1887
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article reviews The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use

 
9781108671040

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00122.xu
2022-12-08
2024-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barth, D. & Kapatsinski, V.
    (2017) A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: Construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(1), 1–58. 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0022 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
    (1989) Functionalism and the competition model. InB. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp.3–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beckner, C., Blythe, R. A., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., & Ellis, N. C.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(S1), 1–26. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, J.
    (1985) Morphology: A study on the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. InT. Givón & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp.109–132). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.53.07byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.53.07byb [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2016) Cognitive linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0059
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0059 [Google Scholar]
  8. Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M.
    (2005) A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81(4), 1–25. 10.1353/lan.2005.0169
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0169 [Google Scholar]
  9. Divjak, D., Levshina, N., & Klavan, J.
    (2016) Cognitive linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 447–463. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0095
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0095 [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hopper, P.
    (1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 131, 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  13. Krug, M.
    (1998) String frequency. A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics, 26(4), 286–320. 10.1177/007542429802600402
    https://doi.org/10.1177/007542429802600402 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2003) Frequency as a determinant of grammatical variation and change. InG. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp.7–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1988) A usage-based model. InB. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.127–161). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  18. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  19. Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L.
    (2020) Introduction: The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C.
    (2009) Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 250–271. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00122.xu
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