Cover not available
Part of
A Construction Grammar of the English Language: CASA – a constructionist approach to syntactic analysis
Thomas Herbst and Thomas Hoffmann
[Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 5] 2024
► pp. 287–299

References

This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, Jan & Flor Aarts. 1988. English Syntactic Structures (2nd edition). New York & Leyden: Prentice Hall & Martinus Nijhoff. (1st edition 1982 Pergamon Press)Google Scholar
Allerton, David. 1990. Language as form and patterns: Grammar and its categories. In N. E. Collinge (ed.), An Encyclopaedia of Language, 68–111. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1998. On the phraseology of Spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In Anthony P. Cowie (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, 101–121. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben & Elena V. M. Lieven. 2011. Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Eva-Maria & Thomas Hoffmann. 2020. Turns out is not Ellipsis: A Usage-based Construction Grammar view on reduced constructions. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52(2), 240–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Heike. 1999. Was macht Verben zu einer besonderen Kategorie im Spracherwerb? In Jörg Meibauer & Monika Rothweiler (eds.), Das Lexikon im Spracherwerb, 32–50. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
. 2007. The acquisition of argument structure. In Thomas Herbst & Katrin Götz-Votteler (eds.), Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, 193–214. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009a. Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics 47(2), 383–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Konstruktionen im Spracherwerb. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37, 427–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammatik und Lexikon im Spracherwerb: Konstruktionsprozesse. In Stefan Engelberg, Anke Holler & Kristel Proost (eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, 375–396. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, Boguslaw. 2016. An Introductory English Grammar in Constructions. Częstochowa: Academia.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2011. Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In Stefan Engelberg, Kristel Proost & Anke Holler (eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, 37–69. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2022. From Construction Grammar(s) to Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In Hans. C. Boas (ed.), Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions, 3–43. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C., Benjamin Lyngfelt & Tiago Timponi Torrent. 2019. Framing constructicography. Lexicographica 35, 15–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C., Joseph Ruppenhofer & Collin Baker. 2024. FrameNet at 25. International Journal of Lexicography XX, 1–22.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2013. Morphology in Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, Jeremy K. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in ‘a’-adjective production. Language 81(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. & M. Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86, 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgschmidt, Ernst. 1977. Strukturierung, Norm und Produktivität in der Wortbildung. In Herbert Ernst Brekle & Dieter Kastovsky (eds.), Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung, 39–47. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar
Buysschaert, Joost. 1982. Criteria for the Classification of English Adverbials, Brussel: Paleis der Academiën.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognition Processes 10(5), 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 37(4), 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cantos-Gomez, Pascual & Moises Almela Sánchez. 2001. Lexical constellations: What collocations fail to tell. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6(2), 199–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions SV 1–7: 1–28. [URL]
Cappelle, Bert, Edwige Dugas & Vera Tobin. 2015. An afterthought on let alone. Journal of Pragmatics 80, 70–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casenhiser, Devin & Adele E. Goldberg. 2005. Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science 8(6), 500–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge/Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Blaisdell.Google Scholar
. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge/MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert E. & Eve V. Clark. 1979. Psychology and Language. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4), 380–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowan, Nelson. 2008. What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Progress in Brain Research 169, 323–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowie, Anthony P., Ronald Mackin & Isabel R. McCaig. 1983. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol 2: Phrase, Clause and Sentence Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cowie, Anthony P. & R. Mackin. 1975. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol. 1: Verbs with Prepositions and Particles. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Radical Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 211–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology 20, 377–393.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Alan. D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, David A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David A. 1967. English. Lingua 17, 24–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 543–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2014a. Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics 25(4), 617–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa & Elena Lieven. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3), 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa & Marcin Szczerbinski. 2006. Polish children’s productivity with case marking: The role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological diversity. Journal of Child Language 33(3), 559–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deacon, Terrance. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Human Brain. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Diamond, Adele. 2013. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology 64, 135–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Construction Grammar and first language acquisition. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 347–364. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, René & Günter Radden. 1977. Semantische Syntax des Englischen. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2003. Constructions, chunking & connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Catherine J. Doughty & Michael H. Long (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 63–103. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics 27(2), 164–194, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Stefanie Wulff. 2015. Usage-based approaches to SLA. In Bill Van Patten & Jessica Williams (eds.), Theories in Language Acquisition: An Introduction, 75–93. Florence: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L. 2004. An alternative view of the lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Science 8(7), 301–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Esser, Jürgen. 1992. Neuere Tendenzen in der Grammatikschreibung des Englischen. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 40(2), 112–123.Google Scholar
Evert, Stefan. 2005. The Statistics of Word Co-occurrences: Word Pairs and Collocations. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart Dissertation.
Evert, Stefan, Peter Uhrig, Sabine Bartsch, Thomas Proisl. 2017. E-VIEW-alation – A large-scale evaluation study of association measures for collocation identification. In Electronic lexicography in the 21st century. Proceedings of the eLex 2017 conference, Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 113–130. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Felfe, Marc, Dagobert Höllein & Klaus Welke (eds.). Regelbasierte Konstruktionsgrammatik: Musterbasiertheit vs. Idiomatizität. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2024. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 0–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
1985. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. Berkeley Linguistic Society 11, 73–86.Google Scholar
1988. The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar.” In Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jassier & Helen Singmaster (eds.), General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization, 35–55. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Valency issues in FrameNet. In Thomas Herbst & Katrin Götz-Votteler (eds.), Valency. Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, 129–160. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Frames, constructions and FrameNet. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns, 121–166. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher R. Johnson & Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3), 236–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Russell R. Lee-Goldman & Russell Rhomieux. 2012. The FrameNet constructicon. In Ivan A. Sag & Hans C. Boas (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 309–372. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2006. Konstruktionsgrammatik: Ein Überblick. In Kerstin Fischer & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie, 3–17. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2007. To err is not all: What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocation by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 55(3), 273–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Constructing learner speech: On the use of spoken data in Applied Construction Grammar. In Hans. C. Boas (ed.), Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and teaching (with) constructions, 73–96. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Causative constructions in process: How do they come into existence in learner writing? Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11, 105–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gläser, Rosemarie. 1990. Phraseologie der englischen Sprache. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Thomas Herbst. 2021. The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics 59(1), 285–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane & Magali Paquot. 2008. Disentangling the phraseological web. In Sylviane Granger & Fanny Meunier (eds.), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 27–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1974. Some verb-intensifier collocations in American and British English. American Speech 49(1/2), 79–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Randolph Quirk. 1970. Elicitation Experiments in English: Linguistic Studies in Use and Attitude. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L. and Laura A. Michaelis. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34: 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In Sylviane Granger & Fanny Meunier (eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective, 3–25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff. 2005. Do foreign learners have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3, 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermann, Mechthild. 2023. The German geschweige denn construction. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11, 151–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford/UK/Cambridge/US: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967–8. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics. 3(1) Part 1: 37–81, 3(2) Part 2: 199–244, 4(2) Part 3: 179–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1970. Language structure and language function. In John Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruquaya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hampe, Beate & Doris Schönefeld. 2003. Creative syntax: Iconic principles within the symbolic. In Wolfgang G. Müller & Olga Fischer (eds.), From Sign to Signing, 243–261. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, Patrick. 2000. Do word meanings exist? Computers and the Humanities 34 (1/2), 205–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hausmann, Franz Josef. 1984. Wortschatzlernen ist Kollokationslernen. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 31, 394–406.Google Scholar
. 1985. Kollokationen im deutschen Wörterbuch: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie des lexikographischen Beispiels. In Henning Bergenholtz & Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Lexikographie und Grammatik, 118–129. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Die Kollokationen im Rahmen der Phraseologie: Systematische und historische Darstellung. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 55(3), 217–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Wolfgang Schenkel. 1973. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. (2nd edition). Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 1983. Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1984. Adjective complementation: A valency approach to making EFL dictionaries. Applied Linguistics V(1), 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. What are collocations: Sandy beaches or false teeth? English Studies 77(4), 379–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Englische Grammatik ist nicht so kompliziert: Pro Minimalismus, Lücke und Polysemie – Kontra Prototypik und Semantik in grammatischer Terminologie. In Thomas Herbst (ed.), Linguistische Dimensionen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts, 11–28. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
. 2010. English Linguistics: A Coursebook for Students of English. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4): 347–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. Choosing sandy beaches – collocations, probabemes and the idiom principle. In Thomas Herbst, Susen Faulhaber & Peter Uhrig (eds.), The Phraseological View of Language: A Tribute to John Sinclair, 27–57, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Von Fledermäusen, die auch Schläger sind, und von Gerundien, die es besser nicht gäbe. In Christoph Bürgel & Dirk Siepmann (eds), Sprachwissenschaft – Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Impulse, 57–76. Baltmansweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
. 2014a. Idiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles and the valency realization principle. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 2, 253–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns, 167–216. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Why Construction Grammar catches the worm and corpus data can drive you crazy: Accounting for idiomatic and non-idiomatic idiomaticity. Journal of Social Sciences 11(3), 91–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Foreign language learning is construction learning: Principles of Pedagogic Construction Grammar. In Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.), Applied Construction Grammar, 21–51. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2016a. Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In Sabine de Knop & Gaêtanelle Gilquin (eds.), Applied Construction Grammar, 21–51. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Wörterbuch war gestern. Programm für ein unifiziertes Konstruktikon. In Stefan Schierholz, Rufus Hjalmar Gouws, Zita Hollós & Werner Wolski (eds.), Wörterbuchforschung und Lexikographie, 169–206. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. Menschliche Sprache: Ein Netzwerk aus Mustern genannt Konstruktionen. In Rudolf Freiburg (ed.), Sprachwelten, 105–127. Erlangen: FAU University Press.Google Scholar
. 2018b. Is language a collostructicon? A proposal for looking at valency, argument structure and other constructions. In Pascual Cantos-Gomez & Moises Almela Sanchez (eds.). Lexical Collocation Analysis: Advances and Applications, 1–22. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Constructicons – A new type of reference work? Lexicographica 35(1), 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020a. Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language. Constructions and Frames 12(1): 56–96. [reprinted in Tiago Timponi Torrent, Ely Edison da Silva Matos & Natália Sathler Sigiliano (eds), 2022. Construction Grammar across Borders. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 55–94.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. Dependency and valency approaches. In Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, & Gergana Popova (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), 124–152. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Frame elements, argument roles and word meaning – three sides of the same coin? In Kristian Blensenius (ed.), Valency and Constructions, 59–99. Göteborg: Meijerbergs institut for svensk etymologisk forskning.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, Ian F. Roe & Dieter Götz. 2004. A Valency Dictionary of English: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Complementation Patterns of English Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Thomas Hoffmann. 2018. Construction Grammar for students: A Constructionist Approach to Syntactic Analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 6, 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Peter Uhrig. 2009–. Erlangen Valency Patternbank. A corpus-based research tool for work on valency and argument structure constructions. 2009. [URL]
. 2020. The issue of specifying slots in argument structure constructions in terms of form and meaning. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34, 135–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Susen Schüller. 2008. Introduction to Syntactic Analysis: A Valency Approach. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert 2019. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Second edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2020. Constructional Approaches. In Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie & Gergana Popova (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, 106–123. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017. Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard 3,1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Creativity and construction grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3), 259–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019a. English Comparative Correlatives: Diachronic and Synchronic Variation at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019b. Language and creativity: A construction grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard 5(1), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Construction Grammar and creativity: Evolution, psychology and cognitive science. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1), 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021a. Multimodal Construction Grammar: From multimodal constructs to multimodal constructions. In Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge, 78–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. The Cognitive Foundation of Post-colonial Englishes: Construction Grammar as the Cognitive Theory for the Dynamic Model. (Cambridge Elements in World Englishes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022a. Constructionist approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10, 259–284.Google Scholar
. 2022b. Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Constructicon in Progress: A short introduction to the constructionist approach to syntactic analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11, 7–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas, Thomas Brunner & Jakob Horsch. 2020. English comparative correlative constructions: A usage-based account. Open Linguistics 6, 196–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Thomas Herbst. Forthc. Identifying and combining English constructions – some challenges facing a Construction Grammar approach to syntactic analysis.
Hoffmann, Thomas, Jakob Horsch & Thomas Brunner. 2019. The More Data, The Better: A Usage-based Account of the English Comparative Correlative Construction. Cognitive Linguistics 30(1), 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale (eds). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem. 2014. Word classes: Towards a more comprehensive usage-based account. In Nikolas Gisborne & Willem B. Hollmann (eds.), Theory and Data in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 211–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2015. Interactional construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 2015. 1(1), 69–77.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Dan. 2003. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy, (eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics, 39–95/96. Cambridge & MA & London: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel & James H. Martin. 2023. Vector Semantics and Embeddings. Speech and Language Processing (draft). [URL]
Kaltenböck, Günther. 2020. Information structuring. In Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie & Gergana Popova (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, 461–482. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The English Noun Phrase. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Noun Phrases. In Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie & Gergana Popova (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, 335–357. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2019. Rethinking agreement: Cognition-to-form mapping. Cognitive Linguistics 30(1), 37–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Laura Michaelis. 2020. Syntactic Constructions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1971. Fact. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klotz, Michael & Thomas Herbst. 2016. English Dictionaries: A Linguistic Introduction. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Knop, Sabine de & Gaëtanelle Gilquin. 2016. Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knut. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. Dislocation. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2, 1050–1078. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1 Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2 Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2003/2009. Constructions in Cognitive Grammar. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Investigations in Cognitive Grammar, 1–39, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (originally in English Linguistics 20, 41–83)Google Scholar
2008a. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b. The relevance of Cognitive Grammar for language pedagogy. In Sabine de Knop & Teun Rycker (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar, 7–35. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. Trees, assemblies, chains and windows. Constructions and Frames 12(1), 8–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lapesa, Gabriella & Stefan Evert. 2014. A large scale evaluation of distributional semantic models: Parameters, interactions and model selection. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2, 531–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lea, Diana. 2007. Making a collocations dictionary. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 55(3), 261–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1971. Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1981. Semantics. Second edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Jan Svartvik. 1975. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leino, Jakko. 2013. Information structure. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale, (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 329–344. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena. 2014. First-language learning from a usage-based approach. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid, & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns, 9–32. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohndahl, Terje & Liliane Haegeman. 2020. Generative approaches. In Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie & Gergana Popova (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, 153–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara & Tiago Timponi Torren (eds.). 2018. Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Makkai, Adam. 1972. Idiom Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. The scope of valency in grammar. In Thomas Herbst & Katrin Götz-Votteler (eds.), Valency. Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, 3–14. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2013. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2023. Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-based Approaches. (Textbooks in Language Sciences 1). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2005. Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED online. [URL]
Palmer, Frank R. 1971. Grammar. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1981. Semantics. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patel, Malin, Armine Garibyan, Elodie Winckel & Stephanie Evert. 2023. A reference constructicon as a database. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11, 175–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patten, Amanda & Florent Perek. 2019. Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Lingustics 24, 356–386.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petruck, Miriam R. L. 1996. Frame semantics. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 1–11. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Head-hunting: On the trail of the nominal Janus. In Greville B. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser & Scott McClashen (eds.), Heads in Grammatical Theory, 73–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2006. On tough-movement. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Minimalist Essays, 288–325. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothweiler, Monika & Jörg Meibauer. 1999. Das Lexikon im Spracherwerb – Ein Überblick. In Jörg Meibauer & Monika Rothweiler (eds.), Das Lexikon im Spracherwerb, 9–31. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86(3), 486–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina. 2018. English Compounds and their Spelling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina & Peter Uhrig. 2023. “I’m gonna get totally and utterly X-ed.” Constructing drunkenness. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11, 121–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, Roger C. & Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry Into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale/NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition: Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Collocation: hard to pin down, but bloody useful. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 51(3), 235–258.Google Scholar
. 2005. Englische Morphologie und Wortbildung. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
. 2011. English Morphology and Word-formation. An Introduction. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
. 2017. A framework for understanding entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, 9–36. Boston: APA & Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris. 2006. From conceptualization to linguistic expression: Where languages diversify. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: The Syntax-Lexis Interface, 297–344. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut, Jacqueline Kubczak, Renate Schmidt & Vera de Ruiter. 2004. VALBU – Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Siepmann, Dirk. 2007. Wortschatz und Grammatik: Zusammenbringen, was zusammengehört. Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung 46, 59–80.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. 2004. Trust the Text. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. 2008. The phrase, the whole phrase and nothing but the phrase. In Sylviane Granger & Fanny Meunier (eds.), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 407–410. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. & Anna Mauranen. 2006. Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating Speech and Writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2013. Fluid Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 153–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steen, Francis & Mark Turner. 2013. Multimodal construction grammar. In Mike Borkent, Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the Creative Mind, 255–274. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2003. The English imperative: A construction-based approach. Unpublished manuscript, Universität Bremen.
. 2011a. Argument structure: Item-based or distributed? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4): 369–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. Keine Grammatik ohne Konstruktionen: Ein logisch-ökonomisches Argument für die Konstruktionsgrammatik. In Stefan Engelberg, Anke Holler & Kristel Proost (eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, 181–210. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Collostructional analysis: A case study of the English into-causative. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions, Colocations, Patterns, 216–238. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The goal-bias revisited: a collostructional approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 6, 143–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde. 2004. The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation, 249–268. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Street, James & Ewa Dąbrowska. 2014. Lexically specific knowledge and individual differences in adult native speakers’ processing of the English passive. Applied Psycholinguistics 35, 97–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959/2015. Elements of Structural Syntax. (Trans.) Timothy Osborne & Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First Verbs. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Constructing a Language. Cambridge/MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs. 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Variation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, 219–250. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2015. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark. 2018. The role of creativity in multimodal Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3), 357–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier. 1999. A mechanism of creativity. Poetics Today 20(3), 397–418.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea E. 2012. Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York/London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Andrea E., Lourdes Ortega, Mariko Uno & Hae In Park (eds.). 2018. Usage-inspired L2 Instruction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, Peter. 2015. Why the Principle of No Synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3), 323–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Subjects in English: From Valency Grammar to a Constructionist Treatment of Non-Canonical Subjects. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Multimodal research in linguistics. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 68(4), 345–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Large-Scale Multimodal Corpus Linguistics – The Big Data Turn. Habilitationsschrift Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (unpublished ms.).Google Scholar
Uhrig, Peter, Susen Faulhaber, Ewa Dąbrowska & Thomas Herbst. 2022. L2-words that go together – more on collocation and learner language. In Hans C. Boas (ed.), Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar, 97–119, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich and Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Second edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Trijp, Remi. 2014. Cognitive vs. generative Construction Grammar: The case of coercion and argument structure. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4), 613–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Welke, Klaus. 2011. Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen: Eine Einführung. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Konstruktionsgrammatik des Deutschen: Ein sprachgebrauchsbezogener Ansatz. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wells, John C. 2006. English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2008. Frame-Semantik und Diskursanalyse: Skizze einer kognitionswissenschaftlich inspirierten Methode zur Analyse gesellschaftlichen Wissens. In Ingo H. Warnke & Jürgen Spitzmüller (eds.), Methoden der Diskurslinguistik: Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge zur transtextuellen Ebene. Methoden, 89–116. Berlin /New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander & Alexander Lasch. 2013. Konstruktionsgrammatik: Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsorientierter Ansätze. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, Alexander & Tim Feldmüller. 2023. Dimensions of constructional meanings in the German Constructicon: Why collo-profiles matter. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11, 203–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Constructicon
www.con​​struct​​icon.de: The CASA-ConstruCtiCon of the English Language.
Corpora and other sources
BNC British National Corpus. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Service on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
Childes Elena Lieven & Jeannette Goh: CHILDES English Thomas Corpus [URL]
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
COCA Corpus of Contemporary English, Mark Davies [URL]
MOVIES Movies 1930s–2018 (200 million words) [URL]
NOW News on the Web (over 15 billion words) [URL]
TV TV corpus (over 325 million words) [URL]
NYT New York Times [URL]