Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Auer, P.
    (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.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic, Vol.8. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A Constructional approach to resultatives (Stanford Monograph in Linguistics). John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Booij, G.
    (2005) Construction-dependent morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio, 4, 31–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brinton, L. J.
    (2008) The comment clause in English. Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brône, G. & Zima, E.
    (2014) Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0027 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cappelle, B.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Colleman, T.
    (2020) The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34. John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/bjl.34
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.34 [Google Scholar]
  10. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  12. De Smet, H. & Cuyckens, H.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198515.3.187 [Google Scholar]
  13. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  14. Enghels, R.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2018-0002 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Evans, N.
    (2007) Insubordination and its uses. InI. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (pp.366–431). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, Ch. J.
    (1968) The case for case. InE. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.1–88). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (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.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1975) Santa Cruz lectures on deixis: 1971. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club [(1997) Lectures on deixis. CSLI Lecture Notes 65. CSLI Publications.]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1982) Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–137). Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fischer, K.
    (2010) Beyond the sentence. Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. 10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis [Google Scholar]
  22. (2015) Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7, 563–588. 10.1017/langcog.2015.23
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.23 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fischer, K. & Alm, M.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234.03fis [Google Scholar]
  24. Fried, M.
    (2010) Grammar and interaction. New directions in constructional research. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 125–133. 10.1075/cf.2.2.00int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.00int [Google Scholar]
  25. Fried, M. & Östman, J-O.
    (2005) Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gras, P. & Sansiñena, M. S.
    (2015) An interactional account of discourse connective que-constructions in Spanish. Text & Talk35(4), 505–529. doi:  10.1515/text‑2015‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gras, P.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.05gra [Google Scholar]
  31. Hilpert, M.
    (2013) Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  32. Himmelmann, N.
    (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.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hoffmann, T.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hopper, P.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.22 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaltenböck, G.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060998.013 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kay, P.
    (1997) Words and the grammar of context. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.05kay [Google Scholar]
  38. Lindström, J. & Londen, A-M.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.5.06lin [Google Scholar]
  39. Linell, P.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.05lin [Google Scholar]
  40. Marandin, J-M.
    (2006) Contours as constructions. Constructions, SV1-10/2006. www.constructions-journal.com
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Nikiforidou, K., & Torres Cacoullos, R.
    (2010) Variably future-marked conditionals in Greek: Integrating discourse and grammar. Constructions and frames, 2(1), 90–123. 10.1075/cf.2.1.04nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.1.04nik [Google Scholar]
  42. Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S. & Mikros, G. K.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0060 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nikiforidou, K. & Fischer, K.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.001int [Google Scholar]
  44. Nir, B. & Berman, R.
    (2010) Parts of speech as constructions: The case of Hebrew “adverbs”. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 242–274. 10.1075/cf.2.2.05nir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.05nir [Google Scholar]
  45. Östman, J.-O.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.08ost [Google Scholar]
  46. Östman, J-O.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  47. Östman, J-O. & M. Fried
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.01ost [Google Scholar]
  48. Östman, J-O.
    (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.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sadat-Tehrani, N.
    (2008) An Intonational Construction. Constructions3/2008 www.constructions-journal.com
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sansiñena, M. S.
    (2015) The multiple functional load of que. An interactional approach to insubordinate complement clauses in Spanish. University of Leuven dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sansiñena, M. S. & Elvira García, W.
    (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.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Schwenter, S. A.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.04sch [Google Scholar]
  53. Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Traugott, E. C.
    (2018) Modeling language change with constructional networks. InS. Pons Bordería & Ó. Loureda Lamas (Eds.), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers. [Studies in Pragmatics 18] (pp.17–50). Brill. 10.1163/9789004375420_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004375420_003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Bogaert, J.
    (2009) The grammar of complement-taking mental predicate constructions in present-day spoken British English. Ghent University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (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
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000134 [Google Scholar]
  57. Van de Velde, F.
    (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
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zima, E. & Bergs, A.
    (2014) Multimodality and construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1). 20161006. doi:  10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑1006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-1006 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Introduction
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