Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 7, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 219-224

  Goldberg, Adele E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; RESEARCH;

LINGUISTIC OBSERVATIONS;

LINGUISTICS;

HUMAN; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; OBSERVATION; REVIEW; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VERBALIZATION;

EID: 0038060582     PISSN: 13646613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Chomsky N. Syntactic Structures. 1957;Mouton.
2. Lakoff G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. 1987;University of Chicago Press.
3. Langacker R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vols I & II:1987/1991;Stanford University Press.
4. Fillmore C.J., et al. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language. 64:1988;501-538.
5. Wierzbicka A. The Semantics of Grammar. 1988;John Benjamins Publishing.
6. Lambrecht K. Information Structure and Sentence Form. 1994;Cambridge University Press.
7. Goldberg A.E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. 1995;Chicago University Press.
8. Gleitman L., et al. 'Similar' and similar concepts. Cognition. 58:1996;321-376.
9. Thompson S.A. Information flow and dative shift in english discourse. Edmondson J. Development and Diversity: Linguistic Variation Across Time and Space. 1990;239-253 Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas.
10. Culicover P.W., Jackendoff R. The view from the periphery: the English comparative correlative. Linguist. Inq. 30:1999;543-571.
11. Zwicky A. Dealing out meaning: fundamentals of syntactic constructions. Berkeley Linguist. Soc. 20:1994;611-625.
12. Williams E. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua. 92:1994;7-34.
13. Jackendoff R. Twistin' the night away. Language. 73:1997;534-559.
14. Sag I.A. English relative clause constructions. J. Linguist. 33:1997;431-484.
15. Webelhuth G., Ackerman F. A Theory of Predicates. 1998;CSLI Publications/Cambridge University Press.
16. Iwata S. A Lexical Network Approach to Verbal Semantics. 1998;Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
17. Shibatani M. Dative subject constructions 22 years later. Stud. Linguist. Sci. 29:1999;45-76.
18. Culicover P.W. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases in Syntax. 1999;Oxford University Press.
19. van Valin R. Jr. The acquisition of WH-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. Tomasello M. The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. 1998;221-249 Erlbaum.
20. Croft W. Radical Construction Grammar. 2001;Oxford University Press.
21. Jackendoff R. Foundations of Language. 2002;Oxford University Press.
22. Bybee J. Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative: consequences for the nature of constructions. Bybee J., Noonan M. Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson. 2001;1-17 John Benjamins.
23. Booij G. Constructional idioms, morphology, and the dutch lexicon. J. Germanic Linguist. 144:2002;301-329.
24. Langacker R.W. A usage-based model. Rudzka-Ostyn B. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. 1988;127-161 John Benjamins.
25. Barlow M., Kemmer S. Usage Based Models of Grammar. 2000;CSLI Publications/Cambridge University Press.
26. Israel M., et al. From states to events: the acquisition of english passive participles. Cogn. Linguist. 11:2000;1-27.
27. Diessel H., Tomasello M. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: a usage based approach to the development of grammatical constructions. Cogn. Linguist. 12:2001;97-141.
28. Verhagen A. From parts to wholes and back again. Cogn. Linguist. 1:2002;13-14.
29. Tomasello, M. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press (in press).
30. Kay P., Fillmore C.J. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction. Language. 75:1999;1-34.
31. Michaelis L.A., Lambrecht K. Toward a construction-based model of language function: the case of nominal extraposition. Language. 72:1996;215-247.
32. Lambrecht K. 'What, me worry?' Mad Magazine sentences revisited. Proc. 16th Annu. Meet. Berkeley Linguist. Soc. 1990;University of California.
33. Goldberg, A.E. Argument realization: the role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-Language Dimensions (Fried, M. and Östman, J.O., eds.), John Benjamins (in press).
34. Erteschik-Shir N. Discourse constraints on dative movement. Laberge S., Sankoff G. Syntax and Semantics. 1979;441-467 Academic Press.
35. Wasow T. Postverbal Behavior. 2002;CSLI Publications.
36. Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. 1965;MIT Press.
37. Chomsky N. Lectures on Government and Binding. 1981;Foris, Dordrecht.
38. Elman J., et al. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. 1996;MIT Press.
39. Pullum G.K., Scholz B.C. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguist. Rev. 19:2002;9-50.
40. Goldberg A.E. The Emergence of argument structure semantics. MacWhinney B. The Emergence of Language. 1999;197-212 Erlbaum.
41. Israel M. Consistency and creativity in first language acquisition. Proc. Berkeley Linguist. Soc. 2002.
42. Lieven E.V.M., et al. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. J. Child Lang. 24:1997;187-219.
43. Tomasello M. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition. 74:2000;209-253.
44. Saffran J.R. The use of predictive dependencies in language learning. J. Mem. Lang. 44:2001;493-515.
45. Birner B., Ward G. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. 1998;John Benjamins.
46. Zhang N. The interactions between construction meaning and lexical meaning. Linguistics. 36:1998;957-980.
47. Foley W.A., van Valin R. Jr. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. 1984;Cambridge University Press.
48. Garry, J. and Rubino, C., eds. (2001) Facts about the World's Languages: An Encyclopedia of the World's Major Languages Past and Present. H.W. Wilson.
49. Haiman J. Iconicity in Syntax. 1985;Cambridge University Press.
50. Givón T. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. Studies Lang. 1:1991;85-114.
51. Kemmer S., Verhagen A. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Mouton Classics: From Syntax to Cognition, From Phonology to Text. 2002;Mouton de Gruyter.
52. Kluender R. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: a processing perspective. Syntax Semantics. 29:1998;241-279.
53. Kluender R., Kutas M. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Lang. Cogn. Process. 8:1993;573-633.
54. Erteschik-Shir, N. (1998) The syntax-focus structure interface. In Syntax and Semantics Vol. 29: The Limits of Syntax (Culicover, P. and McNally, L., eds.), pp. 211-240, Academic Press.
55. Hawkins J. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. 1994;Cambridge University Press.
56. Yamashita H., Chang F. 'Long before short' preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition. 81:2001;B45-B55.
57. Baker, M. (2003) Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives: Their Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press (in press).
58. Hauser M.D., et al. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science. 298:2002;1569-1579.
59. Pollard C.J., Sag I. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. 1994;CSLI Publications/Cambridge University Press.
60. Goldberg, A.E. Words by default: inheritance and the Persian Complex Predicate Construction. In Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar (Francis, E. and Michaelis, L., eds.), CSLI Publications (in press).