Usage-based constructionist approaches and large language models

References

1. Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M.
   (2010) The influence of frequency and semantic similarity on how children learn grammar. First Language, (), –. 10.1177/0142723709350525
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723709350525 [Google Scholar]
2. Ackerman, F., & Nikolaeva, I.
   (2014) Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. CSLI Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M.
   (2011) Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975073
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975073 [Google Scholar]
4. Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M. H.
   (2017) The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1 L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.1111/tops.12271
   https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12271 [Google Scholar]
5. Arnon, I., & Snider, N.
   (2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, (), –. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
6. Baayen, R. H., & del Prado Martin, F. M.
   (2005) Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2005.0112
   https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0112 [Google Scholar]
7. Barak, L., & Goldberg, A. E.
   (2017) Modeling the partial productivity of constructions. InThe AAAI 2017 spring symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and natural language understanding, [Technical report SS-17-02] (pp.–). AAAI Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A.
   (2011) West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling.2011.002
   https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
9. Bassok, M.
   (1990) Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, , –. 10.1037/0278‑7393.16.3.522
   https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.522 [Google Scholar]
10. Beckner, C., Ellis, N. C., Blythe, R., Holland, J., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Larsen-Freeman, D., Croft, W., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
11. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S.
    (2021) On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? 🦜. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp.–). ACM. 10.1145/3442188.3445922
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 [Google Scholar]
12. 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 dimensions (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.08ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber [Google Scholar]
13. Boas, H. C.
    (2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/arcl.6.06boa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.06boa [Google Scholar]
14. Boas, H., & Sag, I.
    (Eds.) (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., Ibarretke, I., Kita, S., Lupke, F., & Ameka, F.
    (2007) Principles of event segmentation in language. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2007.0116
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0116 [Google Scholar]
16. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
17. Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M.
    (2000) Cues that chimpanzees do and do not use to find hidden objects. Animal Cognition, (), –. 10.1007/s100710050047
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050047 [Google Scholar]
18. Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G.
    (2011) Ad hoc cognition. InL. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p.). Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Chater, N.
    (2018) Mind is flat: The remarkable shallowness of the improvising brain. Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Chiang, T.
    (2023, February9). ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web. The New Yorker.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Chomsky, N., Roberts, I., & Watumull, J.
    (2023, March8). Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT. The New York Times.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D.
    (2017) Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. InI. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems, 30 (NIPS 2017). Curran Associates Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N.
    (2022) The language game: How improvisation created language and changed the world. HachetteUK.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Christianson, K.
    (2016) When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, (), –. 10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603 [Google Scholar]
25. Christianson, K., & Ferreira, F.
    (2005) Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition, (), –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.006 [Google Scholar]
26. Citron, F. M. M., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2014) Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, (), –. 10.1162/jocn_a_00654
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00654 [Google Scholar]
27. Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Yanti
    (2014) The grammar of binding in the languages of the world: Innate or learned?Cognition, , –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.005 [Google Scholar]
28. Congdon, E. L., Novack, M. A., Brooks, N., Hemani-Lopez, N., O’Keefe, L., & Goldin Meadow, S.
    (2018) Better together: Simultaneous presentation of speech and gesture in math instruction supports generalization and retention. Learning and Instruction, , –. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.005 [Google Scholar]
29. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
30. Croft, W.
    (2022) Morphosyntax: Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316145289
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316145289 [Google Scholar]
31. Croft, W.
    (2024) Philosophical reflections on the future of construction grammar (or, Confessions of a Radical Construction Grammarian). Constructions and Frames, ().
    [Google Scholar]
32. Culicover, P. W.
    (1999) Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
34. Cuneo, N., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2023) The discourse functions of grammatical constructions explain an enduring syntactic puzzle. Cognition, , 105563. 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105563
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105563 [Google Scholar]
35. Cuneo, N., Floyd, S., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2024) Word meaning is complex: Language-related generalization differences in autistic adults. Cognition, , 105691. 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105691
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105691 [Google Scholar]
36. Dasgupta, I., Lampinen, A. K., Chan, S. C. Y., Creswell, A., Kumaran, D., McClelland, J. L., & Hill, F.
    (2022) Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. arXiv. arxiv.org/abs/2207.07051
37. Desagulier, G.
    (2016) A lesson from associative learning: Asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0012 [Google Scholar]
38. Davies, Mark
    (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One Billion Words, 1990–2019.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Diessel, H., Dabrowska, E., & Divjak, D.
    (2019) Usage-based construction grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, , –.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Diessel, H., & Hilpert, M.
    (2016) Frequency effects in grammar. InOxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120 [Google Scholar]
41. Docherty, G. J., & Foulkes, P.
    (2014) An evaluation of usage-based approaches to the modelling of sociophonetic variability. Lingua, , –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.011 [Google Scholar]
42. Domanchin, M., & Guo, Y.
    (2017) New frontiers in interactive multimodal communication. InA. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp.–). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
44. Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L. E., & Ashby, W. J.
    (2003) Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.14 [Google Scholar]
45. Dunn, J.
    (2019) Frequency vs. association for constraint selection in usage-based Construction Grammar. InE. Chersoni, C. Jacobs, A. Lenci, T. Linzen, L. Prévot & E. Santus (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on cognitive modeling and computational linguistics (pp.–). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/W19‑2913
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-2913 [Google Scholar]
46. Dunn, J.
    (2022) Natural language processing for corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009070447
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009070447 [Google Scholar]
47. Elman, J. L.
    (1990) Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Fedorenko, E., Mineroff, Z., Siegelman, M., & Blank, I.
    (2018) Word meanings and sentence structure recruit the same set of fronto-temporal regions. Language, , , –.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V.
    (2002) Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, (), –. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00158
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158 [Google Scholar]
50. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1975) An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. The Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, , –.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni Di Semantica, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, , –. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
53. Foolen, A.
    (2012) The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics. InA. Foolen, U. M. Lüdtke, T. P. Racine & J. Zlatev (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/ceb.6.13foo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ceb.6.13foo [Google Scholar]
54. Francis, E., & Michaelis, L.
    (2017) When relative clause extraposition is the right choice, it’s easier. Language and Cognition, , –. 10.1017/langcog.2016.21
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.21 [Google Scholar]
55. French, R. M.
    (2000) The Turing test: The first 50 years. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01453‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01453-4 [Google Scholar]
56. Fried, M.
    (1994) Grammatical functions in case languages: Subjecthood in Czech. The Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, (), –. 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1453
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1453 [Google Scholar]
57. Geeraerts, D. C. N.
    (2006) Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219128
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219128 [Google Scholar]
58. Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I.
    (2002) Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, (), –. 10.1038/415755a
    https://doi.org/10.1038/415755a [Google Scholar]
59. Givón, T.
    (2014) The functional approach to grammar. InM. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp.–). Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Goldberg, A.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
61. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2015) Compositionality. InN. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Semantics (pp.–). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2016) Subtle implicit language facts emerge from the functions of constructions. Frontiers in Psychology, , –. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02019
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02019 [Google Scholar]
64. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Goldberg, A. E., & Abbot-Smith, K.
    (2021) The constructionist approach offers a useful lens on language learning in autistic individuals: Response to Kissine. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2021.0035
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0035 [Google Scholar]
66. Goldberg, A. & van der Auwera, J.
    (2012) This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica, (), –. 10.1515/flin.2012.4
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2012.4 [Google Scholar]
67. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
68. Goldberg, A. E., & Ferreira, F.
    (2022) Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005 [Google Scholar]
69. Goldberg, A. E., & Herbst, T.
    (2021) The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0274
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0274 [Google Scholar]
70. Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
71. Goldberg, A. E., & Lee, C.
    (2021) Accessibility and historical change: An emergent cluster led uncles and aunts to become aunts and uncles. Frontiers in Psychology, . 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662884
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662884 [Google Scholar]
72. Goldberg, A. E., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2017) One among many: Anaphoric one and its relationship with numeral one. Cognitive Science, , –. 10.1111/cogs.12339
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12339 [Google Scholar]
73. Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2009) The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003 [Google Scholar]
74. Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C. S.
    (2006) Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/arcl.4.04gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.04gon [Google Scholar]
75. Grand, G., Blank, I. A., Pereira, F., & Fedorenko, E.
    (2022) Semantic projection recovers rich human knowledge of multiple object features from word embeddings. Nature Human Behaviour, (), –. 10.1038/s41562‑022‑01316‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01316-8 [Google Scholar]
76. Graves, A., Mohamed, A., & Hinton, G.
    (2013) Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. arXiv. arxiv.org/abs/1303.5778. 10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6638947
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6638947 [Google Scholar]
77. Gries, S. T.
    (2011) Phonological similarity in multi-word units. Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1515/cogl.2011.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.019 [Google Scholar]
78. Gries, S. T.
    (2023) Overhauling collostructional analysis: Towards more descriptive simplicity and more explanatory adequacy. Cognitive Semantics, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Gries, S., & Hilpert, M.
    (2008) The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbour clustering. Corpora, , –. 10.3366/E1749503208000075
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503208000075 [Google Scholar]
80. Gries, S. T., & Hilpert, M.
    (2010) Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S1360674310000092
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000092 [Google Scholar]
81. Harmon, Z., & Kapatsinski, V.
    (2017) Putting old tools to novel uses: The role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology, , –. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.08.002 [Google Scholar]
82. Haspelmath, M.
    (2010) Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
83. Hawkins, R. D., Yamakoshi, T., Griffiths, T. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2020) Investigating representations of verb bias in neural language models. arXiv. arxiv.org/abs/2010.02375. 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp‑main.376
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.376 [Google Scholar]
84. Herbst, T.
    (2011) The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. ZAA, (), –. 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0406
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0406 [Google Scholar]
85. Herrmann, E., & Tomasello, M.
    (2006) Apes’ and children’s understanding of cooperative and competitive motives in a communicative situation. Developmental Science, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2006.00519.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00519.x [Google Scholar]
86. Hilpert, M.
    (2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
87. Hilpert, M.
    (2024) The road ahead for Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, ().
    [Google Scholar]
88. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
89. Horn, L. R.
    (1989) A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
90. Horner, V., & Whiten, A.
    (2005) Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, , –. 10.1007/s10071‑004‑0239‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0239-6 [Google Scholar]
91. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.
    (2005) Introduction to English grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
92. Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
    (2000) Pattern grammar. A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
93. Ibbotson, P.
    (2022) Language acquisition: The basics. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003156536
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156536 [Google Scholar]
94. Israel, M.
    (2001) Minimizers, maximizers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning. Journal of Semantics, (), –. 10.1093/jos/18.4.297
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/18.4.297 [Google Scholar]
95. Jackendoff, R.
    (2002) English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. InN. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-Particle explorations (pp.–). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110902341.67
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110902341.67 [Google Scholar]
96. Johnson-Laird, P. N.
    (1983) Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
97. Kapatsinski, V., & Vakareliyska, C.
    (2013) [N[N]] compounds in Russian: A growing family of constructions. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.5.1.03kap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.1.03kap [Google Scholar]
98. Kemmerer, D.
    (2011) The cross-linguistic prevalence of SOV and SVO word orders reflects the sequential and hierarchical representation of action in Broca’s area. Language and Linguistic Compass, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
99. Khasbage, Y., Carrión, D. A., Hinnell, J., Robertson, F., Singla, K., Uhrig, P., & Turner, M.
    (2022) The red hen anonymizer and the red hen protocol for de-identifying audiovisual recordings. Linguistics Vanguard. 10.1515/lingvan‑2022‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0017 [Google Scholar]
100. Kidd, E., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M.
     (2010) Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition: Evidence from sentential complements. Language Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.langsci.2009.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2009.05.002 [Google Scholar]
101. Kim, J. B., & Michaelis, L. A.
     (2020) Syntactic constructions in English. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
102. Kim, J. B., & Sells, P.
     (2013) The Korean sluicing: A family of constructions. Studies in Generative Grammar, (), –. 10.15860/sigg.23.1.201302.103
     https://doi.org/10.15860/sigg.23.1.201302.103 [Google Scholar]
103. Klein, E.
     (2023, March12). This changes everything. The New York Times.
     [Google Scholar]
104. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D.
     (2011) Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, , –. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 [Google Scholar]
105. Lakoff, G.
     (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
106. Lakoff, G.
     (2014) The all new don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
107. Lambrecht, K.
     (1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
108. Langacker, R. W.
     (1988) A usage-based model. InB. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
109. Langacker, R. W.
     (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
110. Langacker, R. W.
     (1997) Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1 [Google Scholar]
111. LaPolla, R. J.
     (1993) Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
112. MacDonald, M. C.
     (2013) How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, , –. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226 [Google Scholar]
113. Mahowald, K.
     (2023) A discerning several thousand judgments: GPT-3 rates the article + adjective + numeral + noun construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12564. 10.18653/v1/2023.eacl‑main.20
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.20 [Google Scholar]
114. Majid, A., Evans, N., Gaby, A., & Levinson, S. C.
     (2011) The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages. InN. Evans, A. Gaby, S. C. Levinson & A. Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.98.02maj
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.98.02maj [Google Scholar]
115. McClelland, J. L., Botvinick, M. M., Noelle, D. C., Plaut, D. C., Rogers, T. T., Seidenberg, M. S., & Smith, L. B.
     (2010) Letting structure emerge: Connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.002 [Google Scholar]
116. McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group
     (1986) Parallel distributed processing (Vol.). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
117. McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group
     (1987) Parallel distributed processing, volume 2: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Psychological and biological models (Vol.). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
118. McCoy, R. T., Smolensky, P., Linzen, T., Gao, J., & Celikyilmaz, A.
     (2021) How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN. arXiv. arxiv.org/abs/2111.09509
     [Google Scholar]
119. Michaelis, L., & Francis, H.
     (2007) Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. InN. Hedberg & R. Zacharski (Eds.), The grammar pragmatics interface: Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.155.04mic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.155.04mic [Google Scholar]
120. Michaelis, L.
     (2024) Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive: How to make room for the next generation of Construction Grammarians. Constructions and Frames, ().
     [Google Scholar]
121. Misra, K., & Mahowald, K.
     (2024) Language models learn rare phenomena from less rare phenomena: The case of the missing AANNs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19827.
     [Google Scholar]
122. Namboodiripad, S., Cuneo, N., Kramer, M. A., Sedarous, Y., Sugimoto, Y., Bisnath, F., & Goldberg, A. E.
     (2022) Backgroundedness predicts island status of non-finite adjuncts in English. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
123. Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J.
     (2006) When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, (), –. 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098 [Google Scholar]
124. Ostrovsky, Y., Meyers, E., Ganesh, S., Mathur, U., & Sinha, P.
     (2009) Visual parsing after recovery from blindness. Psychological Science, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2009.02471.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02471.x [Google Scholar]
125. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., & Lowe, R.
     (2022) Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv. arxiv.org/abs/2203.02155
     [Google Scholar]
126. Perek, F.
     (2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043 [Google Scholar]
127. Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E.
     Choosing the best available option: Productivity is context dependent [Manuscript in preparation].
     [Google Scholar]
128. Piantadosi, S. T.
     (2014) Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, , –. 10.3758/s13423‑014‑0585‑6
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0585-6 [Google Scholar]
129. Piantadosi, S. T.
     (2023) Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language. Lingbuzz, .
     [Google Scholar]
130. Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E.
     (2012) The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, (), –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004 [Google Scholar]
131. Rambelli, G., Chersoni, E., Blache, P., & Lenci, A.
     (2022) Compositionality as an analogical process: Introducing ANNE. InM. Zock, E. Chersoni, Y. Hsu & E. Santus (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on cognitive aspects of the lexicon (pp.–). Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
132. Roose, K.
     (2023, February17). A conversation with Bing’s chatbot left me deeply unsettled. The New York Times.
     [Google Scholar]
133. Ross, J. R.
     (1973) A fake NP squish. InC-J. N. Bailey & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp.–). Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
134. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L.
     (1996) Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, (), –. 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 [Google Scholar]
135. Searle, J.
     (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (), –. 10.1017/S0140525X00005756
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756 [Google Scholar]
136. Shcherbakova, O., Blasi, D. E., Gast, V., Skirgård, H., Gray, R. D., & Greenhill, S. J.
     (2024) The evolutionary dynamics of how languages signal who does what to whom. Scientific Reports, (), .
     [Google Scholar]
137. Shirtz, S., & Goldberg, A. E.
     (Forthcoming). The English Phrase-As-Lemma Construction: When a phrase masquerades as a word, people play along [Manuscript submitted for publication].
     [Google Scholar]
138. Steels, L., & de Beule, J.
     (2006) A (very) brief introduction to fluid construction grammar. InJ. Allen, J. Alexandersson, J. Feldman & R. Porzel (Eds.), Proceedings of the third workshop on scalable natural language understanding (pp.–). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/1621459.1621473
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1621459.1621473 [Google Scholar]
139. Steen, F. F., & Turner, M.
     (2013) Multimodal Construction Grammar. InM. Borkent, B. Dancygier & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp.–). CSLI Publications. 10.2139/ssrn.2168035
     https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2168035 [Google Scholar]
140. Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J., & Hasson, U.
     (2010) Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (), –. 10.1073/pnas.1008662107
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008662107 [Google Scholar]
141. Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E.
     (2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling.2011.035
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.035 [Google Scholar]
142. Tomasello, M.
     (2005) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard university press.
     [Google Scholar]
143. Tomasello, M.
     (2009) Why we cooperate. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
144. Tomasello, M.
     (2016) A natural history of human morality. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
145. Tomasello, M.
     (2010) Origins of human communication. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
146. Traugott, E. C.
     (2014) Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, (), –. 10.1075/cogls.1.1.01tra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.1.1.01tra [Google Scholar]
147. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
     (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes (Vol.). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
148. Trips, C., & Kornfilt, J.
     (Eds.) (2017) Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding. Language Science Press. 10.5281/ZENODO.885113
     https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.885113 [Google Scholar]
149. Ungerer, T.
     (2022) Extending structural priming to test constructional relations: Some comments and suggestions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, (), –. 10.1515/gcla‑2022‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2022-0008 [Google Scholar]
150. Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S.
     (2023) Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. PsyArXiv. 10.1017/9781009308717
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009308717 [Google Scholar]
151. van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L.
     (2023) ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, (), –. 10.1038/d41586‑023‑00288‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 [Google Scholar]
152. van Trijp, R.
     (2014) Long-distance dependencies without filler−gaps: A cognitive-functional alternative in fluid construction grammar. Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/langcog.2014.8
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.8 [Google Scholar]
153. van Trijp, R.
     (2015) Towards bidirectional processing models of sign language: A constructional approach in fluid construction grammar. InG. Airenti, B. G. Bara & G. Sandini (Eds.), Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific joint conference on cognitive science (pp.–). CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
     [Google Scholar]
154. van Trijp, R.
     (2024) Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, ().
     [Google Scholar]
155. Vig, J.
     (2019) A multiscale visualization of attention in the transformer model. arXiv. arxiv.org/abs/1906.05714. 10.18653/v1/P19‑3007
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-3007 [Google Scholar]
156. Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M.
     (2007) Helping and cooperation at 14 months of age. Infancy, (), –. 10.1111/j.1532‑7078.2007.tb00227.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2007.tb00227.x [Google Scholar]
157. Weissweiler, L., Böbel, N., Guiller, K., Herrera, S., Scivetti, W., Lorenzi, A., Melnik, N., Bhatia, A., Schütze, H., Levin, L., Zeldes, A., Nivre, J., Croft, W., & Schneider, N.
     (2024) UCxn: Typologically Informed Annotation of Constructions Atop Universal Dependencies. arXiv. arxiv.org/abs/2403.17748
158. Weissweiler, L., He, T., Otani, N., Mortensen, D. R., Levin, L., & Schütze, H.
     (2023) Construction Grammar provides unique insight into neural language models. arXiv. arXiv:2302.02178
     [Google Scholar]
159. Willems, R. M., & Hagoort, P.
     (2007) Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture, and action: A review. Brain and Language, (), –. 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.03.004 [Google Scholar]
160. Wray, A.
     (2013) Formulaic language. Language Teaching, (), –. 10.1017/S0261444813000013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000013 [Google Scholar]