(2011) ‘Online syntax and Construction Grammar: a perfect match? Some reflections on elliptical expansions.’ Paper Presented at theWorkshop on Grammar and Interaction Revisited, Helsinki, March 10–12, 2011.
(2017) What is pragmatics doing outside constructions?InI. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp.115–151). Springer International. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_8
(2007) Diachronic aspects of complementation: Constructions, entrenchment, and the matching problem. InC. Cain & G. Russom (Eds.), Shaking the tree: Fresh perspectives on the genealogy of English (pp.187–213). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198515.3.187
(2018) Towards a constructional approach to discourse-level phenomena: The case of the Spanish interpersonal epistemic stance construction. Folia Linguistica, 52(1), 107–138. 10.1515/flin‑2018‑0002
Elvira García, W., Roseano, P. & Fernández Planas, A. M.
(2017) Prosody as a cue for syntactic dependency. Evidence from dependent and independent clauses with subordination marks in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 29–46. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.002
(1974/1981) Pragmatics and the description of discourse. InP. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp.143–166) (reprint of Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, 1974). Academic Press.
(1975) Santa Cruz lectures on deixis: 1971. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club [(1997) Lectures on deixis. CSLI Lecture Notes 65. CSLI Publications.]
(2013) A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. InB. Cornillie, P. Pietrandrea & L. Degand (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp.47–87). [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 234]. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.234.03fis
(2016) Revisiting the functional typology of insubordination: que-initial sentences in Spanish. InN. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds), Insubordination. [Typological Studies in Language 115] (pp.113–144). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.115.05gra
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?. InW. Bisang, N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp.19–40). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2013) Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. InG. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.307–328). Cambridge University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
(2011) Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. InP. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp.22–44). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.22
(2013) The development of comment clauses. InB. Aarts, J. Close, G. N. Leech & S. Wallis (Eds.), The Verb Phrase in English. Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp.286–317). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139060998.013
(2005) Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction. InM. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 4] (pp.71–98). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4.05kay
(2008) Constructing reasoning. The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. InJ. Leino (Ed.), Constructional Reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language 5] (pp.105–152). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.5.06lin
(2009) Constructions in dialogue. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds), Contexts and Constructions [Constructional Approaches to Language 9] (pp.97–110). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.05lin
(2014) What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0060
(2015) Introduction. On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre. InK. Nikiforidou & K. Fischer (Eds.), Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 137–147. 10.1075/cf.7.2.001int
(1999) Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. InW. Bublitz (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it (pp.77–100). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.63.08ost
(2005) Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. InJ-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. [Constructional Approaches to Language 3], 121–144. 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
(2005) The cognitive grounding of Construction Grammar. InJ-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. [Constructional Approaches to Language 3], 1–16. 10.1075/cal.3.01ost
(2015) From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse… and back. InJ. Bücker, S. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V. Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp.15–43). Stauffenburg.
(2015) The multiple functional load of que. An interactional approach to insubordinate complement clauses in Spanish. University of Leuven dissertation.
(2018) Using intonation to delimit grammatical constructions: the case of Chilean ‘que + indicative’. Paper presented at theICCG10, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle and École Normale Supérieure, Paris, July 18th 2018.
(2016) Independent si-clauses in Spanish: Functions and Consequences for insubordination. InN. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds), Insubordination. [Typological Studies in Language 115]. (pp.89–112). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.115.04sch
(2010) A Constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English language and linguistics, 14(3), 399–427. 10.1017/S1360674310000134
(2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (Eds.), The extending scope of construction grammar, Vol. 54 (pp.141–179). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110366273.141