Why we avoid the ‘Multiple Inheritance’ issue in Usage-based Cognitive Construction Grammar

References

1. Barðdal, Johanna , and Spike Gildea
   2015 “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” InDiachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Johanna Barðdal , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea , 1–50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
2. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
   2012 Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal About the Mind. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110294002
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
3. Boas, Hans C.
   2013 “Cognitive Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bybee, Joan
   2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
5. Croft, William
   2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
6. De Smet, Hendrik , and Freek Van De Velde
   2013 “Serving to Masters: Form-Function Friction in Syntactic Amalgams.” Studies in Language37(3): 534–565. 10.1075/sl.37.3.04des
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.04des [Google Scholar]
7. Diessel, Holger
   2011 “Review of Language, Usage and Cognition by Joan Bybee.” Language87: 830–844. 10.1353/lan.2011.0082
   https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0082 [Google Scholar]
8. Diessel, Holger
   2015 “Usage-Based Construction Grammar.” InHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Ewa Dąbrowska , and Dagmar Divjak , 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
9. Diessel, Holger
   2019 The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
10. Divjak, Dagmar
    2019 Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316084410
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084410 [Google Scholar]
11. Fillmore, Charles , and Paul Kay
    1993 Construction Grammar Coursebook, Chapters 1–11 (Reading Materials for Ling X20). Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Fried, Mirjam and Jan-Ola Östman
    2004 “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch.” InConstruction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, ed. by Mirjam Fried , and Jan-Ola Östman , 11–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
13. Ginzburg, Jonathan and Ivan A. Sag
    2000 Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Goldberg, Adele. E.
    1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Goldberg, Adele E.
    2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Goldberg, Adele E.
    2013 “Constructionist Approaches.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Haïk, Isabelle
    2009 “Symmetric Structures.” CORELA11(1). https://journals.openedition.org/corela/2875 (Last accessedNov 1st, 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hilpert, Martin
    2014 Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Hilpert, Martin , and Holger Diessel
    2016 “Entrenchment in Construction Grammar.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid , 57–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2013 “Abstract Phrasal and Clausal Constructions.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 307–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Hoffmann, Thomas , and Graeme Trousdale
    (eds.) 2013 The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
22. Hudson, Richard A.
    2000 English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Jackendoff, Ray
    2002 Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
24. Jackendoff, Ray
    2008 “‘Construction after Construction’ and Its Theoretical Challenges.” Language84 (1): 8–28. 10.1353/lan.2008.0058
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2008.0058 [Google Scholar]
25. Kim, Jong-Bok , and Peter Sells
    2015 “English Binominal NPs: A Construction-Based Perspective.” Journal of linguistics51(1): 41–73. 10.1017/S002222671400005X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671400005X [Google Scholar]
26. Lakoff, George
    1974 “Syntactic Amalgams.” Chicago Linguistic Society10: 321–44.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Lakoff, George
    1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
28. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1988 “An Overview of Cognitive Grammar.” InTopics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn , 3–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.03lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.03lan [Google Scholar]
29. Michaelis, Laura A. , and Knud Lambrecht
    1996 “Toward a Construction-Based Theory of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition.” Language72 (2): 215–247. 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
30. Sommerer, Lotte
    . forthcoming. “ Day to Day and Night After Night: Temporal NPN Constructions in English.” InEnglish Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current Issues ed. by Lotte Sommerer , and Evelien Keizer . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Sommerer, Lotte and Elena Smirnova
    (eds.) 2020 Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
32. Sommerer, Lotte and Andreas Baumann
    . 2021,aop. “Of Absent Mothers, Strong Sisters and Peculiar Daughters: The Constructional Network of English NPN Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Steels, Luc
    (ed.) 2011 Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
34. Tomasello, Michael
    2003 Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Traugott, Elizabeth C. , and Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
36. Trousdale, Graeme
    2013 “Multiple Inheritance and Constructional Change.” Studies in Language37 (3): 491–514. 10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro [Google Scholar]
37. Van Trijp, Remi
    2013 “A Comparison Between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames5 (1): 88–116. 10.1075/cf.5.1.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.1.04van [Google Scholar]
38. Zwarts, Joost
    2013 “From N to N: The Anatomy of a Construction.” Linguistics and Philosophy36 (1): 65–90. 10.1007/s10988‑013‑9131‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9131-7 [Google Scholar]