Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames

References

1. Boas, H. C.
   (2003) A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Boas, H. C.
   (2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144. 10.1075/arcl.6.06boa
   https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.06boa [Google Scholar]
3. Bybee, J.
   (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
4. Bybee, J.
   (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
   (2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. 10.1353/lan.2006.0081
   https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0081 [Google Scholar]
6. Chomsky, N.
   (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Croft, W.
   (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honour of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
8. Fillmore, C. J.
   (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, VI(2), 222–254.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Fillmore, C. J.
   (1999) Inversion and constructional inheritance. InG. Webelhuth, J.-P. Koenig & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation (pp.113–128). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T.
    (1992) Towards a frame-based Lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. InA. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp.75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
11. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhomieux, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet Constructicon. InI. A. Sag & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.283–322). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Francis, G.
    (1993) A corpus-driven approach to grammar – principles, methods and examples. InM. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp.137–156). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.10fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.10fra [Google Scholar]
14. Francis, G., Hunston, S. & Manning, E.
    (1996) Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Francis, G., Hunston, S. & Manning, E.
    (1998) Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
16. 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.11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
17. Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C.
    (2014) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th Edition). London & New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
18. Healy, A. & Miller, G.
    (1970) The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 20(6), 372. 10.3758/BF03335697
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335697 [Google Scholar]
19. Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
    (2000) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
20. Hunston, S. & Su, H.
    (2017) Patterns, Constructions, and Local Grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. doi:  10.1093/applin/amx046
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx046 [Google Scholar]
21. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
24. Iwata, S.
    (2008) Locative Alternation: A Lexical-constructional Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
25. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Langacker, R. W.
    (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp.1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Lee-Goldman, R., & Petruck, M. R. L.
    (2018) The FrameNet Constructicon in action. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages (pp.19–40). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.02lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.02lee [Google Scholar]
28. Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Sköldberg, E., & Tingsell, S.
    (2012) Adding a Constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. InProceedings of KONVENS 2012 (LexSem 2012 workshop) (pp.452–461). Vienna. Retrieved fromwww.oegai.at/konvens2012/proceedings/66_lyngfelt12w/66_lyngfelt12w.pdf (last accessedApril 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
29. Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T.
    (Eds.) (2018) Constructicography: Constructicon Development Across Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22 [Google Scholar]
30. Ohara, K. H.
    (2013) Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas, 17(1), 11–27.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Perek, F.
    (2014) Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. InD. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and Synonymy: Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.03per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.03per [Google Scholar]
32. 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]
33. Perek, F., & Lemmens, M.
    (2010) Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes, 5. Retrieved fromcognitextes.revues.org/331 (last accessedApril 2019). 10.4000/cognitextes.331
    https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.331 [Google Scholar]
34. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: ICSI. Retrieved fromhttps://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.7/book.pdf (last accessedApril 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
35. Sinclair, J.
    (Eds.) (1995) Collins COBUILD English Dictionary 2nd Edition. London: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Talmy, L.
    (1996) The windowing of attention in language. InM. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (pp.235–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., Tavares, T. S., & Matos, E. E. S.
    (2014) Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 34–51. 10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor [Google Scholar]