1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Construction Grammar as a framework
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the prevalent diversity of constructionist approaches in relation to the idea of Construction Grammar as a coherent field of linguistic study. We do so, based on the views of about 190 constructionist researchers, as expressed in a questionnaire in 2021. While the responses show both variety and agreement, the main dividers appear to be whether all constructionist approaches are usage-based, on the one hand, and the stance towards formalization, on the other. We argue that the diversity of approaches is on the one hand a strength, in that a great variety of linguistic phenomena can be accounted for from a constructionist viewpoint. On the other hand, it is a weakness if these accounts are not mutually compatible. If Construction Grammar is to truly work as a model of language as a whole, the various approaches must not only get to co-exist — and flourish — but also be made to fit together. This is not a call for conformity, but rather for communication and cross-fertilization.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.25015.boa
2026-06-05
2026-07-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.25015.boa
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altenberg, B., & Granger, S.
    (2002) Recent trends in cross-linguistic lexical studies. InB. Altenberg & S. Granger (Eds.), Lexis in contrast (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.7.04alt
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.7.04alt [Google Scholar]
  2. Andréasson, M., & Lyngfelt, B.
    (in press). Clausal constructions and clause formation in Swedish: A constructionist syntax model. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Audring, J., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2025) Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Backus, A.
    (2020) Usage-based approaches. InE. Adamou & Y. Matras (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language contact (pp. –). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351109154‑8
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351109154-8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barðdal, J.
    (2004) The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German, and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. InW. Abraham (Ed.), Focus on Germanic typology (pp. –). Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050084336.105
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050084336.105 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
    (Eds.) (2000) Usage-based approaches to language. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 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. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.08ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber [Google Scholar]
  8. Beuls, K., & van Eecke, P.
    (2023) Fluid Construction Grammar: State of the art and future outlook. InC. Bonial & H. T. Madabushi (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Construction Grammars and NLP (CxGs+NLP, GURT/SyntaxFest 2023) (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2025) Construction Grammar and Artificial Intelligence. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.022
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.022 [Google Scholar]
  10. Blensenius, K., & Lyngfelt, B.
    (2025) Network relations in the Swedish constructicon. InD. Dannélls, K. Blensenius & L. Borin (Eds.), Sixty years of Swedish computational lexicography (pp. –). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111577234‑014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111577234-014 [Google Scholar]
  11. Boas, H. C.
    (2000) Resultative constructions in English and German [Doctoral dissertation]. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
  12. (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2004) You wanna consider a constructional approach to wanna-contraction?InM. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. –). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2010a) Comparing constructions across languages. InH. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.10.02boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.02boa [Google Scholar]
  15. (Ed.) (2010b) Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2013) Cognitive Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2017) Computational resources: FrameNet and constructicon. InB. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.035
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.035 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2021) Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. InX. Wen & R. J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. –). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑5
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-5 [Google Scholar]
  19. (Ed.) (2022) Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and teaching (with) constructions. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110746723
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110746723 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2025a) Constructional syntax. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2025b) What happened to Frame Semantics?English Linguistics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Boas, H. C., & Dux, R.
    (2017) From the past to the present: From case frames to semantic frames. Linguistic Vanguard, (), . 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Boas, H. C., Leino, J., & Lyngfelt, B.
    (2024) Constructionist views on Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.24005.boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.24005.boa [Google Scholar]
  24. Boas, H. C., Ruppenhofer, J., & Baker, C.
    (2024) FrameNet at 25. International Journal of Lexicography, (), –. 10.1093/ijl/ecae009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecae009 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2025) FrameNet at 25: Results and applications. International Journal of Lexicography, (), –. 10.1093/ijl/ecaf011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecaf011 [Google Scholar]
  26. Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A.
    (Eds.) (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A.
    (2018) Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.07boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.07boa [Google Scholar]
  28. Booij, G.
    (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (Ed.) (2018) The construction of words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3 [Google Scholar]
  30. Borin, L., & Lyngfelt, B.
    (2025) Framenets and constructicons. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.004 [Google Scholar]
  31. Bouveret, M., & Legallois, D.
    (Eds.) (2012) Constructions in French. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.13
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.13 [Google Scholar]
  32. Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez García, F.
    (2014) Exploring functional-cognitive space. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.157
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  33. Bybee, J. L.
    (2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  34. Cappelle, B.
    (2024) Can Construction Grammar be proven wrong?Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009343213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009343213 [Google Scholar]
  35. Chapin, P. G.
    (1972) Review of Stockwell, Schachter and Hall Partee (1968), Integration of transformational theories on English syntax. Language, , –. 10.2307/412040
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412040 [Google Scholar]
  36. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783112316009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  37. (1981) Government and Binding Theory. Foris Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (1989) Language and mind. The Darwin Lecture, Darwin College.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. (2013) Radical Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (2022) Morphosyntax: Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316145289
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316145289 [Google Scholar]
  42. De Knop, S.
    (2025) Construction-based language learning and teaching. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.024 [Google Scholar]
  43. De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G.
    (Eds.) (2016) Applied Construction Grammar. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268 [Google Scholar]
  44. 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]
  45. (2023) The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009327848
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009327848 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B.
    (2016) Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of Construction Grammar. Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1968) The case for case. InE. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. –). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. (1982) Frame Semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. –). Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (1988) The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society, , –. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1999) Inversion and constructional inheritance. InG. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (pp. –). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (2013) Berkeley Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. F.
    (2010) A frames approach to semantic analysis. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet constructicon. InH. C. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. –). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P.
    (1993) Construction Grammar [Manuscript]. CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 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]
  58. Fried, M.
    (2004) Predicate semantics and event construal in Czech case marking. InM. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.03fri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.03fri [Google Scholar]
  59. (2021) Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.00046.fri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00046.fri [Google Scholar]
  60. Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
    (2004) Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. InM. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  61. Fujii, S.
    (2004) Lexically (un)filled constructional schemes and construction types: The case of Japanese modal conditional constructions. InM. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.04fuj
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.04fuj [Google Scholar]
  62. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Gries, S. Th.
    (2022) On, or against?, (just) frequency. InH. C. Boas (Ed.), Directions for pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and teaching (with) constructions (pp. –). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110746723‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110746723-002 [Google Scholar]
  66. 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]
  67. Hens, G.
    (1996) (jm)(einen Brief) schreiben: Zur Valenz in der Konstruktionsgrammatik. Linguistische Berichte, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Herbst, T.
    (2019) Constructicons — a new type of reference work?Lexicographica, , –. 10.1515/lex‑2019‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2019-0001 [Google Scholar]
  69. Herbst, T., & Hoffmann, T.
    (2024) A Construction Grammar of the English language: CASA — A constructionist approach to syntactic analysis. John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.5 [Google Scholar]
  70. Hilpert, M.
    (2025) Frequency: Psychological and methodological considerations. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.007 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hilpert, M., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T.
    (2025) The constructicon: Language as a cognitive network of constructions. InReference module in social sciences. Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑323‑95504‑1.00598‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95504-1.00598-6 [Google Scholar]
  72. Höder, S.
    (2014) Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, , –. 10.1075/cf.6.2.04hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.04hod [Google Scholar]
  73. (2018) Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. InH. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.24.02hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.02hod [Google Scholar]
  74. (2019) Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure, , –. 10.3366/word.2019.0152
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0152 [Google Scholar]
  75. Hoffmann, T.
    (2017) From constructions to Construction Grammar. InB. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.019 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2022) Construction Grammar. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139004213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139004213 [Google Scholar]
  77. Janda, L. A.
    (Ed.) (2013) Cognitive linguistics — the quantitative turn: The essential reader. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110335255
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255 [Google Scholar]
  78. Jurafsky, D.
    (1991) An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
  79. Kay, P.
    (1995) Construction Grammar. InJ. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. John Benjamins.10.1075/hop.m2.con2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m2.con2 [Google Scholar]
  80. (2013) The limits of (Construction) Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y construction. Language, , –. 10.2307/417472
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  82. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and other dangerous things. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  83. Lambrecht, K.
    (2004) On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions. InM. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.05lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.05lam [Google Scholar]
  84. Lambrecht, K., & Lemoine, K.
    (2005) Definite null objects in (spoken) French: A construction-grammar account. InM. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4.03lam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.03lam [Google Scholar]
  85. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. II. Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. –). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. (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]
  89. Lee-Goldman, R., & Petruck, M.
    (2018) The FrameNet constructicon in action. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.02lee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.02lee [Google Scholar]
  90. Leino, J.
    (2005) Frames, profiles and constructions: Two collaborating CGs meet the Finnish permissive construction. InJ.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.05lei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.05lei [Google Scholar]
  91. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  92. Lorenzi, A., Ljunglöf, P., Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Croft, W., Ziem, A., Böbel, N., Bäckström, L., Uhrig, P., & Matos, E.
    (2024) MoCCA: A model of comparative concepts for aligning constructicons. InProceedings of the 20th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation at LREC-COLING 2024 (pp. –). 10.63317/5jxiu5aofe5h
     https://doi.org/10.63317/5jxiu5aofe5h [Google Scholar]
  93. Lyngfelt, B.
    (2018) Introduction: Constructions and constructicography. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.01lyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.01lyn [Google Scholar]
  94. Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T.
    (Eds.) (2018) Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Matsumoto, Y.
    (2025) Frame Semantics. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.002 [Google Scholar]
  96. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2004) Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  97. (2013) Sign-Based Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Michaelis, L. A., & Lambrecht, K.
    (1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, , –. 10.2307/416650
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  99. Michaelis, L. A., & Ruppenhofer, J.
    (2001) Beyond alternations. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Ohara, K.
    (2005) From relativization to clause-linkage: Evidence from Modern Japanese. InM. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4.04oha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.04oha [Google Scholar]
  101. Östman, J.-O.
    (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. InJ.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  102. (2025) Construction discourse. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.021
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.021 [Google Scholar]
  103. Pälsi, M.
    (2000) Finnish resultative sentences. SKY Journal of Linguistics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  105. Petruck, M.
    (1996) Frame Semantics. InJ. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Sag, I. A.
    (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. InH. C. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. –). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 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]
  108. Steels, L.
    (2011) A first encounter with Fluid Construction Grammar. InL. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.11.04ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.04ste [Google Scholar]
  109. (2013) Fluid Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Tayyar Madabushi, H., Romain, L., Milin, P., & Divjak, D.
    (2025) Construction Grammar and language models. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.023
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.023 [Google Scholar]
  111. Torrent, T. T., Hoffmann, T., Almeida, A. L., & Turner, M.
    (2023) Copilots for linguists: AI, constructions, and frames. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009439190
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009439190 [Google Scholar]
  112. Tsujimura, N.
    (2005) Mimetic verbs and innovative verbs in the acquisition of Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S.
    (2023) Constructionist approaches. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009308717
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009308717 [Google Scholar]
  114. van Trijp, R.
    (2017) A computational Construction Grammar for English. InProceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding (pp. –). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. (2024) Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.23013.van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23013.van [Google Scholar]
  116. (2025) Different constructional approaches in practice: A comparative study. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.011 [Google Scholar]
  117. van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & van Eecke, P.
    (2022) The FCG editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars. PLOS ONE, (), –. 10.1371/journal.pone.0269708
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269708 [Google Scholar]
  118. Ward, N. G.
    (2025) Prosodic constructions. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.014 [Google Scholar]
  119. Weigand, E.
    (1998) Contrastive lexical semantics. InE. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.171.03wei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.171.03wei [Google Scholar]
  120. Zwicky, A.
    (1994) Dealing out meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, , –. 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1446
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1446 [Google Scholar]
  121. (1995) Exceptional degree markers: A puzzle in internal and external syntax. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.25015.boa
Loading
Construction Grammar as a framework
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.25015.boa
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.25015.boa
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.25015.boa
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Formalization ; Theory ; Framework ; Construction Grammar ; Usage-based

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