Volume 24, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Construction grammar (CxG) initially arose as a usage-based alternative to nativist theoretical accounts of language, and remains to this day strongly associated with cognitive linguistic theory and research. In this paper, however, I argue that CxG can be seen as offering an equally viable general framework for socially-oriented linguists whose work focuses on the corpus-based analysis of discourses (CBADs). The paper begins with brief reviews of CxG and CBADs as distinctive research traditions, before going on to identify synergies (both potential and actual) between them. I then offer a more detailed case study example, focusing on a usage-based analysis of a newly identified construction, the WAY IN WHICH construction, as it occurs in corpora representing six different academic discourses. The paper concludes by rebutting some anticipated objections to the approach advocated here, and by proposing a new conceptual model for constructionist approaches to CBADs.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, K.
    (2015) General extenders in learner language. InN. Groom, M. Charles & S. John (Eds.), Corpora, Grammar and Discourse: In Honour of Susan Hunston (pp.211–234). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.73.10aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.73.10aij [Google Scholar]
  2. (2016) Pragmatic markers as constructions. The case of anyway. InG. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents (pp.29–58). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.178.02aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.02aij [Google Scholar]
  3. (2018) Corpus pragmatics: From form to function. InA. H. Jucker, K. P. Schneider & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Methods in Pragmatics (pp.555–586). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110424928‑022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-022 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anthony, L.
    (2018) AntConc (Version 3.5.0 for Mac OSX). [Computer software]. Retrieved fromwww.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/ (last accessedJuly 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K.
    (2011) Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2594–2609. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, P.
    (2006) Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker, P., & McEnery, T.
    (Eds.) (2015) Corpora and Discourse Studies: Integrating Discourse and Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137431738
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137431738 [Google Scholar]
  8. Becher, T., & Trowler, P.
    (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
    (Eds.) (2009) Contexts and Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A.
    (2007) Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
    (2004) If you look at … : Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks.’ Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. 10.1093/applin/25.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Biglan, A.
    (1973a) The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203. 10.1037/h0034701
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034701 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1973b) Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213. 10.1037/h0034699
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034699 [Google Scholar]
  15. Boas, H. C.
    (2013) Cognitive Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.233–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Boas, H. C., & Sag, I.
    (Eds.) (2012) Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brookes, G., & Harvey, K.
    (2016) Examining the discourse of mental illness in a corpus of online advice-seeking messages. InL. Pickering, E. Friginal, & S. Staples (Eds.) Talking at Work: Corpus-based Explorations of Workplace Discourse (pp.209–234). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑49616‑4_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49616-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions. Retrieved fromhttps://www.constructions.uni-osnabrueck.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2006-SI-Cappelle22-80-1-PB.pdf (last accessedApril 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Charles, M.
    (2006) Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310–331. 10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cortes, V.
    (2004) Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423. 10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cowie, A. P.
    (1998) Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  23. Durrant, P.
    (2017) Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation in university students’ writing: Mapping the territories. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 165–193. 10.1093/applin/amv011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv011 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ellis, N. C.
    (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.63–103). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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. Malden, MA: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Evans, V., & Green, M.
    (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fillmore, C. J.
    (2013) Berkeley Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.111–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P.
    (1995) Construction Grammar. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fischer, K.
    (2015) Conversation, construction grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7(4), 563–588. 10.1017/langcog.2015.23
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.23 [Google Scholar]
  31. Foucault, M.
    (1970) The Order of Things. London: Tavistock.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
    (2005) Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gabrielatos, C., & Baker, P.
    (2008) Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK Press 1996–2005. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(1), 5–38. 10.1177/0075424207311247
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207311247 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gee, J. P.
    (2014) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (4th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gilquin, G.
    (2015) The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners. A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(1), 51–88. 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gledhill, C.
    (2000) Collocations in Science Writing. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2011) The ‘lexicogrammar’ approach to analysing phraseology and collocation in ESP texts. Anglais de Spécialité, 59, 5–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
    (2008) Disentangling the phraseological web. InS. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp.27–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.07gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.07gra [Google Scholar]
  42. Gries, S. T.
    (2008) Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. InS. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp.3–25). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.06gri [Google Scholar]
  43. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  44. Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S.
    (2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200. 10.1075/arcl.3.10gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri [Google Scholar]
  45. Groom, N., & Grieve, J.
    (2019) The evolution of a legal genre: Rhetorical moves in British patent specifications, 1711 to 1860. InT. Fanego & P. Rodríguez-Puente (Eds.), Corpus-based Research on Variation in English Legal Discourse (pp.201–234). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.91.09gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.91.09gro [Google Scholar]
  46. Hilpert, M.
    (2013) Constructional Change in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2014) Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (2018) Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. InE. Coussé, P. Andersson & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar (pp.21–39). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hiltunen, T.
    (2010) Grammar and Disciplinary Culture: A Corpus-based Study. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
  50. Hoey, M.
    (2005) Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hoey, M., & O’Donnell, M. B.
    (2008) Lexicography, grammar, and textual position. International Journal of Lexicography, 21(3), 293–309. 10.1093/ijl/ecn025
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecn025 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2015) Examining associations between lexis and textual position in hard news stories, or according to a study by … InN. Groom, M. Charles & S. John (Eds.), Corpora, Grammar and Discourse: In Honour of Susan Hunston (pp.117–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.73.06hoe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.73.06hoe [Google Scholar]
  53. Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D. Y. W., & Berglund, Y.
    (2008) Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb: A Practical Guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hoffmann, T., & Bergs, A.
    (2018) A construction grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes, 18. Retrieved fromjournals.openedition.org/cognitextes/1032 (last accessedApril 2019). doi:  10.4000/cognitextes.1032
    https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.1032 [Google Scholar]
  55. Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hunston, S.
    (2002) Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524773
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524773 [Google Scholar]
  57. Hyland, K.
    (2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. 10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Jaworska, S.
    (2016) Using a corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS) approach to investigate constructions of identities in media reporting surrounding mega sports events: The case of the London Olympics 2012. InI. R. Lamond & L. Platt (Eds.), Critical Event Studies: Approaches to Research (pp.149–174). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Jing-Schmidt, Z.
    (2017) What are they good for? A constructionist account of counterfactuals in ordinary Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 113(1), 30–52. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  60. Jing-Schmidt, Z. & X. Peng
    (2016) The emergence of disjunction: A history of constructionalization in Chinese. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(1), 101–136. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0073
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0073 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kay, P.
    (2002) An informal sketch of a formal architecture for construction grammar. Grammars, 5(1), 1–19. 10.1023/A:1014293330198
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014293330198 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2004) Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. InL. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp.675–700). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kerz, E., & Wiechmann, D.
    (2016) Second language construction learning: Investigating domain-specific adaptation in advanced L2 production. Language and Cognition, 8(4), 533–565. 10.1017/langcog.2015.6
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.6 [Google Scholar]
  64. Koester, A.
    (2012) Corpora and workplace discourse. InK. Hyland, M. H. Chau & M. Handford (Eds.), Corpus Applications in Applied Linguistics: Current Approaches and Future Directions (pp.47–64). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kopaczyk, J., & Tyrkkö, J.
    (Eds.) (2018) Applications of Pattern-driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.82
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.82 [Google Scholar]
  66. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  67. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form: A Theory of Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  68. Linell, P.
    (2009) Grammatical constructions in dialogue. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and Constructions (pp.97–110). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.05lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.05lin [Google Scholar]
  69. Michaelis, L.
    (2013) Sign-based construction grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.133–152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Michaelis, L., & Lambrecht, K.
    (1996) Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247. 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  71. Morton, T., Walsh, S., & O’Keeffe, A.
    (2011) Analyzing university spoken interaction: A corpus linguistics/conversation analysis approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(3), 326–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Nikiforidou, K., & Fischer, K.
    (2016) On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 137–147. 10.1075/cf.7.2.001int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.001int [Google Scholar]
  73. Oakey, D.
    (2008) The Form and Function of Fixed Collocational Patterns in Research Articles in Different Academic Disciplines (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. (2009) Fixed collocational patterns in isolexical and isotextual versions of a corpus. InP. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics (pp.140–58). London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Orpin, D.
    (2005) Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Examining the ideology of sleaze. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 37–61. 10.1075/ijcl.10.1.03orp
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.1.03orp [Google Scholar]
  76. Östman, J.-O.
    (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. InJ.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp.121–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  77. Östman, J.-O., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Dialects, discourse, and Construction Grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.476–490). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Partington, A., Duguid, A., & Taylor, C.
    (2013) Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.55 [Google Scholar]
  79. Patten, A.
    (2012) The English It-cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110279528
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110279528 [Google Scholar]
  80. Phraseology
    Phraseology (n.d). In theOxford Online Dictionary. Retrieved fromhttps://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/phraseology (last accessedJuly 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-based Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043 [Google Scholar]
  83. Potts, A., Bednarek, M., & Caple, H.
    (2015) How can computer-based methods help researchers to investigate news values in large datasets? A corpus linguistic study of the construction of newsworthiness in the reporting on Hurricane Katrina. Discourse & Communication, 9(2), 149–172. 10.1177/1750481314568548
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481314568548 [Google Scholar]
  84. Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C.
    (2015) Using COBUILD grammar patterns for a large-scale analysis of verb-argument constructions: Exploring corpus data and speaker knowledge. InN. Groom, M. Charles & S. John (eds.). Corpora, Grammar and Discourse: In Honour of Susan Hunston (pp.43–71). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.73.03rom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.73.03rom [Google Scholar]
  85. Rühlemann, C.
    (2014) Narrative in English Conversation: A Corpus Analysis of Storytelling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. (2018) Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics: A Guide for Research. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429451072
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429451072 [Google Scholar]
  87. Rühlemann, C., & Clancy, B.
    (2018) Corpus linguistics and pragmatics. InC. Ilie & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Pragmatics and its Interfaces (pp.241–266). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.294.11ruh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.11ruh [Google Scholar]
  88. Sinclair, J. M.
    (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. (1996) The search for units of meaning. Textus, 9(1), 75–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. (2004) Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–43. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  92. Stubbs, M.
    (1997) Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA). InA. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving Models of Language (pp.100–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Tadros, A.
    (1994) Predictive categories in expository text. InM. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp.69–82). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Taylor, C. & Marchi, A.
    (Eds.) (2018) Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Teubert, W.
    (2005) My version of corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 1–13. 10.1075/ijcl.10.1.01teu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.1.01teu [Google Scholar]
  96. (2010) Meaning, Discourse and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511770852
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770852 [Google Scholar]
  97. Toolan, M.
    (1997) What is critical discourse analysis and why are people saying such terrible things about it?Language and Literature, 6(2), 83–103. 10.1177/096394709700600201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709700600201 [Google Scholar]
  98. (2009) Narrative Progression in the Short Story: A Corpus Stylistic Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.6 [Google Scholar]
  99. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  100. Upton, T. A., & Cohen, M. A.
    (2009) An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies, 11(5), 585–605. 10.1177/1461445609341006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609341006 [Google Scholar]
  101. Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
    (2007) Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. InG. Radden, K. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp.265–81). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.17wul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.17wul [Google Scholar]
  102. Yoon, J. & Gries, S. T.
    (2016) Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.19
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.19 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Construction Grammar; discourse analysis; discourses; phraseology
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