1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X

Abstract

This article reviews Nodes and networks in diachronic Construction Grammar

 

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00111.liu
2022-05-24
2024-05-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/rcl.00111.liu.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00111.liu&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barðdal, J.
    (1999) Case and argument structure of some loan verbs in15th Century Icelandic. InI. Haskå & C. Sandqvist (Eds.), Alla tiders språk: En Vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson november 1999 (pp.9–23). Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 55. Lund: Dept. of Scandinavian Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions SV, 1(7), 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  4. Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E.
    (2012) Paradigmatic integration. InK. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections (pp.111–134). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.130.05die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.130.05die [Google Scholar]
  5. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2019) Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Janda, L. A.
    (2013) Quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics. InL. A. Janda (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: The quantitative turn (pp.1–32). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110335255.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255.1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Leino, J. & Östman, J.-O.
    (2005) Constructions and variability. InM. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.191–213). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4.12lei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.12lei [Google Scholar]
  8. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  9. Schmid, H.-J.
    (ed.) (2016) Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp.141–179). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110366273.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00111.liu
Loading
  • Article Type: Book Review
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