Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Construction Grammar
- Part I The Constructional View of Language
- Part II Methodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research
- Part III Case Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax
- Part IV Multimodality and Construction Grammar
- Part V Constructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation
- Part VI Constructional Applications
- Index of Terms
- Index of Languages
- Index of Constructions
- References
Construction Grammar
Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2025
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Construction Grammar
- Part I The Constructional View of Language
- Part II Methodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research
- Part III Case Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax
- Part IV Multimodality and Construction Grammar
- Part V Constructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation
- Part VI Constructional Applications
- Index of Terms
- Index of Languages
- Index of Constructions
- References
Summary
Over the last four decades, Construction Grammar has developed into a rich, robust conceptual framework for analyzing language in its entirety, based on the crucial assumption that language by its nature is a complex and ever-adapting and adaptable system designed for communication. The starting point was Charles J. Fillmore’s vision for an approach that would allow us to analyze grammatical organization of (any) language in such a way that we could answer the broad question of what it means to know one’s language and to use its grammatical resources with native-like fluency by individual speakers within a given language community. Put differently, this framing aims for generalizations that will naturally include systematic observations about meaning and conditions of language use as integral parts of grammatical descriptions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 1 - 20Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Antonopoulou, E. & Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction Grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2594–2609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Evans, V. & Pourcel, S., eds., New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2017). Evolutionary complexity of social cognition, semasiographic systems, and language. In Mufwene, S., Coupé, C., & Pellegrino, F., eds., Complexity in Language: Developmental and Evolutionary Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2021). A sociolinguistic typology for languages in contact. In Aboh, E. O. & Vigouroux, C. B., eds., Variation Rolls the Dice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 23–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2015). Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2013). Construction Grammar and second language acquisition. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Online publication. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1981/1974). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Cole, P., ed., Radical Pragmatics (reprint from Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 1974). New York: Academic Press, pp. 143–166.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 35–55. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1989). Grammatical Construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, R. & Graumann, C. F., eds., Language Processing in Social Context. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier, pp. 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Webelhuth, G., Koenig, J.-P., & Kathol, A., eds., Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2010). Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Machač, P. (2022). Intonation as a cue to epistemic stance in one type of insubordinate clauses. Folia Linguistica, 56(1), 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11), 1752–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2016). The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (2010). Introduction: Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y., eds., Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2017). Historical sociolinguistics and Construction Grammar: From mutual challenges to mutual benefits. In Säily, T., Nurmi, A., Palander-Collin, M., & Auer, A., eds., Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. & Audring, J. (2016). Morphological schemas: Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11(3), 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Contexts and Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lücking, A. (2021). Gesture. In Müller, S., Abeillé, A., Borsley, R. D., & Koenig, J.-P., eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The Handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 1201–1250.Google Scholar
Lücking, A., Ginzburg, J., & Cooper, R. (2021). Grammar in dialogue. In Müller, S., Abeillé, A., Borsley, R. D., & Koenig, J.-P., eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The Handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 1155–1199.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. K. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2022). Discourse, pragmatics and responsibility. In Peterson, E., Hiltunen, T., & Kern, J., eds., Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change. Theory, Innovation, Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xix–xxv.Google Scholar
Vossen, P. & Fellbaum, Ch. (2009). Universals and idiosyncrasies in multilingual WordNets. In Boas, H. C., ed., Multilingual Framenets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar