Article published in:
On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar
Edited by Rita Finkbeiner
[Constructions and Frames 11:2] 2019
► pp. 270289
References

[ p. 286 ]References

Aït-Kaci, H.
(1984) A lattice-theoretic approach to computation based on a calculus of partially ordered type structures. PhD. thesis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, G. M. L., & Valian, V. V.
(2008) Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 97–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2011) Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in “a”-adjective production. Language, 81(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., Gottschalk, E., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2009) Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning, 93, 418–429.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2014) Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 251–282). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carston, R.
(2000) Explicature and semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 1–44.Google Scholar
(2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Lexical pragmatics, ad hoc concepts and metaphor: A relevance theory perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 153–180.Google Scholar
(2012) Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review, 29, 607–623. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Contextual adjustment of meaning. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 195–210). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2003) Do thematic roles leave traces in their places? Cognition, 90(1), 29–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B.
(1991) Relevance Theory and the semantics of non-declaratives. PhD. thesis. University College London.Google Scholar
(2013) Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2014) Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, M.
(2004) BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at: https://​www​.english​-corpora​.org​/bnc/
Depraetere, I.
(2010) Some observations on the meaning of modals. In B. Cappelle & N. Wada (Eds.), Distinctions in English grammar, offered to Renaat Declerck (pp. 72–91). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
(2014) Modals and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 160–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 287 ]
Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R.
(2017) Free pragmatic enrichment, expansion, saturation, completion: A view from linguistics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 11–37). Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H.
(2000) Tense, aspect and coercion in a cross-linguistic perspective. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Formal Grammar Conference. University of California, Berkeley: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
(2011) Mismatches and coercion. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 574–597). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V., & Leonetti, M.
(2002) Coercion and the stage/individual distinction. In J. Gutierrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics (pp. 159–179). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(2011) The rigidity of procedural meaning. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti, & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives (pp. 81–102). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 131–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Bencini, G. M. L.
(2005) Support from processing for a constructional approach to grammar. In A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F.
(2011) Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1305–1358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hare, M. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
(1999) Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In M. Hahn & S. C. Stones (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 208–211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R., Walker, D. E., & Amsler, R. A.
(1982) Natural language access to structured text. In COLING 82: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 127–132). Prague: Academia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, J. R., & Martin, P.
(1987) Local pragmatics. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Milan (pp. 520–23). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M. E., Appelt, D. E., & Martin, P.
(1993) Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1–2), 69–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 288 ]
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M.
(2000) Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 508–529. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.
(2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L.
(2004) Type-shifting in construction grammar: A unified model of aspectual coercion. Cognitive linguistics, 15, 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moens, M., & Steedman, M.
(1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–29.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M.
(2016) Three decades of relevance theory. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions (pp. 1–29). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
(1991) The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 409–441.Google Scholar
(1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49(6), 1401–1431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F.
(1989) The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4, 295–329. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Pragmatic enrichment. In G. Russel & D. Graff Fara (Eds.), Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp. 67–78). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2005) Pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 17, 353–388.Google Scholar
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 6, 1237–1270.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2004) Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 343–360.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Carston, R.
(2007) A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ye, Z., Zhan, W., & Zhou, X.
(2007) The semantic processing of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1142, 135–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, S.
(2012) Constructions, semantic compatibility, and coercion: An empirical usage-based approach. Ph.D. thesis. Rice University.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D.
(2007a) Arguing the case against coercion. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 99–123). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007b) A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 990–1028. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 289 ]
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2021. Maximizing the explanatory power of constructions in cognitive construction grammar(s). Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 february 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.