Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arbib, Michael
    2012How the Brain Got Language: The Mirror System Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896684.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896684.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barðdal, Jóhanna , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea
    (eds) 2015Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beckner, Clay , Richard Blythe , Joan Bybee , Morten H. Christiansen , William Croft , Nick C. Ellis , John Holland , Jinyun Ke , Diane Larsen-Freeman , and Tom Schoenemann
    2009 “Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper.” Language Learning 59(s1): 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergen, Benjamin K. and Nancy Chang
    2005 “Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding.” InConstruction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried , 147–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.08ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber [Google Scholar]
  5. Beuls, Katrien and Luc Steels
    2013 “Agent-Based Models of Strategies for the Emergence and Evolution of Grammatical Agreement.” PLoS ONE8 (3): e58960. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058960
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058960 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boas, Hans C. and Ivan A. Sag
    (eds) 2012Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bod, Rens
    2009 “Constructions at Work or at Rest?.” Cognitive Linguistics20 (1): 129–134. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2009.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.006 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, Joan
    1985Morphology: A Study on the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010Language, Cognition, and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coussé, Evie and Ferdinand von Mengden
    (eds) 2014Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.69
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69 [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, William
    1991Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2000Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow Essex: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Daelemans, Walter , Antal van den Bosch , and Jakub Zavrel
    1999 “Forgetting Exceptions is Harmful in Language Learning.” Machine Learning34 (1/3): 1143. doi: 10.1023/A:1007585615670
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007585615670 [Google Scholar]
  14. Daems, Jocelyne , Eline Zenner , Kris Heylen , Dirk Speelman , and Hubert Cuyckens
    (eds) 2015Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Diessel, Holger
    2015 “Usage-Based Construction Grammar.” InHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Ewa Dabrowska and Dagmar Divjak , 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dik, Simon C.
    1980Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dunn, Michael , Simon J. Greenhill , C. Levinson, Stephen , and Russel D. Gray
    2011 “Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals.” Nature473: 79–82. doi: 10.1038/nature09923
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09923 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dunn, Michael , Angela Terrill , Ger Reesink , Robert A. Foley , and Stephen C. Levinson
    2005 “Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history.” Science309 (5743): 2072–2075. doi: 10.1126/science.1114615
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114615 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1988 “The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”.” InProceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fillmore, Charles J. , Paul Kay , and Mary Catherine O’Connor
    1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.” Language64 (3): 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fried, Mirjam
    2009 “Construction Grammar as a Tool for Diachronic Analysis.” Constructions and Frames1 (2): 261–290. doi: 10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri [Google Scholar]
  22. Geeraerts, Dirk
    1985Paradigm and Paradox: Explorations Into a Paradigmatic Theory of Meaning and its Epistemological Background. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Givón, Talmy
    1979On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Glynn, Dylan and Kerstin Fischer
    (eds) 2010Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, Adele E. , Devin M. Casenhiser , and Nitya Sethuraman
    2004 “Learning Argument Structure Generalizations.” Cognitive Linguistics15 (3): 289–316. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gray, Russel D. and Quentin D. Atkinson
    2003 “Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin.” Nature426: 435–439. doi: 10.1038/nature02029
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02029 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gries, Stefan Th.
    2015 “The Role of Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus and Experimental Data on (Relative) Frequency and Contingency of Words and Constructions.” InChange of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics, ed. by Jocelyne Daems , Eline Zenner , Kris Heylen , Dirk Speelman , and Hubert Cuyckens , 311–325. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hale, John T.
    2003 “The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research32 (2): 101–123. doi: 10.1023/A:1022492123056
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022492123056 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hall, David and Dan Klein
    2010 “Finding Cognate Groups Using Phylogenies.” InProceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1030–1039. Uppsala: ACL.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1985Language, Context and Text: Aspects ofLanguage in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Harnad, Stevan
    1990 “The Symbol Grounding Problem.” Physica D42: 335–346. doi: 10.1016/0167‑2789(90)90087‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hawkins, John A.
    2004Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Heggarty, Paul , Warren Maguire , and April McMahon
    2010 “Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel language histories.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society365: 38293843.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Holland, John
    2006 “Studying Complex Adaptive Systems.” Journal ofSystems Science and Complexity19 (1): 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s11424‑006‑0001‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-006-0001-z [Google Scholar]
  36. Hollmann, Willem B. and Anna Siewierska
    2011 “The Status of Frequency, Schemas, and Identity in Cognitive Sociolinguistics: A Case Study on Definite Article Reduction.” Cognitive Linguistics22: 25–54. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hopper, Paul
    1987 “Emergent grammar.” InProceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Jon Aske , Natasha Beery , Laura Michaelis , and Hana Filip , 139–157. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth Traugott
    1993Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hurford, James
    1989 “Biological Evolution of the Saussurean Sign as a Component of the Language Acquisition Device.” Lingua77 (2): 187–222. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(89)90015‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(89)90015-6 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jaeger, T. Florian and Harry Tily
    2011 “On Language ‘Utility’: Processing Complexity and Communicative Efficiency.” WIREs: Cognitive Science2 (3): 323–335. doi: 10.1002/wcs.126
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.126 [Google Scholar]
  41. Johansen, Mark K. and Thomas J. Palmeri
    2002 “Are There Representational Shifts During Category Learning?.” Cognitive Psychology45: 482–553. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0285(02)00505‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00505-4 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jurafsky, Dan
    1996 “A Probabilistic Model of Lexical and Syntactic Access and Disambiguation.” Cognitive Science20: 137–194. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore
    1999 “Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction.” Language75: 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kirby, Simon
    2002 “Natural Language from Artificial Life.” Artificial Life8 (2): 185–215. doi: 10.1162/106454602320184248
    https://doi.org/10.1162/106454602320184248 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kondrak, Grzegorz
    2002Algorithms for Language Reconstruction. Ph. D. thesis, University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Labov, William
    2000Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2000 “A Dynamic Usage-Based Model.” In Usage-Based Models ofLanguage, ed. by Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer , 1–63. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lieven, Elena
    2009 “Developing Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics20 (1): 191–199. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2009.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.012 [Google Scholar]
  50. Nurnberg, Geoffrey , Ivan A. Sag , and Thomas Wasow
    1994 “Idioms.” Language70: 491–538. doi: 10.1353/lan.1994.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0007 [Google Scholar]
  51. Perek, Florent
    2015Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar, Volume 17 of Constructional Approaches to Language. John Benjamins: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pijpops, Dirk , Katrien Beuls , and Freek Van de Velde
    2015 “The Rise of the Verbal Weak Inflection in Germanic: An agent-Based Model.” Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal5: 81–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Pleyer, Michael and Nicolas Lindner
    2014 “Constructions, Construal and Cooperation in the Evolution of Language.” InThe Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference, ed. by Erica A. Cartmill , Sean Roberts , Heidi Lyn , and Hannah Cornish , 244–251. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. doi: 10.1142/9789814603638_0031
    https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814603638_0031 [Google Scholar]
  54. Rice, Sally and John Newman
    (eds) 2010Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rosch, Eleanor and Barbara B. Lloyd
    (eds) 1978Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schneider, Nathan and Reut Tsarfaty
    2013 “Book Review: Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar.” Computational Linguistics39 (2): 447–453. doi: 10.1162/COLI_r_00154
    https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_r_00154 [Google Scholar]
  57. Smith, Andrew D.M.
    2014 “Models of Language Evolution and Change.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science5 (3): 281–293.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Spranger, Michael
    2013 “Evolving Grounded Spatial Language Strategies.” KI – Künstliche Intelligenz27 (2): 97–106. doi: 10.1007/s13218‑013‑0245‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-013-0245-4 [Google Scholar]
  59. Steels, Luc
    1995 “A Self-Organizing Spatial Vocabulary.” Artificial Life2 (2): 319–332. doi: 10.1162/artl.1995.2.3.319
    https://doi.org/10.1162/artl.1995.2.3.319 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2000 “Language as a Complex Adaptive System.” InProceedings of PPSN VI: Lecture notes in Computer Science, ed. by Mark Schoenauer , Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 17–26. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2004 “Constructivist Development of Grounded Construction Grammars.” InProceedings 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ed. by Walter Daelemans , 9–19. Barcelona: ACL.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (ed) 2011Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  63. (ed) 2012aExperiments in Cultural Language Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ais.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.3 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2012b “Self-Organization and Selection in Cultural Language Evolution.” InExperiments in Cultural Language Evolution, ed. by Luc Steels , 1–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ais.3.02ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.3.02ste [Google Scholar]
  65. 2015The Talking Heads Experiment: Origins of Words and Meanings, Volume 1 of Computational Models of Language Evolution. Berlin: Language Science Press. Open access atlangsci-press.org//catalog/book/49.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Steels, Luc and Eörs Szathmáry
    2016 “Fluid Construction Grammar as a Biological System.” Linguistics Vanguard2 (1). doi: 10.1515/lingvan‑2015‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0022 [Google Scholar]
  67. Steiner, Lydia , Peter F. Stadler , and Michael Cysouw
    2011 “A Pipeline for Computational Historical Linguistics.” Language Dynamics and Change1 (1): 89127. doi: 10.1163/221058211X570358
    https://doi.org/10.1163/221058211X570358 [Google Scholar]
  68. Tomasello, Michael
    2003Constructing a Language. A Usage Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  70. Van de Velde, Freek
    2014 “Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks.” InExtending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart , Timothy Colleman , and Gijsbert Rutten , Volume1, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. van Trijp, Remi
    2010a “Grammaticalization and Semantic Maps: Evidence from Artificial Language Evolution.” Linguistic Discovery8 (1): 310–326. doi: 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.355
    https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.355 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2010b “Strategy Competition in the Evolution of Pronouns: A Case-Study of Spanish Leísmo, Laísmo and Loísmo.” InThe Evolution of Language (EVOLANG 8), ed. by Andrew D.M. Smith , Marieke Schouwstra , Bart de Boer , and Kenny Smith , 336–343. Singapore: World Scientific. doi: 10.1142/9789814295222_0043
    https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814295222_0043 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2013a “A Comparison Between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames5 (1): 88–116. doi: 10.1075/cf.5.1.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.1.04van [Google Scholar]
  74. 2013b “Linguistic Assessment Criteria for Explaining Language Change: A Case Study on Syncretism in German Definite Articles.” Language Dynamics and Change3 (1): 105–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 2015 “Cognitive vs. Generative Construction Grammar: The Case of Coercion and Argument Structure.” Cognitive Linguistics26: 613–632. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0074 [Google Scholar]
  76. Weinreich, Uriel , William Labov , and Marvin I. Herzog
    1968 “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change.” InDirections for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium, ed. by Winfred P. Lehman and Yakov Malkiel , 97–195. Austin: University of Texas.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Wichmann, Søren , André Müller , and Viveka Velupillai
    2010 “Homelands of the world’s language families: A quantitative approach.” Diachronica27 (2): 247276.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error