1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 18, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Construction Grammar proposes an integrative model of linguistic knowledge, but the status of phonology has long been a black box in the framework. In this article, I consider the question of whether phonemes are constructions. I argue that phonemes are entrenched and conventionalised units emergent from usage, that they are clearly form-function pairs, and that their sensitivity to meaning seems less sporadic than previously assumed. This leads me to argue that assessing the constructionhood of phonemes requires a clear distinction between linguistic function and meaning, as well as a careful consideration of the social meaning of constructions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.24014.mor
2025-07-11
2026-03-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.24014.mor
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex-adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blasi, D., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P., & Christiansen, M.
    (2016) Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10818–10823. 10.1073/pnas.1605782113
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605782113 [Google Scholar]
  4. Broccias, C.
    (2021) A new look at word classes in Cognitive Grammar. Jezikoslovlje, 22(2), 269–293. 10.29162/jez.2021.8
     https://doi.org/10.29162/jez.2021.8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brouwer, C.
    (2004) Doing pronunciation: A specific type of repair sequence. InR. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations: Studies of communication in everyday settings (pp.93–113). Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J.
    (2000) The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.65–86). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2001) Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappelle, B.
    (2024) Can Construction Grammar be proven wrong?Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009343213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009343213 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cebrian, J., & Carlet, A.
    (2014) Second-language learners’ identification of target-language phonemes: A short-term phonetic training study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 474–499. 10.3138/cmlr.2318
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2318 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cenoz, J.
    (2013) Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 331, 3–18. 10.1017/S026719051300007X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X [Google Scholar]
  13. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Coats, S.
    (2024) CoANZSE Audio: Creation of an online corpus for linguistic and phonetic analysis of Australian and New Zealand Englishes. InN. Calzolari, M.-Y. Kan, V. Hoste, A. Lenci, S. Sakriani, & N. Xue (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024) (pp.3407–3412). ELRA and ICCL.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Coats, S., & Morin, C.
    (2024) Double modals beyond the Atlantic: New evidence from computational sociolinguistics. English Today, 40(4), 294–99. 10.1017/S0266078424000191
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078424000191 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  19. Culpeper, J.
    (2021) Sociopragmatics. InM. Haugh, D. Kadar, & M. Terkourafi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108954105.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cuneo, N., & Goldberg, A.
    (2023) The discourse functions of grammatical constructions explain an enduring syntactic puzzle. Cognition, 2401, 1–18. 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105563
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105563 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ćwiek, A., Fuchs, S., Draxler, C., Asu, E. L., Dediu, D., Hiovain, K., Kawahara, S., Koutalidis, S., Krifka, M., Lippus, P., Lupyan, G., Oh, G. E., Paul, J., Petrone, C., Ridouane, R., Reiter, S., Schümchen, N., Szalontai, Á., Ünal-Logacev, Ö., Zeller, J., Perlman, M., & Winter, B.
    (2021) The bouba/kiki effect is robust across cultures and writing systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3771, 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dautriche, I., Mahoward, K., Gibson, E., & Piantadosi, S.
    (2016) Wordform similarity increases with semantic similarity: An analysis of 100 languages. Cognitive Science, 41(8), 2149–2169. 10.1111/cogs.12453
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12453 [Google Scholar]
  23. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M., & Monaghan, P.
    (2015) Arbitrariness, systematicity, and iconicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 603–615. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  25. Eckert, P., & Labov, W.
    (2017) Phonetics, phonology and social meaning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(4), 467–496. 10.1111/josl.12244
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12244 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fillmore, C.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–253.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Firth, J. R.
    (1930) The tongues of men and speech. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Fischer-Jørgensen, E.
    (1995 [1975]) Trends in phonological theory. Akademisk Forlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Fort, M., & Schwarz, J.-L.
    (2022) Resolving the bouba-kiki effect by rooting iconic sound symbolism in physical properties of round and spiky objects. Scientific Reports, 121, 1–12. 10.1038/s41598‑022‑23623‑w
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23623-w [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Grosjean, F.
    (2010) Bilingual: Life and reality. Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674056459
     https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674056459 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gutzmann, D.
    (2015) Use-conditional meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hagel, A.
    (2020) Strange sounds, familiar words: Interlingual decoding from a CxG perspective. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 341, 122–134. 10.1075/bjl.00040.hag
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00040.hag [Google Scholar]
  36. (2023) One man’s [ɕœtː] is another man’s [kʰøð̞]: Sound correspondence constructions in Interscandinavian decoding. InE. Coussé, S. Höder, B. Lyngfelt, & J. Prentice (Eds.), Constructional approaches to Nordic languages (pp.55–80). Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.37.03hag
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.37.03hag [Google Scholar]
  37. Hall-Lew, L., Moore, E., & Podesva, R.
    (2021) Social meaning and linguistic variation: Theoretical foundations. InL. Hall-Lew, E. Moore, & R. Podesva (Eds.), Social meaning and linguistic variation: Theorizing the third wave (pp.1–24). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108578684.001
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108578684.001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Halliday, M.
    (1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hilpert, M.
    (2019) Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed). Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Höder, S.
    (2014) Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6(2), 202–231. 10.1075/cf.6.2.04hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.04hod [Google Scholar]
  41. (2018) Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. InH. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp.37–70). Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.24.02hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.02hod [Google Scholar]
  42. (2019) Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure, 121, 334–352. 10.3366/word.2019.0152
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0152 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2023) The Devil is in the schema: A constructional perspective on Swedish taboo-avoiding strategies. InE. Coussé, S. Höder, B. Lyngfelt, & J. Prentice (Eds.), Constructional approaches to Nordic languages (pp.81–113). Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.37.04hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.37.04hod [Google Scholar]
  44. Hoffmann, T.
    (2020) What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar? Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the constructionist enterprise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 341, 149–161. 10.1075/bjl.00042.hof
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00042.hof [Google Scholar]
  45. (2022) Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139004213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139004213 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hudson, R.
    (2007) English dialect syntax in Word Grammar. English Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 383–405. 10.1017/S1360674307002298
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002298 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jackendoff, R.
    (2013) Constructions in the Parallel Architecture. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Jakobson, R.
    (1960) Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. InT. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.350–377). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Johnson, M.
    (1987) Body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. The Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kapatsinski, V.
    (2023) Understanding the roles of type and token frequency in usage-based linguistics. InM. Díaz-Campos & S. Balasch (Eds.), The handbook of usage-based linguistics (pp.91–106). Wiley. 10.1002/9781119839859.ch5
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119839859.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kristiansen, G.
    (2006) Towards a usage-based cognitive phonology. International Journal of English Studies, 6(2), 107–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Labov, W.
    (1969) Contraction, deletion, and the inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45(4), 715–762. 10.2307/412333
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412333 [Google Scholar]
  53. (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ladefoged, P., & Halle, M.
    (1988) Some major features of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Language, 64(3), 577–582. 10.2307/414533
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414533 [Google Scholar]
  55. Langacker, R.
    (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2016) Working towards a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 465–477. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0004 [Google Scholar]
  57. Leclercq, B.
    (2020) Semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 341, 225–234. 10.1075/bjl.00048.lec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00048.lec [Google Scholar]
  58. (2024) Linguistic knowledge and language use: Bridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Leclercq, B., & Morin, C.
    (2023) No equivalence: A new principle of no synonymy. Constructions, 151, 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. (2024) Taxonomy of constructional meanings. OSF. RetrievedNovember 29, 2024, fromosf.io/snefv, 10.17605/OSF.IO/USRWY
     https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/USRWY
  61. (2025) The meaning of constructions. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Leclercq, B., Morin, C., & Pijpops, D.
    (in press). The principle of no equivalence: An agent-based modelCognitive Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Maguire, W.
    (2012) English and Scots in Scotland. InR. Hickey (Ed.), Areal features of the Anglophone world. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110279429.53
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110279429.53 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mai, A., Riès, S., Ben-Haim, S., Shih, J., & Gentner, T.
    (2024) Acoustic and language-specific sources for phonemic abstraction from speech. Nature Communications, 151, 1–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Martinet, A.
    (1949) La double articulation linguistique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 51, 30–37. 10.1080/01050206.1949.10416289
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01050206.1949.10416289 [Google Scholar]
  66. Milroy, J., Milroy, L., Hartley, S., & Walshaw, D.
    (1994) Glottal stops and Tyneside glottalization: Competing patterns of variation and change in British English. Language Variation and Change, 61, 327–357. 10.1017/S095439450000171X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439450000171X [Google Scholar]
  67. Mompeán-González, J.
    (2004) Category overlap and neutralization: The importance of speakers’ classifications in phonology. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(4), 429–469. 10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.429
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.429 [Google Scholar]
  68. Mompeán-González, J., Frégier, A., & Valenzuela, J.
    (2020) Iconicity and systematicity in phonaesthemes: A cross-linguistic study. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(3), 515–548. 10.1515/cog‑2018‑0079
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0079 [Google Scholar]
  69. Morin, C.
    (2023) Social meaning in Construction Grammar: Double modals in dialects of English [Doctoral dissertation]. Université Paris-Cité.
  70. (2025a) Model of linguistic function. OSF. RetrievedMay 7, 2025, fromhttps://osf.io/7axtw/, 10.17605/OSF.IO/7AXTW
     https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7AXTW
  71. (2025b) Construction Grammar and sociolinguistic theory: A case study of social meaning [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Morin, C., & Coats, S.
    (2023) Double modals in Australian and New Zealand English. World Englishes, 1–24. 10.1111/weng.12639
     https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12639 [Google Scholar]
  73. Morin, C., Desagulier, G., & Grieve, J.
    (2024) A social turn for Construction Grammar: Double modals on British Twitter. English Language and Linguistics, 28(2), 275–303. 10.1017/S1360674323000576
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674323000576 [Google Scholar]
  74. Nathan, G.
    (1986) Phonemes as mental categories. InProceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.212–224). 10.3765/bls.v12i0.1862
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1862 [Google Scholar]
  75. (1996) Towards a cognitive phonology. InB. Hurch & R. Rhodes (Eds.), Natural phonology: The state of the art (pp.305–327). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908992.107
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908992.107 [Google Scholar]
  76. (1999) What functionalists can learn from formalists in phonology. InProceedings of the Symposium on Formalism and Functionalism (pp.305–327). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.41.15nat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.41.15nat [Google Scholar]
  77. (2006) Is the phoneme usage-based? Some issues. International Journal of English Studies, 6(2), 173–194.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Nesset, T.
    (2008) Abstract phonology in a concrete model: Cognitive linguistics and the morphology-phonology interface. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208368
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208368 [Google Scholar]
  79. Nuckolls, J.
    (1999) The case for sound symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 281, 225–252. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.225
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.225 [Google Scholar]
  80. O’Neal, G.
    (2016) Intelligibility and segmental phoneme repair strategies in English-as-a-Lingua-Franca interactions among Chinese and Japanese speakers of English. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 379–400. 10.1515/cjal‑2016‑0025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2016-0025 [Google Scholar]
  81. Pennington, M.
    (1996) Phonology in English language teaching. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Pierrehumbert, J.
    (2002) Word-specific phonetics. InC. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology71 (pp.101–139). Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Port, R.
    (2010) Language as a social institution: Why phonemes and words do not live in the brain. Ecological Psychology, 22(4), 304–326. 10.1080/10407413.2010.517122
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2010.517122 [Google Scholar]
  84. Radden, G.
    (2021) Iconicity. InJ. Taylor & W. Xu (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.268–296). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑19
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-19 [Google Scholar]
  85. Rosch, E.
    (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  86. (1978) Principles of categorization. InD. Levitin (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive psychology: Core readings (pp.251–70). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  88. Silvennoinen, O.
    (2023) Is Construction Grammar cognitive?Constructions, 151, 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Svantesson, J.-O.
    (2017) Sound symbolism: The role of word sound in meaning. WIREs Cognitive Science, 81, 1–12. 10.1002/wcs.1441
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1441 [Google Scholar]
  90. Taylor, J.
    (2012) The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  91. Trubetskoy, N. S.
    (1969) Principles of phonology. University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Ungerer, T.
    (2023) A gradient notion of constructionhood. Constructions, 151, 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S.
    (2023) Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009308717
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009308717 [Google Scholar]
  94. Uppstad, P. H., & Tønnessen, F. E.
    (2010) The status of the concept of ‘phoneme’ in psycholinguistics. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(5), 429–442. 10.1007/s10936‑010‑9149‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9149-8 [Google Scholar]
  95. Valenzuela, H.
    (2020) Phonemes. InH. Valenzuela (Ed.), Linguistics for TESOL: Theory and practice (pp.43–63). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑40932‑6_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40932-6_3 [Google Scholar]
  96. Välimaa-Blum, R.
    (2005) Cognitive phonology in Construction Grammar: Analytic tools for students of English. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110920598
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920598 [Google Scholar]
  97. Van-Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P.
    (2022) The FCG Editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLOS One, 17(6), e0269708. 10.1371/journal.pone.0269708
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269708 [Google Scholar]
  98. Wells, J. C.
    (1982) Accents of English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611759
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611759 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.24014.mor
Loading
Are phonemes constructions?
Constructions and Frames 18, 37 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.24014.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.24014.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.24014.mor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive linguistics; Construction Grammar; form; meaning; phonemes; phonology; pragmatics; semantics; sociolinguistics; usage-based linguistics

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