-9, 73, 202
cue validity, 148
cyclic rule application, 86
Dabrowska, E., 129,137,161,168-9, 178, 204
definite noun phrase construction, 12, 18
degree marker construction, 19 de-noxm-ote construction, 87 de-noun-ise construction, 87
> $1
lit
1* J
217