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

  • 1 Dipartimento di Filosofia, Comunicazione e Spettacolo, Università degli studi Roma Tre, via Ostiense 236, 00146 Rome, Italy
Lunella Mereu

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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: CSLI

  • 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.

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

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

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.

Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Linguistics publishes articles and book reviews in the traditional disciplines of linguistics as well as in neighboring disciplines insofar as these are deemed to be of interest to linguists and other students of natural language. The journal also features occasional Special Issues in these fields.