1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Attempts at predicting syntactic behavior from semantic or other generalizations are often unsatisfactory. It is argued that the notion of competition as used by Goldberg (2019) can serve as an explanation for unpredictability in language because established formulations that are preferred over others automatically distort the collocational profiles of verbs in argument structure constructions. As a consequence of this, an approach of seeing items as items-in-constructions (and not as elements attracted to them) is argued for. It is then shown how this items-in-constructions view can be applied to designing models of reference constructicons and mental constructicons.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00035.her
2020-07-29
2024-10-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.00035.her
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E.
    (2011) Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975073
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975073 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenmann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex-adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning55 (Supplement1), 1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Behrens, H.
    (2011) Grammatik und Lexikon im Spracherwerb: Konstruktionsprozesse. InS. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp.375–396). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110262339.375
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110262339.375 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (2011) Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. InS. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp.37–69). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110262339.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110262339.37 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T.
    (2019) Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 35, 15–59. 10.1515/lex‑2019‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2019-0002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A.
    (2018) Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp.183–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.07boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.07boa [Google Scholar]
  8. Bresnan, J., & Ford, M.
    (2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86, 168–213. 10.1353/lan.0.0189
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cordes, A.
    (2014) The role of frequency in children’s learning of morphological constructions. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Coseriu, E.
    (1973) Probleme der strukturellen Semantik. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  14. (2012) Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Croft, W., & Cruse, D.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cruse, D.
    (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2000) From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 83–102.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2004) Language, mind, and brain. Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2009) Words as constructions. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.) New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.201–223). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.16dab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.16dab [Google Scholar]
  20. (2014) Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 617–653. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0057
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0057 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dąbrowska, E., & Lieven, E.
    (2005) Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(3), 437–474. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.3.437
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.3.437 [Google Scholar]
  22. Davies, M.
    (2008) COCA-The Corpus of Contemporary American English. Available at corpus.byu.edu/coca/
  23. Diessel, H.
    (2016) Frequency and lexical specificity in grammar: A critical review. InH. Behrens & S. Pfänder (Eds.). Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp.209–237). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346916‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346916-009 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ellis, N.
    (2006) Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. 10.1093/applin/ami038
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis, N., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
    (2009) Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of CognitiveLinguistics, 7, 187–220.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Evert, S.
    (2005) The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Dissertation, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart, URNurn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-23714
  27. Evert, St.
    (2008) Corpora and collocations. InA. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp.1212–1248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Faulhaber, S.
    (2011) Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110240788
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240788 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fischer, K., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2006) Konstruktionsgrammatik: Ein Überblick. InK. Fischer & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.). Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (pp.3–17). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E.
    (1996) Collins Cobuild grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: Harper Collins.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13–4, 327–356.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldberg, A., Devin, M., & Sethuranam, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 14, 289–316.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Goldberg, A., & Herbst, T.
    (forthc). The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, Speech acts (pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Gries, S.
    (2012) Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language, 36(3), 477–510. 10.1075/sl.36.3.02gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.02gri [Google Scholar]
  39. (2013) 50-something years of work on collocations. What is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165. 10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri [Google Scholar]
  40. (2015) More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 505–536. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0092
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0092 [Google Scholar]
  41. Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004a) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  42. (2004b) Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. InM. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.). Language, culture, and mind (pp.225–236). Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D.
    (2006) Syntactic leaps or lexical variation? – More on ‘creative syntax’. InS. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp.127–157). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Haugen, T. A.
    (2012) Polyvalent adjectives in Norwegian: Aspects of their semantics and complementation patterns. Oslo: University of Oslo.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hausmann, F-J.
    (1984) Wortschatzlernen ist Kollokationslernen. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 31, 395–406.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Herbst, T.
    (1983) Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (2009) Valency: Item-specificity and idiom principle. InU. Römer & R. Schulze (Eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface (pp.49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.35.05her
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.35.05her [Google Scholar]
  48. (2011a) The status of generalisations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschriftfür Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 347–367.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. (2011b) Choosing sandy beaches– collocations, probabemes, and the idiom principle. InT. Herbst, S. Faulhaber, & P. Uhrig (Ed.), The phraseological view of language. A tribute to John Sinclair (pp.27–57). Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110257014.27
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110257014.27 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2014a) The valency approach to argument structure constructions. InT. Herbst, H. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns (pp.159–207). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (2014b) Idiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles, and the valency realization principle. InM. Hilpert & S. Flach (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Jahrbuchder Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kognitive Linguistik, Vol.II. (pp.253–289). Berlin, München, & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2015) Why construction grammar catches the worm and corpus data can drive you crazy: Accounting for idiomatic and non-idiomatic idiomaticity. Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (3), 91–110. doi:  10.3844/jssp.2015.91.110
     https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2015.91.110 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2017) Wörterbuch wargestern: Programm für ein unifiziertes Konstruktikon. InS. Schierholz (Eds.), Wörterbuchforschung und Lexikographie (pp.169–206). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2018a) Die menschliche Sprache – ein Netzwerk von Konstruktionen?InR. Freiburg (Ed.), Sprachwelten (pp.105–147). Erlangen: FAU University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (2018b) Is language a collostructicon? – A proposal for looking at collocations, valency, argument structure and other constructions. InP. Cantos-Gómez & M. Almela-Sánchez (Eds.), Lexical collocation analysis: Advances and applications (pp.1–22). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑92582‑0_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92582-0_1 [Google Scholar]
  56. (forthc.). Die Digitalisierung von Wortschatz und Grammatik – ein Konstruktikon für die Schule. InCh. Bürgel, P. Gévaudan, & D. Siepmann Eds. Sprachwissenschaft und Fremdsprachendidaktik: Konstruktionen und Konstruktionslernen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.
  57. Herbst, T., & Uhrig, P.
    (2019) Towards a valency and argument structure constructicon of English: Turning the valency patternbank into a constructicon. Lexicographica, 35, 171–188. 10.1515/lex‑2019‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2019-0006 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hilpert, M.
    (2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2020) Constructionist approaches. InB. Aarts, J. Bowie, & G. Popova (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of English grammar (pp.106–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  61. Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Tyers, F. M.
    (2018) A constructicon for Russian: Filling in the gaps. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.) Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp.165–181). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.06jan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.06jan [Google Scholar]
  62. Kilgariff, A.
    (2005) Language is never, ever, ever, random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1–2, 263–276.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Langacker, R. W.
    (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lee-Goldman, R., & Petruck, M.
    (2018) The FrameNet constructicon in action. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp.19–39). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.02lee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.02lee [Google Scholar]
  65. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  67. Lyngfelt, B.
    (2018) Introduction. Constructicons and constructicography. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp.1–18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.01lyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.01lyn [Google Scholar]
  68. Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R.
    (2018) Constructicography at work: Theory meets practice in the Swedish constructicon. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp.41–106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.03lyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.03lyn [Google Scholar]
  69. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. (2005) A unified model of language acquisition. InJ. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. (2014) Item-based patterns in early syntactic development. InT. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns (pp.25–61). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Madlener, K.
    (2016) Input optimization. InH. Behrens & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp.133–173). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Mukherjee, J.
    (2005) Anglistische Korpuslinguistik. Berlin: Schmidt.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Ohara, K.
    (2018) Relations between frames and constructions. A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet constructicon. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.)., Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp.142–163). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.05oha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.05oha [Google Scholar]
  75. Patten, A., & Perek, F.
    (2019) Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24, 356–386.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. (forthc.). Pedagogic applications of the English constructicon. InH. C. Boas Ed. Pedagogic construction grammar: Data, methods, and applications. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native like selection and native like fluency. InJ. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp.191–225). London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Pecina, P.
    (2010) Lexical association measures and collocation extraction. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44(1), 137–158. 10.1007/s10579‑009‑9101‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9101-4 [Google Scholar]
  79. Perek, F., & Goldberg, A.
    (2015) Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108–127. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  80. Proisl, T.
    (2018) The cooccurrence of linguistic structures. Erlangen: FAU University Press. doi:  10.25593/978‑3‑96147‑201‑7
     https://doi.org/10.25593/978-3-96147-201-7 [Google Scholar]
  81. Proisl, T., & Uhrig, P.
    (2012) Efficient dependency graph matching with the IMS Open Corpus Workbench. InN. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Uğur Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC ’12) (pp.2750–2756). Istanbul: European Language Resources Association. ELRA.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. de Saussure, F.
    (1916) Cours de linguistique générale, C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (Eds.). Lausanne & Paris: Payot.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Schmid, H.
    (2000) English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110808704
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  84. Schmid, H., & Küchenhoff, H.
    (2013) Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems, and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  85. Schneider, U.
    (2018) ΔP as a measure of collocation strength. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 1–26. doi:  10.1515/cllt‑2017‑0036
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2017-0036 [Google Scholar]
  86. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  87. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2006) Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 61–77. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.003 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2008) Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 513–531. 10.1515/COGL.2008.020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.020 [Google Scholar]
  89. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language. Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Torrent, T. T., Matos, E., Lage, L., Laviola, A., Tavares, T., Almeida, V. G., & Sigiliano, N.
    (2018) Towards continuity between the lexicon and the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp.107–140). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.04tor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.04tor [Google Scholar]
  91. Uhrig, P.
    (2015) Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschriftfür Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 323–337.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.
    (2006) An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Harlow: Pearson-Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Zeschel, A., & Proost, K.
    (forthc.). Grain size issues in constructicon building – and how to address them. InT. Herbst Ed. From constructicography to lexicography. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/lex‑2019‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2019-0005 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00035.her
Loading
Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language
Constructions and Frames 12, 56 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00035.her
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00035.her
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00035.her
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construction grammar; ditransitive; generalization; item-relatedness/item-specificity; pre-emption; unpredictability

Most Cited

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