Construction grammar

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 468-477

  Goldberg, Adele ^a   Suttle, Laura ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957439793     PISSN: 19395078     EISSN: 19395086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcs.22     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Bod R. Beyond Grammar: An Experience-Based Theory of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998.
2. Morris WC, Cottrell GW, Elman JL. A connectionist simulation of the empirical acquisition of grammatical relations. Pp 175-193 in Stefan Wermter and Ron Sun, eds. Hybrid Neural Symbolic Integration. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2000.
3. Borovsky A, Elman JL. Language input and semantic categories: a relation between cognition and early word learning. J Child Lang 2006, 33:759-790. doi:10.1017/S0305000906007574.
4. Alishahi A, Stevenson S. A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cogn Sci 2008, 32:789-834. doi: 10.1080/03640210801929287.
5. TomaselloM. Constructing a Language: A Usage Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 2003.
6. Croft W. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
7. Haspelmath M. Parametric versus functional explanation of syntactic universals. In: Biberauer T, ed. The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2008, 75-107.
8. Evans N, Levinson S. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav Brain Sci 2009, 32:429-448.
9. Hawkins JA. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
10. Goldberg AE. But do we need Universal Grammar? A comment on Lidz et al. (2003). Cognition 2004, 94:77-84. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.003.
11. Goldberg AE. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
12. Newmeyer FJ. Possible and Probable Languages. A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
13. Bybee J. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1985.
14. Langacker RW. A usage-based model. In: Rudzka-Ostyn B, ed. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1988, 127-161.
15. Kemmer S, Barlow M. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI; 2000.
16. Pierrehumbert J. Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In: Bybee J, Hopper P, eds. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2001, 137-157.
17. Bybee J. The phonology of the lexicon: evidence from lexical diffusion. In: Barlow M, Kemmer S, eds. Usagebased Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI; 2000 65-86.
18. Gahl S, Garnsey S. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 2004, 80:748-775.
19. Goldberg AE, Boyd J. A-adjectives, Historical Persistence and Generalization. Princeton University; Forthcoming.
20. Gurevich O, Johnson M, Goldberg AE. Incidental Verbatim Memory for Language. 2010. In press.
21. Chomsky N. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1995.
22. Kayne RS. Movement and Silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
23. Goldberg AE. Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cogn Linguist 2002, 13:327-356. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2002.022.
24. Lakoff G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About theMind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1987.
25. Goldberg AE. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995.
26. Kay P, Fillmore CJ. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction. Language 1999, 75:1-34.
27. Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1965.
28. Chomsky N. Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1981.
29. Mintz TH, Newport EL, Bever T. The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cogn Sci 2002, 26:393-424. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(2).
30. Dabrowska E. Language,Mind and Brain.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2004.
31. Cameron-Faulkner T, Lieven EVM, Tomasello M. A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cogn Sci 2003, 27:843-873. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.06.001.
32. Saffran JR, Aslin RN, Newport E. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 1996, 274:1926-1928. doi: 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926.
33. Perfors A, Tenenbaum JB, Regier T. Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. In: Sun R, ed. Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006, 663-668.
34. Tomasello M. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 2000, 74:209-253. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277 (99) 00069-4.
35. Akhtar N, Tomasello M. Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Dev Psychol 1997, 33:952-965. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.952.
36. Baker CL. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguist Inq 1979, 10:533-581.
37. Bates E, MacWhinney B. Competition, variation, and language learning. In: MacWhinney B, ed. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1987, 157-193.
38. Bowerman M. Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In: Wanner E, Gleitman LR, eds. Language Acquisition: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982, 319-346.
39. Braine MDS. Children's first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1976, 41.
40. Brooks P, Tomasello M. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 1999, 75:720-738.
41. Gropen J, Pinker S, Hollander M, Goldberg R, Wilson R. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 1989, 65:203-257.
42. Ingram D, Thompson W. Early syntactic acquisition in German: evidence for the modal hypothesis. Language 1996, 72:97-120.
43. Lieven EVM, Pine JM, Baldwin G. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. J Child Lang 1997, 24:187-219.
44. MacWhinney B. Basic syntactic processes. In: Kuczaj S, ed. Language Development, Volume 1: Syntax and Semantics.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers; 1982, 73-136.
45. Olguin R, Tomasello M. Twenty-five-month-old children do not have a grammatical category of verb. Cogn Dev 1993, 8:245-272. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014 (93)80001-A.
46. Schlesinger IM. Steps to Language: Toward a Theory of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers; 1982.
47. Tomasello M. First Verbs: A Case Study of Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
48. Boyd J, Goldberg AE. Children are More Conservative than Adults when Exposed to the Same Input and its Benefits for Language Learning. Princeton University; Forthcoming.
49. Hudson Kam CL, Newport EL. Regularizing unpredictable variation: the roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Lang Learn Dev 2005, 1:151-195. doi: 10.1207/s15473341lld0102 3.
50. Ambridge B, Theakston AL, Lieven EVM, Tomasello M. The distributed learning effect for children's acquisition of an abstract syntactic construction. Cogn Dev 2006, 21:174-193. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev. 2005.09.003.
51. Goldberg AE, Casenhiser D, Sethuraman N. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cogn Linguist 2004, 15:289-316. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2004.011.
52. Casenhiser D, Goldberg AE. Fast mapping of a phrasal form and meaning. Dev Sci 2005, 8:500-508. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00441.x.
53. Elio R, Anderson JR. The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Mem Cognit 1984, 12:20-30.
54. Goldberg AE, Casenhiser D. Learning argument structure generalizations. In: Clark EV, Kelly BF, eds. Constructions in Acquisition. Stanford: CSLI Publications; 2006, 185-204.
55. Perlmutter DM, Postal PM. Toward a universal characterization of passivization. Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley; 1977.
56. Birner B, Ward G. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1998.
57. Zhang N. The interactions between construction meaning and lexical meaning. Linguistics 1998, 36:957-980.
58. Jackendoff R. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1972.
59. Nichols J. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 1986, 62:56-119.
60. Hawkins JA. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguist Inq 1990, 21:222-261.
61. Hawkins JA. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
62. Reali F, Christiansen MH. Sequential learning and the interaction between biological and linguistic adaptation in language evolution: a computational approach. Interact Stud. 2009, 10:5-30.
63. Lidz J, Gleitman H, Gleitman L. Understanding how input matters: verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition 2003, 87:151-178. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277 (02) 00230-5.
64. Dowty D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 1991, 67:547-619.
65. Lambrecht K. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
66. Verhagen A. From parts to wholes and back again. Cogn Linguist 2002, 13:403-439. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2002.024.
67. Haiman J. Iconicity in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985.
68. Givon T. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. Stud Lang 1991, 15:333-377.
69. Kemmer S, Verhagen A. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. In: Mouton Classics: From Syntax to Cognition, from Phonology to Text; Berlin, 2002, 451-491.
70. Blevins J, Blevins J. Introduction: Analogy in grammar. In: Blevins JP, Blevins J, eds. Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; to appear, 1-12.
71. Levinson SC. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
72. Van Valin RDJ. The acquisition of wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In: Tomasello M, ed. The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure; 1998, 221-249.
73. Kluender R. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: a processing perspective. Syntax Semant; 1998, 29:241-280.
74. Kluender R, Kutas M. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Lang Cogn Processes 1993, 8:573-633. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407588.
75. Erteschik-Shir N. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
76. Ambridge B, Goldberg AE. The island status of clausal complements: evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cogn Linguist 2008, 19:349-381. doi:10.1515/COGL.2008.014.
77. Baker M. Lexical Categories: Nouns, Verbs and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
78. Hauser M, Chomsky N, Fitch T. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 2002, 298:1569-1579. doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569.
79. Gentner T, Fenn KM, Margoliash D, Nusbaum HC. Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 2006, 440:1204-1207. doi:10.1038/nature 04675.
80. Pinker S, Jackendoff R. The faculty of language: what's special about it? Cognition 2005, 95:201-236. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004.
81. Kay P, Michaelis LA. Constructional meaning and compositionality. In: Maienborn C, von Heusinger K, Portner P, eds. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; Forthcoming.
82. Sag IA. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis Stanford University; 2007, Manuscript.
83. Langacker R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1987.
84. Langacker R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1991.
85. Steels L, De Beule J. A (very) brief introduction to fluid construction grammar In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Scalable Natural Language. Madison, WI: Omnipress Inc.; 2006 73-80.
86. Feldman J. From Molecule to Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.
87. Bergen BK, Chang N. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In: Ö stman J-O, Fried M, eds. Construction Grammars: CognitiveGrounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2005. (Reprinted in Evans V, Bergen B and Zinken J, eds. The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London, Equinox; 2007.).
88. Stefanowitsch A, Gries ST. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. Int JCorpus Linguist 2003, 8.2:209-243.
89. Culicover P, Jackendoff R. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press; 2005.
90. Goldberg AE. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends Cogn Sci 2003, 7:219-224. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613 (03) 00080-9.
91. Haiman J. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985.