Constructions and constructional meaning

Human Cognitive Processing

Volumn 24, Issue , 2009, Pages 225-267

  Langacker, Ronald W ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85088911265     PISSN: 13876724     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1075/hcp.24.17lan     Document Type: Chapter

References (41)

1. Allwood, J. 2003. Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [Cognitive Linguistics Research 23], H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (eds.), 29–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.). 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
3. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
4. Clark, E. V. & Clark, H. H. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55: 767–811.
5. Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Dowty, D. 2000. “The garden swarms with bees” and the fallacy of “argument alternation”. In Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (eds.), 111–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
8. Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser, E. (eds.). 1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22: 133–187.
11. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
12. Fillmore, C. J. 1988. The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 35–55.
13. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. & O’Connor, M. C. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538.
14. Goldberg, A.E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80: 532–568.
16. Haiman, J. & Ourn, N. 2003. Nouns, verbs, and syntactic backsliding in Khmer. Studies in Language 27: 505–528.
17. Israel, M. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, A. E. Goldberg (ed.), 217–230. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
18. Jackendoff, R. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51: 639–671.
19. Jacobsen, W. H., Jr. 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. In The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages [Heritage Record 4], B. S. Efrat (ed.), 83–155. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.
20. Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37–77.
21. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Langacker, R. W. 1982. Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language 58: 22–80.
24. Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
25. Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
26. Langacker, R. W. 1999. Double-subject constructions. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm 4, S.-Y. Bak (ed.), 83–104. Seoul: Hanshin.
27. Langacker, R. W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Usage-Based Models of Language, M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (eds.), 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
28. Langacker, R. W. 2003. Constructions in cognitive grammar. English Linguistics 20: 41–83.
29. Langacker, R. W. 2004. Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language 11: 77–113.
30. Langacker, R. W. 2005a. Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 4], M. Fried & H. C. Boas (eds.), 157–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31. Langacker, R. W. 2005b. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [Cognitive Linguistics Research 32], F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. S. Peña Cervel (eds.), 101–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
32. Langacker, R. W. 2006. On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 107–151.
33. Michaelis, L. A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 1–67.
34. Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72: 215–247.
35. Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (eds.). 2004. Metonymy in Language and Thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36. Queller, K. 2001. A usage-based approach to modeling and teaching the phrasal lexicon. In Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy [Cognitive Linguistics Research 19.2], M. Pütz, S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (eds.), 55–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
37. Queller, K. 2003. Metonymic sense shift: Its origins in hearers’ abductive construal of usage in context. In Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [Cognitive Linguistics Research 23], H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (eds.), 211–241. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
38. Sandra, D. & Rice, S. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6: 89–130.
39. Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Turner, M. 1987. Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41. Zlatev, J. 2003. Polysemy or generality? Mu. In Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics [Cognitive Linguistics Research 23], H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (eds.), 447–494. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.