Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.644
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.878

CiteScore 2017: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.418
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.386

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 53, Issue 6


Florent, Perek: Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar

Lunella Mereu
  • Corresponding author
  • Dipartimento di Filosofia, Comunicazione e Spettacolo, Università degli studi Roma Tre, via Ostiense 236, 00146 Rome, Italy
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-10-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0036

Reviewed publication

Florent, Perek. Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2015. x + 246 pp. ISBN 9789027204394


  • Alsina, Alex & Sam Mchombo. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chichewa applicative construction. In Sam A. Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 17–45. Stanford, CA: CSLIGoogle Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Boume, Irene Kraemer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 1. 1–28.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica VI(2). 222–254.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele, Devin Casenhiser & Nytia Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 13(3). 289–316.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299.Google Scholar

  • Kay, Paul & Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing why? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mithun, Marianne & Greville G. Corbett. 1999. The effect of noun incorporation on argument structure. In Lunella Mereu (ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax, 49–71. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Perek, Florent & Maarten Lemmens. 2010. Getting at the meaning of the English at construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes 5. http://cognitextes.revues.org/331 (accessed 5 October 2015)

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Thomas Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 1996. The windowing of attention in language. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 235–287. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-10-27

Published in Print: 2015-11-01

Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 53, Issue 6, Pages 1433–1441, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0036.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in