1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In recent years, foreign language pedagogy has recognized the need to focus on larger meaningful sequences of words and on communicative goals. Construction grammar (CxG) has a number of assets to address these issues. First, with the postulate of meaningful schematic templates, CxG makes it possible to establish a structured inventory of abstract constructions. I this paper, this is illustrated by the inventory of German constructions with the preposition ‘up to, until’. Second, constructions, having a certain degree of schematicity, are particularly suitable to be practiced as whole sequences. Interactive activities based on ‘embodied teaching and learning’ can help foster the entrenchment of constructions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00037.kno
2020-07-29
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Achard, M.
    (2008) Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. InP. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.432–456). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, J. J.
    (1982) Learning another language through actions. The complete teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baicchi, A.
    (2013) The ontological status of constructions in the mind of Italian University learners of English: Psycholinguistic evidence from a sentence-sorting experiment. InL. Di Michele (Ed.), Regenerating community, territory, voices (pp.26–32). Napoli: Liguori.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2016) The role of syntax and semantics in constructional priming. Experimental evidence from Italian university learners of English through a sentence-elicitation task. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp.211–236). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-009 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bencini, G., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2757
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergen, B., & Chang, N.
    (2005) Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. InJ-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.147–190). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.08ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber [Google Scholar]
  7. Birchfield, D.
    (2015) Embodied learning: Origins and implications. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzahyTMq8u4
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Boers, F.
    (2011) Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 227–261. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.11boe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.11boe [Google Scholar]
  9. Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M.
    (1998) A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English Language Teaching Journal, 53, 197–204. 10.1093/elt/52.3.197
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.3.197 [Google Scholar]
  10. Boers, F., De Rycker, A., & De Knop, S.
    (2010) Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics: Introduction. InS. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. de Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through CL (pp.1–27). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110245837.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245837.1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowerman, M.
    (1996) Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. InP. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp.385–436). Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Carroll, M.
    (2000) Representing path in language production in English and German: Alternative perspectives on Figure and Ground. InC. Habel & C. von Stutterheim (Eds.), Räumliche Konzepte und sprachliche Strukturen (pp.97–118). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110952162.97
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110952162.97 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carstensen, K.
    (2000) Räumliche Mikroperspektivierung und die Semantik lokaler Präpositionen. InC. Habel & C. von Stutterheim (Eds.). Räumliche Konzepte und Sprachliche Strukturen (pp.237–260). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110952162.237
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110952162.237 [Google Scholar]
  14. Choi, S., & Bowerman, M.
    (1991) Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83–121. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90033‑Z
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90033-Z [Google Scholar]
  15. Corder, S. P.
    (1967) The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 160–170. 10.1515/iral.1967.5.1‑4.161
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 [Google Scholar]
  16. De Knop, S.
    (2016) German causative events with placement verbs. Lege Artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, 1(2), 75–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G.
    (Eds.) (2016) Applied construction grammar. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268 [Google Scholar]
  18. De Knop, S., & Mollica, F.
    (2016) A construction-based analysis of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp.53–88). Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-004 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2019) Verblose Direktiva als Konstruktionen: ein kontrastiver Vergleich zwischen Deutsch, Französisch und Italienisch. InJ. Erfurt & S. De Knop (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik und Mehrsprachigkeit (pp.127–148). Universität Duisburg-Essen: Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr OHG.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Della Putta, P.
    (2016) Do we also need to unlearn constructions? The case of constructional negative transfer from Spanish to Italian and its pedagogical implications. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp.237–267). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-010 [Google Scholar]
  21. Di Pietro, R. J.
    (1987) Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Draye, L.
    (1996) The German dative. InW. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative: Descriptive studies. Vol.1 (pp.155–215). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cagral.2.09dra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.2.09dra [Google Scholar]
  23. Eisenberg, P.
    (2009) Duden – Die Grammatik. Mannheim; Wien; Zürich: Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ellis, N. C.
    (2009) Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. InM. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp.139–158). London: Blackwell Publishing Company. 10.1002/9781444315783.ch9
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T.
    (2009) Constructing a second language. Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 1–139. 10.1075/arcl.7.05ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.05ell [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Jr., F.
    (2009a) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00896.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x [Google Scholar]
  27. (2009b) Constructions and their acquisition. Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220. 10.1075/arcl.7.08ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.08ell [Google Scholar]
  28. Ellis, R.
    (1990) Instructed second language acquisition. Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Evans, V.
    (2003) The structure of time. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S.
    (2004) Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89, 385–392. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00355‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00355-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Filipovic, L. & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (2015): Motion. In: E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Mouton Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.526–545). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-026 [Google Scholar]
  32. Flecken, M., Carroll, M., Weimar, K., & Von Stutterheim, C.
    (2015) Driving along the road or heading for the village? Conceptual differences underlying motion event encoding in French, German, and French–German L2 users. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 100–122. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2015.12181.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2015.12181.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Fries, C. C.
    (1945) Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gilquin, G., & De Knop, S.
    (2016) Exploring L2 constructionist approaches. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp.3–17). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. González Rey, M. I.
    (2013) Presentation: Phraseodidactics, an applied field of phraseology. InM. I. González Rey (Ed.), Phraseodidactic studies on German as a foreign language / Phraseodidaktische Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache (pp.7–10). Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 1–27. 10.1075/arcl.1.02gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.02gri [Google Scholar]
  39. Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S.
    (2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200. 10.1075/arcl.3.10gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri [Google Scholar]
  40. (2009) Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 163–186. 10.1075/arcl.7.07gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.07gri [Google Scholar]
  41. Grießhaber, W.
    (2009) Präposition. InL. Hoffmann (Ed.), Handbuch der Deutschen Wortarten (pp.629–656). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Handwerker, B.
    (2008) ‛Chunksʼ und Konstruktionen – Zur Integration von lern-theoretischem und grammatischem Ansatz. Estudios Filológicos Alemanes, 15, 49–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Handwerker, B., & Madlener, K.
    (2006) Multimedia-Chunks für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein Lernmodul zur Entwicklung lexikalisch-grammatischer Kompetenz. InA. Hahn & F. Klippel (Eds.), Sprachen Schaffen Chancen (pp.199–206). München: Oldenbourgs.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hausmann, F. J.
    (1984) Wortschatzlernen ist Kollokationslernen. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 31, 395–406.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Herbst, T.
    (2016) Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards pedagogical construction grammar. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp.21–52). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-003 [Google Scholar]
  46. Holme, R.
    (2010) Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. AILA Review, 23, 115–133. 10.1075/aila.23.07hol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.07hol [Google Scholar]
  47. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (2017) Introduction. Motion and semantic typology: A hot old topic with exciting caveats. In: I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Motion and Space across Languages (pp.13–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.59.02iba
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.02iba [Google Scholar]
  48. Iwata, S.
    (2002) Does manner count or not? Manner-of-motion verbs revisited. Linguistics, 40(1), 239–292. 10.1515/ling.2002.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.008 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2008) Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  50. Jarvis, S.
    (2007) Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 43–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A.
    (2008) Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York/London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203935927
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935927 [Google Scholar]
  52. Klein, W.
    (1991) Raumausdrücke. Linguistische Berichte, 132, 77–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lado, R.
    (1957) Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Lado, R., & Fries, C. C.
    (1961) English pattern practices. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  56. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.1. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Lapaire, J.-R.
    (2013) Gestualité cogrammaticale: de l’action corporelle spontanée aux postures de travail métagestuel guidé. Maybe et le balancement épistémique en anglais. Langages, 192 (4), 57–72. 10.3917/lang.192.0057
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.192.0057 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lapaire, J.-R., & Etcheto, P.
    (2010) Postures, manipulations, déambulations: comprendre la grammaire anglaise autrement. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 49(1), 45–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Leys, O.
    (1989) Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen. Deutsche Sprache, 17, 97–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (1995) Dativ und Akkusativ in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leuvense Bijdragen, 84, 39–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Liang, J.
    (2002) How do Chinese EFL learners construct sentence meaning: Verb-centered or construction-based?M.A. thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
  63. Lutzeier, P. R.
    (1995) Von der Wortbedeutung zur Satzbedeutung: Überlegungen zum Beitrag der Präpositionen. InI. Pohl (Ed.), Semantik von Wort, Satz und Text: Beiträge des Kolloquiums “Semantik von Wort, Satz und Text“ in Rostock (1994) (pp.171–189). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Langs.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S.
    (1992) Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Nunan, D.
    (1991) Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. Tesol Quarterly, 25(2), 279–295. 10.2307/3587464
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587464 [Google Scholar]
  66. Papert, S.
    (1980) Mindstorms: Kinder, Computer und neues Lernen. New York: Basic books.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. (1986) Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Paul, H.
    (1916–1920) Deutsche Grammatik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Pavlenko, A.
    (2005) Bilingualism and thought. InJ. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.433–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Pawley, A., & Syder, F.
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. InJ. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp.191–226). New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Politzer, R. L.
    (1961) The impact of linguistics on language teaching: Past, present and future. Modern Language Journal, 48(3), 146–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Radden, G.
    (2003) The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages. InN. Baumgarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz, & J. Probst (Eds.), Übersetzen, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60. Geburtstag. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 8(2/3), 226–239.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  74. Rathunde, K.
    (2009) Nature and embodied education. The journal of developmental processes, 4 (1), 70–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Rys, J., Willems, K., & De Cuypere, L.
    (2014) Akkusativ und Dativ nach Wechselpräpositionen im Deutschen. Eine Korpusanalyse von ‘versinken’, ‘versenken’, ‘einsinken’ und ‘einsenken in’. InI. Doval & B. Lübke (Eds.), Raumlinguistik und Sprachkontrast: neue Beiträge zu spatialen Relationen im Deutschen, Englischen und Spanischen (pp.217–234). München: Iudicium.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Robinson, P., & Ellis, N.
    (2008) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203938560
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203938560 [Google Scholar]
  77. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Agustín Llach, M. P.
    (2016) Cognitive pedagogical grammar and meaning construction in L2. InDe Knop, S. & Gilquin, G. (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp.151–184). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-007 [Google Scholar]
  78. Savignon, S. J.
    (2000) Communicative language teaching. InM. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp.125–129). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Schmitz, W.
    (1964) Der Gebrauch deutscher Präpositionen. München: Hueber Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Schröder, J.
    (1986) Lexikon deutscher Präpositionen. Leipzig: VEB Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Serra-Borneto, C.
    (1997) Two-way prepositions in German: Image and constraints. InM. Verspoor, K. D. Lee, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp.187–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.150.15ser
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.150.15ser [Google Scholar]
  82. Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D.
    (2018) Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(6), 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Slobin, D.
    (1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. InJ. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp.70–96). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. (2000) Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. InS. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp.107–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.198.10slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.198.10slo [Google Scholar]
  85. Smith, M. B.
    (1995) Semantic motivation vs. arbitrariness in grammar: Toward a more general account of the DAT/ACC contrast with two-way prepositions. InI. Rauch & G. F. Carr (Eds.), Insights in Germanic linguistics: Methodology and transition (pp.293–323). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110810868.293
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110810868.293 [Google Scholar]
  86. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Taylor, J.
    (2008) Prototypes in cognitive linguistics. InP. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.39–65). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Thieroff, R., & Vogel, P. M.
    (2011) Flexion. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Valenzuela Manzanares, J., & Rojo López, A. M.
    (2008) What can language learners tell us about constructions?InS. De Knop & T. de Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp.197–230). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Wardhaugh, R.
    (1970) The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 123–130. 10.2307/3586182
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586182 [Google Scholar]
  91. Weideman, A.
    (2016) Responsible aesign in Applied linguistics: Theory and practice. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Willems, K.
    (2011) The semantics of variable case marking (accusative/dative) after two-way prepositions in German locative constructions. Towards a constructionist approach. Indogermanische Forschungen, 116, 324–366. 10.1515/9783110239485.324
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239485.324 [Google Scholar]
  93. Willems, K., Rys, J., & De Cuypere, L.
    (2018) Case alternation in argument structure constructions with prepositional phrases. A case study in corpus-based constructional analysis. InH. C. Boas & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional approaches to argument atructure in German (pp.85–130)s. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110457155‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-003 [Google Scholar]
  94. Wong-Fillmore, L.
    (1976) The second time around. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Wray, A.
    (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00037.kno
Loading
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