Construction Grammar in the twenty-first century

English Language and Linguistics

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 569-585

  Boas, Hans C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249144545     PISSN: 13606743     EISSN: 14694379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1360674307002390     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Adele Goldberg, Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. vii + 280.
2. Ackerman, F. & G. Webelhuth. 1998. A theory of predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
3. Barlow, M. & S. Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
4. Bencini, G. M. L. & A. E. Goldberg. 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43, 640–651.
5. Boas, H. C. 2000. Resultative constructions in English and German. PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
6. Boas, H. C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
7. Boas, H. C. 2005. Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language 81, 448–464.
8. Boas, H. C. 2006. A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning. In P. Steiner, H. C. Boas & S. Schierholz (eds.), Contrastive studies and valency, 119–49. Frankfurt and New York: Peter Lang.
9. Borer, H. 2001. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. Paper presented at the Explanations in Linguistics Conference, San Diego, CA.
10. Brooks, P. & M. Tomasello (1999). How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75, 720–738.
11. Bybee, J. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 425–455.
12. Casenhiser, D. & A. E. Goldberg. 2005. Fast mapping of a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science 8, 500–508.
13. Chafe, W. L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–50. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
14. Chang, F., J. K. Bock & A. E. Goldberg. 2003. Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition 90, 29–49.
15. Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Chomsky, N. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Croft, W. 1998. Event structure and argument linking. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 21–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
18. Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.
20. Emonds, J. 1970. Root- and structure-preserving information. PhD dissertation, MIT.
21. Erk, K. 2007. A simple, similarity-based model for selectional preferences. Proceedings of ACL 2007, Prague, Czech Republic.
22. Fillmore, C. J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6, 222–254.
23. Fillmore, C. J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. BLS 12, 95–107.
24. Fillmore, C. J. 1992. “Corpus linguistics” vs. “Computer-aided armchair linguistics”. In J. Svartvik (ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics, 35–60. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
25. Fillmore, C. J. 1999. Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig & A. Kathol (eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
26. Fillmore, C. J., P. Kay & C. O'Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language 64, 501–538.
27. Fillmore, C. J., C. R. Johnson & M. R. L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16, 235–252.
28. Fried, M. & J.-O. Östman. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
29. Gleitman, L. 1994. The structural sources of verb meanings. In P. Bloom (ed.), Language acquisition: Core readings, 174–221. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Goldberg, A. E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13, 327–356.
32. Goldberg, A. E., D. Casenhiser & N. Sethurman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 14, 289–316.
33. Goldberg, A. E., D. Casenhiser & N. Sethurman. 2005. The role of prediction in construction learning. Journal of Child Language 32, 407–426.
34. Goldberg, A. E. & R. Jackendoff. 2004. The resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80, 532–568.
35. Green, G. M. 1985. The description of inversions in generalized phrase structure grammar. Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
36. Gries, S. & A. Stefanowitsch. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1), 1–43.
37. Hale, K. & S. Keyser. 1997. On the complex nature of simple predicators. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan & P. Sells (eds.), Complex predicates, 29–65. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
38. Hare, M. & A. E. Goldberg. 1999. Structural priming: Purely syntactic? Paper presented at the proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society.
39. Iwata, S. 2005. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics 16, 355–407.
40. Iwata, S. 2006. Where do constructions come from? English Linguistics 23, 493–533.
41. Jurafsky, D. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20, 137–194.
42. Kay, P. & C. J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what's X doing Y? construction. Language 75, 1–34.
43. Kilgarriff, A. & G. Grefenstette. 2003. Introduction to the Special Issue on Web as Corpus. Computational Linguistics 29, 333–347.
44. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
47. Langacker, R. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
48. Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Lidz, J., H. Gleitman & L. Gleitman. 2003. Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition 87, 151–178.
50. Nemoto, N. 1998. On the polysemy of ditransitive save: The role of Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar. English Linguistics 15, 219–242.
51. Newmeyer, F. 2000. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53. Pinker, S. & R. Jackendoff. 2005. The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95,201–36.
54. Resnik, P. & A. Elkiss. 2005. The Linguist's Search Engine: An overview. Proceedings of ACL 2005.
55. Sampson, G. 2001. Empirical linguistics. London and New York: Continuum.
56. Thompson, S. A. & B. Fox. 2004. Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency and the notion of construction. Unpublished ms. University of California, Santa Barbara.
57. Tomasello, M. 1992. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59. Verhagen, A. 2002. From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics 13, 403–439.